“Not Everything is an RCT”: A Zemiological Analysis of Researcher Social Harms

This paper explores complex and often overlooked challenges faced by frontline social researchers, particularly those engaged with vulnerable or marginalised groups. Using a series of reflective vignettes from our research, we draw attention to a typology of harms researchers may encounter in fieldwork, ranging from vicarious trauma to direct harassment. This study critiques current normative ethical frameworks that dominate academia, arguing that these often rigid and risk-averse paradigms fail to adequately protect researchers or fully appreciate the dynamic nature of harm in fieldwork. Instead, we advocate for a zemiological approach to ethics in research, which emphasises the identification and mitigation of both foreseeable and preventable harms to researchers as a social group. Key recommendations include integrating therapeutic supervision as a standard practice, fostering open and compassionate academic discussions about researcher-based harms, and developing flexible ethical guidelines that are sensitive to the specific contexts of individual research projects. In proposing these changes, we aim to create a more supportive and ethically sound environment for researchers and move towards a more resilient and responsive academic culture.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Critical Criminology
Published
2026-01-06
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-025-09868-7
Primary Topic
Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

“Not Everything is an RCT”: A Zemiological Analysis of Researcher Social Harms

Chris Waugh, Anton Roberts
Critical Criminology
Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
article

“Not Everything is an RCT”: A Zemiological Analysis of Researcher Social Harms

Chris Waugh, Anton Roberts
article en

Abstract

This paper explores complex and often overlooked challenges faced by frontline social researchers, particularly those engaged with vulnerable or marginalised groups. Using a series of reflective vignettes from our research, we draw attention to a typology of harms researchers may encounter in fieldwork, ranging from vicarious trauma to direct harassment. This study critiques current normative ethical frameworks that dominate academia, arguing that these often rigid and risk-averse paradigms fail to adequately protect researchers or fully appreciate the dynamic nature of harm in fieldwork. Instead, we advocate for a zemiological approach to ethics in research, which emphasises the identification and mitigation of both foreseeable and preventable harms to researchers as a social group. Key recommendations include integrating therapeutic supervision as a standard practice, fostering open and compassionate academic discussions about researcher-based harms, and developing flexible ethical guidelines that are sensitive to the specific contexts of individual research projects. In proposing these changes, we aim to create a more supportive and ethically sound environment for researchers and move towards a more resilient and responsive academic culture.

Critical Criminology
Manchester Metropolitan University (GB)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 97%
Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

“Not Everything is an RCT”: A Zemiological Analysis of Researcher Social Harms — Chris Waugh, Anton Roberts · Critical Criminology (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS