Forging Partnerships between Researchers and “the Researched”: A Community Based Anti-Trafficking Response

BACKGROUND

Responses to human trafficking prioritize service providers’ and law enforcement input, but rarely that of people who have experienced trafficking. Excluding survivors’ input perpetuates the ways in which society denies them power and control. This paper will present findings on the necessary infrastructure to support the engagement of survivors in anti-trafficking research. We chronicle the successes and challenges of blurring the line between the “researcher” and the “researched.”

METHODS  

As part of a community-based participatory evaluation of the San Francisco Mayor’s Task Force on Anti-Human Trafficking, this study seeks to create a research infrastructure that supports the intellectual and career development of trafficked persons. Our evaluation uses the most integrated form of participatory research: survivors are actively involved in and represented at all levels of the project (co-principal investigator, research assistants (RAs), and community advisory board (CAB) members). Qualitative methods are used to assess the needed components of a supportive research infrastructure. Qualitative data includes notes taken during quarterly CAB meetings, check-ins with members after meetings, weekly supervision with RAs, and biweekly meetings among the investigators. Individual interviews conducted with CAB members and RAs are audio recorded, transcribed, and coded using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Paid RA positions and honorariums for CAB members provide monetary and professional validation of community members’ work and unique knowledge. Professional development opportunities support the members’ impact in other anti-trafficking efforts, as many members are active in other anti-trafficking projects. The CAB also provides space for members to interact with survivors of diverse trafficking experiences. Having a survivor as co-PI facilitated community members’ decisions to join the CAB, and also allows for widespread dissemination of research findings to survivors and NGOs in the anti-trafficking field. Challenges of having a survivor co-PI include the need for the co-PI to work remotely, less frequent contact with RAs, and limited involvement in daily research activities. Involving people who are trafficked also raises several challenges due to survivors holding dual roles (i.e. colleague, friend, and/or employer) with the people involved in both the research project and the task force. Not everyone who has experienced trafficking identifies as a survivor of human trafficking, and not everyone wants their peer status known. Therefore, extra care needs to be taken to ensure confidentiality of members’ peer status.

CONCLUSION

As calls are made for increased involvement of survivors in anti-trafficking efforts, the participatory approach used in this study can serve as a forward-thinking model for researchers who want to better integrate trafficked persons into their work. Providing opportunities for peer support and peer leadership acknowledges survivors’ resilience and resourcefulness, and provides them with the opportunity to own their power. It also creates an infrastructure that supports the intellectual and career development of community members, helping them to develop transferable skills they can use in other anti-trafficking efforts and professional endeavors. Furthermore, the likelihood that research will be relevant to and valued by community members is enhanced when peers are involved in all aspects of the project.