Transforming Trauma-Informed Design: Ethical Practices, Lifelong Learning, & Collective Responsibility

TL;DR: Designers must embrace the complexity of trauma-informed practice and acknowledge the limitations of non-clinical expertise while shifting towards anti-pathology methodologies. We can hold these discomforts while navigating with care. This piece also discusses the importance of ongoing learning, peer-to-peer consultation, and a responsible and accountable scope of practice.

Note: 'trauma-informed' and 'trauma-responsive' are used interchangeably here. When speaking on these topics, I often draw distinctions between these two framings that I do not go into detail here.

A Call for Trauma-Informed Design Research and Practice: Continuing the Dialogue

In the Summer of 2022, I wrote an article for the Design Management Institute’s special issue on Civic Design. At the time of this writing, the article – “The Call for Trauma-Informed Design Research and Practice” – has been viewed nearly 10,000 times. A full-text version is available here if you’d like to read it. What I’m sharing here today is a complimentary piece to that one.?

Since 2022, the interest in trauma-informed practices has dramatically increased. I see writing and posts about trauma and design every single day. On one hand, I could not be more thrilled. These issues that I have cared so deeply about for quite some time are getting the time and attention they desperately need. This is necessary; this is a good thing.?

In my journey through the intersections of design, social work, and trauma-informed practices, I frequently encounter questions about practicing, modeling, and teaching these principles effectively, responsibly, and ethically. These inquiries consistently highlight a growing interest in understanding the nuances and complexities of trauma-informed design and underscore what I feel increasingly strongly about: the need for a community-driven approach to responsible accountability practices and continuing education and self-study. I will dive into this by sharing my reflections on what I’m seeing, hearing, feeling, and sensing.?

Embracing Complexity Over Simplification

One of the first hurdles in trauma-informed practice is the temptation to oversimplify or flatten the complexity. I used to waffle on this, but sensitive and complex work cannot and should not be boiled down to a checklist. Every design project and individual and team experience demands a contextual and nuanced approach. Adopting and integrating trauma-informed or trauma-responsive methodologies means committing to a fundamental and foundational shift from a transactional mindset to one that values relationships, safety, and the intricate layers of all living experiences. This shift is necessary to ensure our designs genuinely address the needs and contexts of those we aim to serve with and for (not at or from).?

I see a subtle yet troubling trend toward oversimplification in trauma-informed design work. The impatient, short-sighted quest for the generic 'checklistification' undermines the depth this work demands and can be dismissively irresponsible.

When we engage beyond the surface in trauma-informed and trauma-responsive practices, we’ll be moving from transactional empathy to relational compassion. In many ways, this highlights the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration. It also highlights a need for trauma humility over the trauma arrogance of presumed expertise without much depth.?

Acknowledging the Limits of the Designer’s Non-Clinical Expertise

While many designers are eager to incorporate trauma-informed principles into their work, there's a delicate balance to strike between enthusiasm and knowledge depths. Even as a seasoned social worker-designer, I approach my work with grounded confidence, recognizing that there are things I have learned and know while holding the fundamental tension that there is still a great deal to unlearn and learn. This dual lens of social work and design is uncommon, and I use this trans-disciplinary practice daily. I hope that my practice is scaling deeper with each passing day.?

When I hear designers talking about trauma and saying things like, "I'm not a social worker, but..." I pause and then cringe. This qualifier should not be a prelude to uninformed or superficial contributions on the complex topic of trauma. This is especially jarring to me when it’s said in an undercutting tone of cynicism or faux insincerity. I've had to pause and excavate my judgmental reaction. 'Am I biased?' 'Why is this so unnerving?'

I've realized that sometimes this judgment is my code of care and professional ethical stance, speaking up and signaling a cautionary warning.

So, instead, I cannot help but wonder what if this signaled a moment to pause and consider the value and responsibility of interdisciplinary collaboration and humility. What if non-social worker designers dropped the self-deprecating quips and subtle jabs at those with other experiences and knowledge? These shifts would move us closer to trauma humility and (hopefully) away from trauma arrogance.

Recognizing the limits of our expertise is the first step toward meaningful engagement with trauma-informed practices. The prevailing belief that designers can competently navigate the complexities of trauma-informed issues without a solid grounding in social work, clinical practice, or traumatic studies is reckless and deeply problematic. This assumption not only oversimplifies the nuanced nature of trauma but also poses a risk of perpetuating a surface-level engagement with trauma-informed principles.

Such an approach undermines the depth and breadth of understanding required to address trauma sensitively and effectively. It is essential to recognize that trauma-informed design is becoming a specialized field that intersects with several other disciplines (e.g., social work, psychology, sociology, and human behavior). Without foundational knowledge and practice in these areas, designers may inadvertently overlook critical aspects of trauma, potentially causing harm rather than offering support and healing.

I'm concerned that this emerging field could stagnate at a superficial level of practice if we continue to overlook the importance of specialized training and education in the intricacies of trauma and care. Acknowledging this gap is crucial for advancing our practice and ensuring that our work in trauma-informed design is both responsible and deeply informed.

This perspective may stir debate and be perceived as undermining additional methods of understanding, sensing, learning, and applying knowledge. However, I urge you to be patient and open as I delve deeper into this argument.

I believe trauma-informed design — at its best — is an embodied practice, one that is shaped and influenced by many ways of knowing and being. This will look differently from one practitioner to the next, as it should. However, the book report version of trauma-informed design is fueling a dilution of standards — or worse yet, no standards from which to build — and confuses the designer's role in supporting trauma-informed approaches. This trend of the individual-designer-as-expert exacerbates this confusion without acknowledging the need for:

• Learning and new knowledge creation that is ongoing, lifelong, and continuous,
• Shifting from theory to championing applied practice,
• Responsible partnership with those who have lived and living experience or specialized training and applied practice in trauma and
• Acknowledging the many people who have come before us and the many who will steward the work long after us.

Defining Scope of Practice and Ethical Engagement

My dear friend and colleague, KA McKercher, recently wrote a brilliant piece on why designers need a scope of practice, and I want to highlight some additional thinking here. ?

A core concern in trauma-informed design is understanding your scope of practice. We must recognize our limitations and the boundaries of what we can and cannot responsibly offer.

Ethical engagement in trauma-informed practices necessitates a thorough examination of how our work impacts individuals, teams, organizations, and communities with traumatic experiences. The goal is not to become overnight clinicians or to practice without a license but to foster a practice that conscientiously navigates the complexities of trauma and honors our limitations with sensitivity and respect.

Designers must clearly understand their qualifications and what they’ve formally and informally learned, and know to acknowledge the limits of their expertise and to prevent unintentional harm. KA maps this out in this scope of practice template:

• My training, knowledge, skills, and experience.
• Things I can do and respond to.
• Things I can do with support or in partnership.
• Things I can't do or respond to. Or choose not to do in (co)design.

Articulating a scope of practice is an expectation of a social worker. It provides the necessary guardrails when I might have been pushed beyond the edge of my abilities or comfort. Engaging with trauma-informed practices demands a rigorous ethic of care, doing everything we can to ensure that our work does not cause harm or fuel additional harm to those with experiences of trauma.?

The Imperative of Ongoing, Continuous Learning

The emerging field of trauma-informed design is ever-evolving and demands a commitment to lifelong learning. As design practitioners, we must engage in ongoing education (formal and informal), peer-to-peer consultation, and reflective and reflexive practices to deepen our understanding and application of trauma-informed and trauma-responsive principles. This dedication enriches our work and supports a practice grounded in ethical responsibility and a genuine desire to contribute positively to trauma-affected people.

As a social worker-designer, I am committed to ongoing education to maintain my clinical licensure and enhance my understanding and application of trauma-informed principles in design. This commitment to daily practice could be a model for all practitioners in the field, advocating for continuous education, design care and supervision, and consultation to apply these methodologies responsibly and ethically.?

Advocating for a Shift Towards Anti-Pathology in Trauma-Informed Design

In trauma-informed design, a prevailing reliance on the medical model has raised concerns over the years. My growing discomfort with this model has led me to speak out more explicitly recently. I believe it's time for designers to move beyond the limitations of the medical model for several compelling reasons.

First, it's essential to acknowledge the valuable scientific and biological insights into trauma that have emerged. These findings are critical and deserve our attention. However, the application of the medical model within design practices is problematic. This model predominantly operates from a deficit-focused stance, enforces a hierarchical power dynamic, and systematically overlooks the spectrum of typical and expected human responses to trauma.

By embracing anti-pathology perspectives, we can challenge the dominance of medical models and shift towards social models of understanding trauma. Adopting anti-pathology perspectives revolutionizes our approach, offering an exceptionally inclusive and empowering framework – one that respects the varied experiences of individuals, emphasizing the importance of designing with and for those who have direct experiences of trauma (including ourselves).

Pioneering organizations like CHAYN exemplify the transformative impact of committing to social and anti-pathology models, starkly contrasting traditional reliance on medical models. These approaches are vital for applying trauma-informed principles effectively, ensuring they genuinely serve the interests of those impacted by trauma rather than being weakened by a one-size-fits-all application.

Emphasizing Comprehensive Training and Shared Accountability

Throughout my engagement with trauma training and observations within the design community, I've identified a significant gap in accountability and precision regarding practice standards. A tendency exists to lean on oversimplified principles without fully understanding their origins, purposes, and how they could be applied. This glaring gap underlines the need for a comprehensive, nuanced approach to training, applied practice, and continuous learning.?

We must balance not requiring every designer to have clinical licensure and ensuring that trauma-informed work is conducted responsibly. Cultivating a culture of shared accountability is not just crucial; it’s the foundation of ethical, trauma-informed design practice. Regardless of one's level of formal education, designers should commit to ethical practices, ongoing education, and collaboration with those with significant expertise (both practitioners and those with lived and living experience). If we take this community of responsibility approach, we will foster a practice community where an ethic of care and accountability are paramount.

Advocating for such education is crucial for developing a community of practitioners who are knowledgeable, sensitive, and attuned to the complexities of trauma.

Closing Thoughts (for now)

As we continue to navigate the complexities of trauma-informed design, let us do so with a commitment to ethical practice, continuous learning, and shared accountability. By embracing these principles, we can ensure our work respects and uplifts those with lived experiences of trauma, contributing to a more inclusive and compassionate design community that becomes trauma-responsive.

An open invitation for dialogue: I am eager to hear your thoughts. What are your experiences with integrating trauma-informed principles into your work? Where are you getting stuck? And if you’re a designer, how do you see us collectively advancing this field in a way that honors complexity, ethics, and continuous learning and co-learning?

About Rachael: As a social worker-designer, I support design practitioners and educators to deepen their understanding of trauma in the context of design.