By Caroline Robbins Robbins, Joint Acting Head of Creative, and Head of Content
Why Trauma-Informed Interviewing Matters
At BFBS Creative, we know that storytelling begins long before the edit, the script, the campaign line or the final sign-off. It begins in the moment someone decides whether they feel safe enough to share something true with us.
Many of the stories we tell are deeply personal. Some involve grief, trauma, moral injury, gender-based violence, conflict, loss or experiences that have changed the course of someone’s life. When a contributor chooses to speak, that act can carry risk. It may ask them to revisit memories they have worked hard to live alongside. It may place them back inside a moment they would rather not return to. It may also give them an opportunity to be heard, understood and represented with dignity.
The difference often lies in how we ask.
Trauma-informed interviewing is not about turning communicators into therapists. It is about recognising that the way we approach, prepare for and conduct interviews can either support someone’s sense of safety and control, or unintentionally take it away. UK Government guidance describes trauma-informed practice as an approach that understands the impact of trauma, recognises how it may affect people’s ability to feel safe or build trust, and seeks to prevent re-traumatisation. It asks practitioners to move away from “What is wrong with this person?” towards “What does this person need?”
For BFBS Creative, that question, “What does this person need?” is central to how we work.
A safe interview starts before the first question
A trauma-informed interview does not begin when the camera starts rolling or the recorder is switched on. It begins with preparation, transparency and choice.
Before we ask someone to share their experience, they should understand what the story is for, where it may appear, who may see it, how their contribution might be used, and what control they will have throughout the process. The Murad Code, developed to support safe, ethical and effective gathering and use of information from survivors of conflict-related sexual violence, is clear that badly handled information-gathering can cause or amplify harm, even when intentions are good. It also stresses that survivor-centred practice is not only more ethical, but more effective, because it protects trust.
Although the Murad Code is specifically designed for work with survivors of systematic and conflict-related sexual violence, its lessons matter far more widely. It reminds all of us working with sensitive testimony that consent must be meaningful, rights must be respected, and survivors must not be treated as sources of content rather than people with agency. The UK Government’s launch of the draft Murad Code described it as a way of putting survivors at the heart of the response, preventing further traumatisation and strengthening justice and accountability.
In communications, this means we should never assume that a “yes” to taking part is enough. We need to make sure people know what they are saying yes to.
Choice is not a courtesy. It is part of safety.
Trauma can leave people feeling that control has been taken from them. That is why choice is such a crucial part of trauma-informed practice. NHS safeguarding guidance identifies safety, trustworthiness, choice, collaboration and empowerment as key principles, while UK Government guidance stresses the importance of explaining choices clearly and supporting people to make decisions.
For an interview, choice can look practical and simple. It can mean asking where someone would feel most comfortable speaking. It can mean agreeing in advance what topics are off limits. It can mean allowing someone to pause, take a break, skip a question or stop entirely. It can mean being clear that withdrawing is allowed, and that the relationship will not become colder or more difficult if they decide they are not ready.
These choices are not barriers to good storytelling. They are what make good storytelling possible. When people feel rushed, cornered or over-managed, the result is rarely honest or thoughtful. When they feel respected and in control, they are more likely to tell their story in a way that is accurate, meaningful and still theirs.
The interview should be a conversation, not an extraction
The language of communications can sometimes be revealing. We talk about “capturing” stories, “getting” quotes or “pulling out” detail. But trauma-informed interviewing asks us to think differently. The aim is not to extract the most powerful moment from someone’s life. The aim is to create the conditions in which someone can decide what they want to share, how they want to share it, and what they want others to understand.
Guidance for reporting on conflict-related sexual violence asks journalists and filmmakers to consider, before beginning, whether they should be interviewing this person, at this time, and in this place. It also stresses that consent is not meaningful unless it is fully informed, and that survivors should be able to speak in their own way and in their own time.
That principle applies to many of the difficult stories we tell. Sometimes the most responsible interview question is not the most dramatic one. Sometimes the most useful thing we can do is slow down. Sometimes we need to ask, “Would you like to tell me what matters most about this?” rather than “Can you take me through what happened?”
Trauma-informed interviewing also means recognising that memory and expression may not be neat or linear. NICE guidance on PTSD identifies symptoms such as re-experiencing, avoidance, hyperarousal, emotional numbing, dissociation and difficulties in relationships or self-perception. These responses can shape how someone remembers, speaks or reacts when discussing traumatic events.
For communicators, this matters. It means we should not mistake pauses for reluctance, emotion for unreliability, or fragmented recall for inconsistency. It means we should make room for humanity.
Good interviewing pays attention to language
Words can support someone, or they can make them feel judged. The Home Office’s trauma-informed practice learning highlights the importance of language, giving the example of replacing “refused to engage” with “felt unable to accept support at this time because…” That small shift changes the frame from blame to understanding.
In storytelling, the same principle applies. We should avoid language that reduces people to what happened to them. A person is not simply “a victim”, “a case study” or “content”. They are a whole person with a life before, during and after the experience they are sharing.
This also means being attentive to what the contributor’s own words are. Some people may identify with the word “survivor”; others may not. Some may want to name an experience directly; others may prefer broader language. Some may want strength and recovery foregrounded; others may want the ongoing complexity acknowledged. Trauma-informed interviewing gives people room to define themselves.
The story is bigger than the harm
One of the strongest lessons from the Murad Code and specialist reporting guidance is that people should not be reduced to the worst thing that has happened to them. Guidance on reporting sexual violence in conflict warns that focusing too narrowly on brutality can harm both the source and the journalism, and urges storytellers to pay attention to fuller context.
This is vital for BFBS Creative. Our job is not simply to communicate damage. It is to communicate truth. And truth includes context, identity, relationships, purpose, humour, work, service, resilience, anger, ambiguity, pride and hope. A trauma-informed approach makes space for all of that.
When we only ask about pain, we risk flattening people. When we ask what they want audiences to understand, we return some of the authorship to them.
Care continues after the interview
The end of an interview is not the end of our responsibility. A contributor may leave feeling lighter, unsettled, exposed or uncertain. That is why trauma-informed practice requires aftercare: checking in, explaining next steps, confirming how edits and approvals will work, and ensuring they know who to contact if anything changes.
The same care applies to teams. The Home Office learning from violence reduction units highlights that trauma-informed practice should include staff wellbeing and awareness of vicarious or secondary trauma. NICE also recognises work-related exposure to trauma, including remote exposure, as relevant to PTSD.
At BFBS Creative, this means recognising that doing this work well requires support, time and reflection. Debriefing, peer support and realistic timelines are not luxuries. They are part of maintaining quality, judgement and care.
Being safe to work with is something we build every time
Trauma-informed interviewing is not a checklist we complete once. The Home Office describes trauma-informed practice as a “journey without a destination”, requiring constant reflection and adaptation to people’s specific histories, circumstances and needs.
That is how we should understand our work at BFBS Creative too. Being safe to work with is not something we can simply claim. It is something we have to demonstrate: in the first email, in the briefing call, in the interview, in the edit, in the check-in afterwards, and in how we support our own teams.
When people trust us with difficult stories, they are not just giving us information. They are giving us access to something personal and often painful. The responsibility is significant. But when we use trauma-informed principles well - safety, trust, choice, collaboration, empowerment and care - storytelling can become something more than communication. It can become an experience in which people feel heard, respected and in control.
That is the standard we should hold ourselves to.
Because the best stories are not taken from people.
They are told with them.