PaperlayerView exact revision on arXiv

Source-linked AI summary

Lessons from Trauma-Informed Training on Technology-Facilitated Abuse for Gender-Based Violence Advocates

Naman Gupta, Connie W. Chau, Sophie Stephenson, Kate Walsh, Rahul Chatterjee

arXiv:2610.02688v1cs.CYcs.HC

TL;DR

GBV advocates may lack the knowledge and confidence to respond to technology-facilitated abuse, while existing training can struggle to provide actionable, adaptable guidance. The authors conducted trauma-informed workshops and reflected on their design and coordination, reporting improvements in advocates’ perceived understanding and confidence while deriving lessons for future high-stakes training.

  • Problem

    GBV advocates may lack expertise and confidence to support survivors experiencing TFA, while trainings can lack actionable guidance and become outdated as technologies evolve.

    Source: §1 · p. 2, §2.1 · p. 4

  • Method

    The authors conducted eight trauma-informed TFA workshops with US-based GBV organizations and used mixed-methods analysis and autoethnographic reflection to study outcomes and training design.

    Source: §1 · pp. 2–3

  • Results

    The preliminary evaluation indicates improvements in advocates’ perceived understanding of TFA and confidence in supporting survivors through safety planning and referrals.

    Source: §7 · p. 20

  • Takeaways & Limitations

    The authors offer three design lessons and 24 checklist questions for future HCI training interventions in high-stakes contexts.

    Source: §1 · p. 3

    The evaluation measures perceived confidence and understanding rather than professional behavior, and the one-month follow-up may be too short to assess use in practice.

    Source: §6.3 · p. 20

Abstract

from arXiv · show

Technology-facilitated abuse (TFA) is an emerging gendered public health crisis affecting millions of people across the globe. TFA coincides with other forms of gender-based violence (GBV), such as emotional, psychological, and physical abuse by an intimate partner. Survivors often seek support from GBV advocates who specialize in helping survivors navigate abusive situations and potential pathways for healing and remediation. With the rise in TFA, however, survivors and GBV advocates experience barriers and gaps in knowledge in identifying and mitigating this newer, ever-evolving form of abuse. To address this, we developed trauma-informed training as a critical capacity-building intervention to improve GBV advocates' knowledge and skills for responding to survivors and to encourage multi-stakeholder collaboration toward a structural response. We facilitated 8 training workshops at local, state, and national US-based GBV organizations. Our study demonstrates that the trainings increased advocates' perceived understanding of TFA abuse vectors and their impacts on survivors, along with advocates' confidence in providing support, safety planning, and referrals through collaboration with community stakeholders. We then conducted retrospective reflections through autoethnography to surface key lessons, contestations, and tensions that emerged from our experiences in designing and coordinating trainings with host GBV organizations. Our analysis of autoethnographic notes revealed three key design decisions: coordinating logistics flexibly, reducing reflexive distance from host organizations and attendees, and using our field experience to tailor content for accessibility. We contribute a concrete checklist to guide future HCI scholars in conducting training interventions for stakeholders in high-stakes contexts.

1 Introduction

Technology-facilitated abuse creates a growing challenge for GBV advocates who must interpret unfamiliar technology and ambiguous evidence without compromising survivor-centered care. The paper examines how trauma-informed training can build advocates’ capacity and how researchers and host organizations navigate the work of designing it.

1 Introduction

  • TFA is common in IPV advocacy, but advocates may face unfamiliar technologies, ambiguous evidence, limited organizational capacity, and guidance that can quickly become outdated.More content alone may burden over-committed advocates; the design challenge is selecting actionable knowledge while preserving trauma-informed care.Source: §1 · pp. 1–2
  • Technical actions such as disconnecting an account or device can isolate a survivor, reveal help-seeking, or escalate violence, so options must be interpreted through survivor-centered safety planning.Advocates may also involve technical specialists or community providers while attending to a broader safety plan.Source: §1 · p. 2
  • Training is framed as collaborative knowledge translation that helps advocates assess technical guidance, consider safety implications, and build shared language for consultation and referral.The goal is to help advocates recognize concerns and seek expertise, not turn them into technical specialists.Source: §1 · p. 2
  • The authors conducted eight workshops with US-based GBV organizations and used mixed-methods analysis and autoethnography to examine learning, confidence, and collaboration with host organizations.They identify three lessons and 24 checklist questions for future high-stakes educational interventions.Source: §1 · pp. 2–3
  • The study asks how workshops shape advocates’ perceived understanding and confidence, and what design, coordination, and knowledge-translation tensions arise in this high-stakes work.Source: §1 · p. 3

2 Background & Related work

The background describes TFA’s varied forms and its consequences for survivors and advocates, then frames training as cooperative work shaped by local knowledge, expertise, and organizational constraints.

2.1 Technology-facilitated Abuse (TFA)

  • TFA includes spying, stalking, online abuse, hate speech, doxxing, and harassment, carried out through tools such as spyware, compromised accounts, and smart-home technology.Abusers also use online guides and forums to conduct TFA.Source: §2.1 · p. 3
  • TFA can produce traumatic stress and compound survivors’ economic, health, and housing insecurity, while inaccessible interfaces and limited access to technical support make identification and mitigation difficult.Although tech clinics provide trauma-informed technical help, most US survivors still rely on GBV organizations and advocates.Source: §2.1 · pp. 3–4
  • GBV advocates may lack expertise and confidence for TFA scenarios and may miss or misconceptualize technology abuse, motivating training on its nuances.Source: §2.1 · p. 4

2.2 Training Interventions in High-Stakes Contexts

  • Prior HCI work describes interventions and outcomes but offers less insight into how training content is selected, adapted, and facilitated with partner organizations.Source: §2.2 · p. 4
  • Training is cooperative knowledge translation: researchers, practitioners, and host organizations negotiate relevant knowledge and how it should guide action within local priorities and constraints.Limited time, organizational capacity, and familiarity with an emerging topic can constrain participation, while privileging one expertise can discount practitioners’ knowledge.Source: §2.2 · p. 4
  • The authors use autoethnographic reflections to examine how their experience, positionality, and relationships shaped technical-care integration, local adaptation, and the balance between evaluation and reciprocal service.Source: §2.2 · p. 4

3 Positionality Statement

The authors position the work through their combined academic, advocacy, clinical, and educational experience, while emphasizing reciprocity and accountability to community and place.

3 Positionality Statement

  • The interdisciplinary team includes university researchers, IPV and sexual-violence advocates, educators, and technical-support volunteers.Three authors have collectively supported more than 180 survivors through a Tech Clinic, and one author is a licensed clinical psychologist with decades of survivor-focused clinical experience.Source: §3 · p. 5
  • The authors declined offered compensation for trainings, describing this choice as part of a commitment to non-extraction, relational accountability, and reciprocity.Source: §3 · p. 5
  • Some authors are abuse survivors, and their experiences informed the training material alongside Indigenous restorative justice and trauma-informed ethics of care.Source: §3 · p. 5
  • The paper organizes its methods and findings into two phases: conducting training workshops and reflecting on those workshops.Source: §3 · p. 5

4 Phase I: Conducting Training Workshops

The authors developed and delivered TFA training with GBV organizations, then evaluated advocates’ perceived understanding and confidence alongside their reflections on the training process. Findings describe learning about abuse vectors and survivor impacts, and greater confidence in support, safety planning, and referrals.

4.2 Recruitment Plan

  • Eight trainings, plus one pilot without data collection, reached 189 advocates in varied survivor-support roles and practice settings.Host organizations included national, state, and local GBV groups and handled training logistics and advertising.Source: §4 · p. 5, §4.2 · p. 6

4.1 Developing the Training Content

  • The curriculum used survivor stories and actionable guidance to explain common TFA vectors, their relationship to IPV, survivor impacts, and routes to technical and community support.The authors revised learning objectives after the pilot using facilitator reflections, participant questions, and host-organization feedback, although advocates did not directly co-design the initial curriculum.Source: §4.1 · pp. 5–6

4.3 Evaluation Strategy

  • The evaluation used pre-/post-training surveys, a 30-day follow-up, and qualitative coding to assess perceived understanding and confidence across three evaluation goals.Of 68 survey respondents, 44 started the pre-training survey, 36 completed the post-training survey, and 7 completed follow-up; only 16 completed both pre- and post-surveys.Source: §4.3 · pp. 7–8, §4.4 · p. 9

4.4 Findings

  • 16 paired respondents showed significant pre/post differences for EG1 (T=−2.860, p=0.011), EG2 (T=−2.834, p=0.012), and EG3 (T=−4.240, p=0.001).Only EG3 had a statistically significantly lower pre-training mean than post-training mean; the authors note that low statistical power may limit the desired t-test effect for EG1 and EG2.Source: Table 3 · p. 9, §4.4 · p. 9
  • Advocates reported learning to distinguish plausible abuse vectors from fears about technical capabilities, including the role of physical access and the expertise required for some attacks.Training discussions also addressed how TFA can be perceived as frightening and how survivors may face invalidation, cascading harms, and culturally specific risks.Source: §4.4 · pp. 10–11
  • Advocates described greater comfort validating survivors and discussing technology, while recognizing that mitigation steps may be ineffective, costly, or escalate violence.A shared client example showed that WhatsApp use did not ensure privacy when the account was tied to a phone plan controlled by the abuser.Source: §4.4 · p. 11
  • Training discussions and clinic connections supported advocates’ confidence in sharing resources and making referrals, while organizational readiness remained uneven.Most surveyed advocates reported no prior TFA training (18); recommendation likelihood was high, with 24 very likely and 7 likely to recommend it.Source: §4.4 · pp. 11–12

5 Phase II: Reflections on Training Workshops

The authors retrospectively analyzed their training experiences to identify design and coordination lessons. Their reflections emphasize flexible logistics, reducing distance from host organizations and attendees, and adapting content to advocates’ contexts and needs.

5.1 Autoethnography

  • The authors used detailed workshop notes and a versioned change sheet to support retrospective autoethnography, then inductively coded reflections and collaboratively identified lessons.Three authors reflected on identity, design, facilitation, and logistics; two independently developed a codebook before collaborative resolution.Source: §5.1 · pp. 12–13

5.2 Findings

  • Flexible coordination respected host organizations’ hierarchies, values, timelines, and requests while adapting logistics to each setting.A checklist was prepared two weeks before each training, but coordination varied by organization, audience, location, and event format.Source: §5.2 · p. 13
  • Intentional coordination was time-consuming and taxing, yet helped build reciprocal host relationships that can support longer-term evaluation and organizational change.The first author performed most of the coordination work, and a single point of contact offered benefits but could be burdensome.Source: §5.2 · pp. 13–14
  • Training objectives evolved with attendee needs, including a focus on community-based technical resources when remote consultations were not locally available.Advocates sought concrete steps for identifying and mitigating abuse and finding community resources; full-time advocate collaboration was not secured.Source: §5.2 · p. 14
  • Cultural and reflexive distance prompted co-facilitation and context-sensitive language, abuse examples, and restorative-justice approaches.The authors describe discomfort presenting at an Indigenous conference and adapted content for specific community needs.Source: §5.2 · pp. 14–15
  • The authors balanced research evaluation with reciprocal service by making participation optional and avoiding practices they viewed as coercive or burdensome.They noted that separate research and host-organization surveys could confuse participants and take additional time.Source: §5.2 · pp. 15–16
  • Accessible content paired familiar language and survivor-centered stories with tangible demonstrations, while balancing emotional sensitivity against practical utility.The authors used examples such as a fictional survivor’s technology-related experiences and passed around personal location trackers.Source: §5.2 · p. 16
  • Rather than attempt exhaustive coverage, the authors prioritized common, more readily identifiable abuse vectors to build advocates’ initial capacity.They acknowledged limits in their experiential knowledge and the impossibility of keeping pace with technological change without overwhelming advocates.Source: §5.2 · p. 17

6 Discussion

The discussion turns the workshop findings and retrospective reflections into guidance for future high-stakes training, including a checklist spanning intervention stages. It also outlines plans for organizational adoption and limits on what the study establishes.

6 Discussion

  • The checklist offers questions for grounding training, evaluating interventions contextually, and building long-term research partnerships with stakeholders and organizations.It is presented as guidance for future HCI scholars designing educational interventions in high-stakes contexts.Source: §6 · p. 17, Table 5 · p. 18

6.1 Lessons for Future Trainers

  • Future trainers should assess needs with experienced collaborators, assign flexible but clear roles, treat stakeholders as experts, and tailor content to local contexts.The discussion also calls for balancing comprehensive coverage with stakeholder utility and reflecting on facilitators’ positionality and potential harms.Source: §6.1 · pp. 17, 19

6.2 Future Plans for Our Trainings and Adoption

  • The authors plan to evaluate organizational readiness and longer-term adoption, with a community advisory board helping co-design training and its integration.They note that assessing downstream effects may require confidential agreements and access to administrative data; policy changes may support lasting behavior change.Source: §6.2 · pp. 19–20

6.3 Limitations

  • Findings are limited to US-based trainings and do not represent all advocates, TFA contexts, or sociocultural and political experiences.The lessons also draw on subjective autoethnographic reflections; qualitative analysis reached thematic saturation, but this does not remove the stated scope limits.Source: §6.3 · p. 20
  • The evaluation measures perceived understanding and confidence, not demonstrated behavior change, and one-month follow-up may be too short to assess practice.Survey interpretation may also be difficult, and survey-based evaluation can encourage teaching to the test.Source: §6.3 · p. 20

7 Conclusion

The conclusion reports preliminary gains in advocates’ perceived understanding and confidence, while distinguishing these from changes in professional behavior. It presents training as collaborative work and offers a checklist for future interventions.

7 Conclusion

  • The preliminary evaluation found improved perceived understanding of TFA and confidence in supporting survivors through safety planning and referrals, but did not establish behavior change.The authors frame the findings as potential value in combining technical knowledge with advocates’ trauma-informed and survivor-centered expertise.Source: §7 · p. 20
  • Effective delivery required flexible logistics, attention to reflexive distance, and accessible content tailored to local needs.The conclusion describes training as collaborative work shaped by facilitators’ field experience, host-organization relationships, and participants’ situated knowledge.Source: §7 · p. 20
  • The authors contribute a checklist for researchers developing educational interventions in other high-stakes professional settings.The checklist draws on the design decisions and tensions surfaced in their training work.Source: §7 · p. 20

Appendix

The appendix points readers to supplementary survey questions and training slides.

7.1 Survey Questions

  • The survey questions are available as supplementary material.They were uploaded there to limit the paper’s word count and pages.Source: §7.1 · p. 28

7.2 Training Slides

  • The training slides are available as supplementary material.They were uploaded there to limit the paper’s word count and pages.Source: §7.2 · p. 28
Loading 2610.02688v1…