Beyond the Interview Room: Why Virtual Investigations May Be More Trauma-Informed
By Jo Siggins
For many workplace investigations, in-person interviews have long been treated as the ‘gold standard’ and assumed to be more personal, professional and controlled simply because everyone is in the same room.
But that perception does not necessarily reflect the reality of the interview experience or the quality of the evidence obtained. When investigations are considered through a trauma-informed lens, the picture becomes more nuanced.
In-person interviews may be appropriate in some circumstances, but they are not inherently superior. In many workplace investigations, a carefully conducted video interview using platforms such as Zoom or Teams may provide a safer, less intimidating and more accessible environment.
Video interviews can provide greater safety, choice and control
Trauma-informed practice is not defined by whether an interview occurs in the same room. It is concerned with how the process supports safety, trust, choice and control.
The Australian Human Rights Commission identifies promoting safety and supporting the affected person’s choice and control as central elements of trauma-informed workplace practice. It also recommends offering options for how a person participates in a reporting process rather than applying a single, organisation-centred approach.
A video interview allows a participant to join from a private location in which they feel comfortable. This may be particularly important when the workplace, an employer’s office or another formal setting is associated with the events under investigation.
The investigator must still confirm that the participant has privacy, is not being observed or prompted and can speak safely. Subject to those safeguards, allowing a participant greater control over their physical environment can reduce unnecessary stress without diminishing the rigour of the interview.
Physical distance may reduce interpersonal pressure
Investigation interviews can involve real or perceived power imbalances. A participant may be speaking with an investigator, human resources representative or legal practitioner about distressing conduct that has affected their employment, relationships or wellbeing.
Being physically present with those people may increase the social and emotional demands of the interview. Video interviews create a degree of distance that may reduce feelings of scrutiny or intimidation and allow the participant to concentrate more fully on recalling and explaining what occurred.
Experimental research comparing in-person witness interviews with interviews conducted in an immersive virtual environment found that participants in the virtual setting provided more correct information and made fewer errors, particularly when rapport-building was used. While this study did not assess workplace investigation interviews through Zoom or Teams directly, it nevertheless challenges the assumption that physical co-presence is necessary for effective recall and suggests that reducing the social demands of an interview may support memory retrieval.
Rapport does not depend on sharing a room
Good rapport is essential in any investigation interview. It helps establish trust and supports open communication.
However, rapport is created through the interviewer’s initial contacts with the participant, interview preparation, manner and questioning, not merely by physical proximity.
Video interviews can remove additional stressors
Video interviewing can also improve accessibility by removing travel, reducing time away from work and allowing greater scheduling flexibility.
It may make participation easier for people with disability, health concerns, caring responsibilities or limited access to transport.
Additional demands can increase stress before an interview has even begun. Removing them may leave the participant better able to concentrate and engage with the investigation.
More opportunity to pause and regulate
Participants discussing distressing incidents may need time to collect their thoughts, take a break or regulate their emotions. They may also find it difficult to continue speaking while being closely observed in an unfamiliar room.
Trauma-informed interviewing does not mean avoiding necessary questions. It means asking them in a way that supports the participant’s safety and capacity to respond while minimising unnecessary harm.
A video format can make it easier to plan breaks, pause the interview and allow the participant to regain composure in familiar surroundings. It may also give them a greater sense of control over the interview process, making it easier to remain engaged and provide a complete account.
The Pinocchio myth
One perceived advantage of in-person interviewing is that the investigator can observe a participant’s full body language and use it to assess whether they are being truthful.
This is a myth. A persons' demeanour should not be treated as evidence that they are or are not telling the truth.
Research has consistently found that non-verbal indicators of deception are weak and unreliable, and that people are generally poor at detecting lies by observing behaviour. Eye contact, posture, facial expressions, fidgeting or apparent nervousness may have many explanations unrelated to honesty.
Non-verbal communication may help an investigator recognise apparent distress, confusion or the possible need for a break. Its value is in managing the interview, not determining credibility.
Credibility must instead be assessed by examining the participant’s account against the surrounding circumstances and available evidence, including its internal consistency, supporting records, corroboration and any conflicting evidence. Once the supposed advantage of ‘reading’ a participant’s body language is removed, there is less reason to treat physical presence as the investigative interview standard.
The appropriate format depends on the participant
Video interviewing is not automatically trauma-informed. Like any interview format, it must be carefully planned around the participant’s privacy, communication needs, digital confidence, access to technology and personal safety.
These considerations are not reasons to default to an in-person interview. They are matters to identify and address before the interview begins. This may involve testing the technology, discussing privacy arrangements, allowing a support person, planning breaks or helping the participant identify a suitable location.
Some participants may initially feel more comfortable meeting in person. That preference should be explored and considered alongside the circumstances of the investigation. It should not, however, be assumed that attending an unfamiliar location and sitting in the same room as an investigator will necessarily provide a safer or more supportive experience.
The more useful question is:
How can the interview be designed to best support the participant’s safety and ability to provide a complete and reliable account?
A trauma-informed interview is created through safety, choice, careful planning, rapport building, skilled questioning, and procedural fairness. When these elements are present, video interviewing is not a lesser substitute for meeting in person. It is a legitimate and effective investigative method that may provide a safer, more accessible and more trauma-informed experience.
