I led foundational research for a women's health platform serving Afghan immigrant and refugee communities. My work transformed the team's approach from assumption-driven development to evidence-based, trauma-informed design—pausing MVP development to prevent potential user harm and regulatory risk.
An early-stage health initiative wanted to build quickly, but lacked primary understanding of their target users. Building without this foundation risked:
Designed a lean, ethically rigorous research strategy prioritizing:
Anonymity and trust aren't features—they're prerequisites. Any traceable system would fail to reach users.
Needs vary dramatically by migration stage. A single user profile would erase critical differences.
Clinical language creates barriers. Gentle, structured guidance without medical jargon felt safer.
Building without defined legal boundaries posed real risk to users and the organization.
Critical Decision
Paused primary interviews until IRB-aligned safety protocols were established—an intentional design decision that prioritized participant protection over momentum and set a precedent for ethical rigor.
Key Takeaway
In sensitive domains, advocacy is part of research. My role required slowing the organization down when speed posed risk—challenging assumptions, naming gaps early, and holding firm on ethical standards. The most important research sometimes means knowing when not to build yet.