Researching Gender, Violence and Abuse

Theory, Methods, Action

Nicole Westmarland, Hannah Bows

• Verlag: Routledge
• Jahr: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781317247555
• Auflage: 1
• Thema: Sozialwissenschaften
• Thema: Kriminologie

Feminist research on gender, violence and abuse has been an area of academic study since the late 1970s, and has increased exponentially over this time on a global scale. Although situated in a predominantly qualitative tradition, research in the field has developed to include quantitative and mixed methodologies. This book offers a compendium of research methods on gender and violence, from the traditional to the innovative, and showcases best practice in feminist research and international case studies. Researching Gender, Violence and Abuse covers:

• The origins of feminist research,

• 
  
  

• Ethical considerations relating to research on gender, violence and abuse,

• 
  
  

• Working in partnership with organisations such as the police or the voluntary sector,

• 
  
  

• A comprehensive range of research methods including interviews and focus groups, surveys, arts-based research and ethnography,

• 
  
  

• The challenges and opportunities of working with existing data,

• 
  
  

• The influence of activism on research and the translation of research into policy and practice.

• 
  
  

This book is perfect reading for students taking courses on violence against women, domestic violence, gender and crime, as well as advanced students embarking on new research.

1
Introduction

Few social scientists would cite research methods as the most interesting part of their role. However, as discussed in this book, research methods represent an area which is ripe for innovation and development. Furthermore, a thorough understanding of research methods can provide a solid grounding for research which supports impactful work in a climate of scarce resources. And it is not just academic life that the importance of understanding research methods and methodology can prove useful. Being able to critically read and evaluate research through a thorough understanding of the whole of the research process has allowed the authors as academics and citizens to navigate their lives outside of work in a more evidence-based manner. For example, whilst on maternity leave, one of the authors (Westmarland) drew on her research skills to assess the risks and benefits of taking different medications during pregnancy and whilst breastfeeding and was able to make an evidence-based decision on bed sharing with a baby. Hence, the importance of being able to understand and evaluate the usefulness of different options in different contexts represents an essential part of many people’s daily lives.

This book is not a ‘how to’ guide to doing feminist research on gender, violence and abuse, nor is it intended to be prescriptive about what the ‘right’ methods may be. Instead, it aims to provide inspiration, both for new researchers who are just starting out and for experienced researchers who are looking to diversify their methodological approach. Some of the feminist researchers that the authors consider to be the most exciting in terms of methodological innovation are those at the entry stage of their careers. In light of this, this book draws frequently on examples of good practice from early career and PhD research.

Method(s) for researching gender, violence and abuse

Methods can be described as research tools which stem from methodologies (Giddings, 2006). In social science, research has typically been conducted using either quantitative or qualitative methods, with the two methods having been viewed as mutually antagonistic ideal types which represent different paradigms of social science itself (Bryman, 1988). Of these two methods, qualitative methods have traditionally been the preferred research methods of feminist researchers in their attempts to achieve the commitments outlined in the previous section. By contrast, quantitative methods were perceived by feminist researchers in the 1970s and 1980s as being aligned with ‘malestream’ social research and were largely rejected by the feminist movement. This led to something of a paradigm war (Oakley, 1999).

‘Malestream’ social research was criticised during the 1970s and 1980s for not fully incorporating women and consequently producing knowledge which did not relate to women or their concerns (Tolman and Szalacha, 1999). Feminist criticisms of quantitative methods were made on several grounds: that the choice of topics often implicitly supported sexist values; that female subjects were excluded or marginalised; that relations between researcher and researched were intrinsically exploitative; that the resulting data were superficial and overgeneralised; and that quantitative research was generally not used to overcome social problems (Oakley, 1999). Furthermore, it was argued that quantitative research presented a distorted view of the world a view which was dominated by male ideology and limited by issues such as reliability and representativeness (Sarantakos, 2013). Thus, feminist research at that time was generally considered to be different from and incompatible with conventional quantitative social research and science (Sarantakos, 2013).

In light of this, initial feminist contributions to discussion of research methods were focused on qualitative research techniques (e.g. Oakley, 1981; Finch, 1993). However, more recently feminists have argued that quantitative research methods have a role to play within feminist methodology (Kelly et al., 1994; Sampson et al., 2008). The sole reliance on qualitative methods has been challenged by a number of feminist researchers since the 1990s (see, for example, Gelsthorpe, 1992; Maynard and Purvis, 1994; Westmarland, 2001), and the positive uses of quantitative research methods in feminist research has now been evidenced and documented (Jayaratne, 1983; Walby and Myhill, 2001). It is sometimes wrongly assumed that feminist researchers take an anti-quantitative position and therefore abstain from quantitative standards and principles of research such as validity, objectivity, reliability and generalisation (Sarantakos, 2013). Sarantakos (2013) states that, whilst some feminists may take this position, in the majority of cases, the assumption that feminist researchers do not see any value in quantitative research is not correct.

The need to move beyond the paradigm war between quantitative and qualitative approaches was argued by Oakley (1999). Oakley (1999) suggests that the priority for feminist researchers should be to take a more critical and ethical approach to all kinds of methods, whether quantitative or qualitative. Ultimately, it is increasingly acknowledged that the difference between feminist and non-feminist research lies not in the type of methods they use, but in the way they choose and utilise conventional methods to meet their research goals (Kelly et al., 2005; Sarantakos, 2013). A significant number of feminist researchers now utilise a mixed-method approach which, it is argued, is able to provide both the big picture and the personal story (Hodgkin, 2008). Moreover, it has been argued in the existing feminist literature that feminist research which draws evidence from a variety of sources and methods is more likely to be seen as valid and reliable, and thus more likely to be heard in the policy arena (Shapiro et al., 2003). Combining quantitative methods such as questionnaires with qualitative methods such as interviews allows feminist criminological researchers to examine the extent of violence as well as the lived experiences of those who have been victims of violence. Furthermore, a mixed-method approach increases the likelihood that researchers will gain a broad and in-depth understanding of the topic they are investigating, which in turn will help them to persuade others of the veracity of their findings (Reinharz and Davidman, 1992).

Summary of the book

The remainder of the book is divided into three parts. Part I builds on this introductory chapter to consider feminist methodologies and approaches in practice. Chapter 2 provides an overview of the feminist principles which underpin gender, violence and abuse research. In Chapter 3, key ethical considerations in conducting gender, violence and abuse research are discussed, providing an overview of some of the key debates in relation to conducting ‘sensitive’ research with ‘vulnerable’ participants. Chapter 4 examines how feminist research on gender, violence and abuse has begun to work in more pragmatic ways with different disciplines and organisations. This chapter considers the opportunities and challenges of working within and across different disciplines.

Part II of the book is dedicated to showcasing innovative methods in feminist research. Each chapter in this part of the book utilises case studies to demonstrate the ways these innovative methods have been applied in recent research. Chapter 5 focuses on two commonly used qualitative methods, interviews and focus groups. These methods were traditionally the first choice in feminist research and continue to be two of the most widely used methods. This chapter features the work of one of the authors (Bows) who used interviews to explore older women’s experiences of rape. The chapter focuses on issues related to engaging in research as an ‘outsider,’ as well as the impact of age differences between a researcher and their participants. A second case study showcases the work of Burrell (Durham) who used focus groups with members of men’s sports teams at one university to explore how men understand intimate partner violence prevention campaigns.

Although traditionally criticised for being ‘malestream,’ surveys are an important method in violence and abuse research. Chapter 6 examines some of the most frequently used surveys, including the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW), which has included a specific module on domestic violence, sexual violence and stalking since 2004/05. Case studies include the use of campus climate surveys to gather data on the prevalence of sexual violence at US universities.

Art-based and creative methods have a long history in feminist research, although they have increased in popularity over the last decade or so as technology has also developed exponentially. Photovoice, poetry and pottery are just three examples of the methods that fall within the categories of arts-based and creative methods described in Chapter 7. Case studies include a recent project by McGarry (Nottingham) who utilised pottery as a method to explore women’s experiences of female genital mutilation.

Whilst researchers are often looking for innovative ways to generate new data, they are increasingly being encouraged to make use of existing data sets. Chapter 8 explores the ways in which academics are utilising existing data to address new research aims and questions. Whilst this chapter primarily considers the ways in which researchers access and analyse data that has been made available through published reports, data sets or repositories, examples of quasi-secondary data analysis are also considered. For example, the use of Freedom of Information requests to access data held (but not published) by public bodies in the UK has been a key research method for the authors of this book over the last few years.

In Chapter 9, ethnography and observation are examined. Although used by feminist researchers across a range of social sciences, these methods are perhaps most commonly used in anthropology, sociology and public health research. Examples in this chapter include doctoral research by Johnson (Durham) who conducted observations of domestic violence refuges in Scotland.

Part III looks at how feminist research and theory is used in policy and practice. Chapter 10 demonstrates the ways in which gender, violence and abuse researchers have worked alongside, and as, activists. Chapter 11 explores the way research findings have been translated into policy and practice. Case studies include work by McGlynn (Durham) who worked with colleagues to develop understandings of revenge porn and extreme pornography. This resulted in a new conceptualisation of these forms of violence against women as ‘image based sexual abuse.’ This concept has been influential and informed legislative and policy developments in this field. On a practical level, Lombard’s work in Scotland exploring attitudes of primary school children to men’s violence against women led to the commissioning of training for secondary school head teachers and teaching staff which was rolled out across more than 20 secondary schools in Scotland.

Finally, in the Afterword, we briefly reflect on the diverse range of methods and innovative approaches that feminist researchers are using to examine gender, violence and abuse. This chapter draws together the key themes that emerge from this book and considers future directions for feminist methods and research.

References

Bryman, A. (1988) Quantity and Quality in Social Research. London: Unwin Hyman.

Dickson-Swift, V., James, E. L., Kippen, S. and Liamputtong, P. (2007) Doing sensitive research: What challenges do qualitative researchers face?, Qualitative Research, 7 (3), pp. 327–353.

Finch, J. (1993) ‘It’s great to have someone to talk to’: The ethics and politics of interviewing women, In: M. Hammersley (Ed.) Social Research Philosophy Politics and Practice (pp. 166–180). London: Sage.

Gelsthorpe, L. (1992) Response to Martyn Hammersley’s paper ‘On feminist methodology’, Sociology, 26 (2), pp. 213–218.

Giddings, L. S. (2006) Mixed-methods research: Positivism dressed in drag?, Journal of Research in Nursing, 11 (3), pp. 195–203.

Hodgkin, S. (2008) Telling it all: A story of women’s social capital using a mixed methods approach, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2 (4), pp. 296–316.

Jayaratne, T. E. (1983) The value of quantitative methodology for feminist research, In: G. Bowles and R. D. Klein (Eds.) Theories of Women’s Studies (pp. 140–162). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Kelly, L., Burton, S. and Regan, L. (1994) Researching women’s lives or studying women’s oppression? Reflections on what constitutes feminist research, In: M. Maynard and J. Purvis. (Eds.) Researching Women’s Lives from a Feminist Perspective (pp. 27–48). London: Taylor & Francis.

Kelly, L., Lovett, J. and Regan, L. (2005) A Gap or a Chasm? Attrition in Reported Rape Cases. London: Home Office.

Maynard, M. and Purvis, J. (Eds.) (1994) Researching Women’s Lives from a Feminist Perspective (pp. 27–48). London: Taylor and Francis.

Oakley, A. (1981) Interviewing women: a contradiction in terms, In: Helen Roberts (Ed.) Doing Feminist Research (pp. 30–62). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Oakley, A. (1999) Paradigm wars: Some thoughts on a personal and public trajectory, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 2 (3), pp. 247–254.

Reinharz, S. and Davidman, L. (1992) Feminist Methods in Social Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sampson, H., Bloor, M. and Fincham, B. (2008) A price worth paying?: Considering the ‘cost’ of reflexive research methods and the influence of feminist ways of ‘doing’, Sociology, 42 (5), pp. 919–933.

Sarantakos, S. (2013) Social Research. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Shapiro, M., Setterlund, D. and Cragg, C. (2003) Capturing the complexity of women’s experiences: A mixed-method approach to studying incontinence in older women, Affilia, 18 (1), pp. 21–33.

Tolman, D. L. and Szalacha, L. A. (1999) Dimensions of desire: Bridging qualitative and quantitative methods in a study of female adolescent sexuality, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23 (1), pp. 7–39.

Walby, S. and Myhill, A. (2001) New survey methodologies in researching violence against women, British Journal of Criminology, 41 (3), pp. 502–522.

Westmarland, N. (2001) The quantitative/qualitative debate and feminist r...