Análisis de constructos de Liderazgo, Compromiso Organizacional y Desgaste

The overall goals of this study were: 1) to explore the relationships between engaging in paid GBV-specific advocacy and individual psychosocial health and well- being, and 2) to develop recommendations for GBV-specific NPOs to better support the psychosocial health and well-being of their staff members. In order to achieve these goals, the study focused on two specific aims: 1) To describe the relationships between engaging in paid GBV-specific advocacy and psychosocial health and well-being within the social, economic, cultural, and political context of SC, and 2) To identify the

organizational processes that influence self-care practices among individuals who engage in paid GBV-specific advocacy.

A qualitative research design that was guided by the CGT method was used. Glaser and Strauss introduced GT in 1960s to provide systematic data collection and analysis tools to generate theory from qualitative data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Informed by symbolic interactionism, GT scholars assert that reality is constantly changing, shaped by the interactions between people and the social structures they live in (Richards & Morse, 2012; Charmaz, 2006), and humans engage in purposeful action motivated by

40

meanings that they create, rather than merely responding to their surroundings (Nusbaum & Chenitz, 1990). GT studies often start with the question “what’s going on here?” (Richards & More, 2012, p.60), and gather information about a process or situation through the understandings and experiences of participants (Suddaby, 2006). The goal is to answer the initial question by generating a theory or a “unified theoretical explanation” (Corbin & Strauss, 2007, p. 107) grounded in data (Charmaz & Bryant, 2011).

Construction of theory takes place through an iterative process of data collection and analysis. Charmaz and Bryant (2011) explained:

Grounded Theory is a method of qualitative inquiry in which researchers develop inductive theoretical analysis from their collected data and subsequently gather further data to check these analyses. The purpose of grounded theory is theory construction, rather than description or application of existing theories (p. 292).

CGT method is also appropriate for the study of social structures and processes that shape and are shaped by human agency and interactions (Charmaz, 2006; Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). Paid advocacy in the area of GBV is influenced by unique institutional and social processes that are embedded in the socio- economic and political dynamics of each region in the U.S. For this study, it was important to understand the relationships between the historical, socio-political context of SC and the work of its GBV-specific NPOs. Thus, adopting a CGT method guided me in generating a holistic theoretical explanation (Corbin & Strauss, 2007) of the research phenomena that is situated within the context of SC’s non-profit organizations and government institutions. In addition, this method supported me with centering the voices of an understudied group, GBV-specific

41

advocates (Homer, 2014) in my analysis, and incorporating the meanings they create about their work and well-being into a theory.

When I started formulating this study, my “what is going on here?” questions were: 1) What happens to the health and well-being of an individual who engages in this type of work in SC? 2) what are organizations doing/not doing to support the well-being and resilience of their staff? and 3) what else can they do? Answering these questions required the examination of two interrelated processes. The first one was the process through which the interactions between the nature of participants’ work and their well- being took place. The nature of their work included their everyday experiences, the challenges they face, the personal price they pay, and the benefits of doing this work. The second process captured the interactions between organizational factors (e.g., the size of the NPO, the composition of the staff, the availability of resources, self-care related practices and policies, interpersonal dynamics) and the self-care behaviors and resilience capacity of the participants.

To disentangle the complex nature of these social processes and understand the ways in which participants constructed meaning through their experiences, I adopted a constructivist approach to GT. CGT scholars stress that reality is socially constructed, and believe that human knowledge is partial and constructed through interactions with the world (Charmaz, 2006; Gardner, McCutcheon, & Fedoruk, 2012; Taghipour, 2014). Data is then a co-product of the interactions between the researcher and the participants, whose experiences are embedded in a specific situation and time. It is important for researchers to be aware of how their social position, perspective, and values influence the

42

development of theory while interpreting the realities of research participants (Taghipour, 2014).

Although they acknowledge the multiplicity of perspectives that exist in the social world and the role of subjective meanings in knowledge creation, CGT scholars do not ignore the role of objective social and structural realities (e.g., institutional

discrimination, socioeconomic inequalities, political systems) that shape the lives of individuals with whom the research is conducted (Charmaz, 2011). CGT helped me to understand how participants in my study “negotiate and manipulate the social structures” (Gardner et al., 2012, p.67) in which their work takes place, and create meaning through social interactions (Charmaz, 2011).

Sample and Recruitment Procedures

The sample consisted of twenty-five women who either engaged in paid GBV- specific advocacy within NPOs in SC in the last three years preceding the study, or were engaging in this type of work at the time of the study.

Inclusion Criteria. In order to be includedin the study, participants had to meet the following criteria: 1) Aged eighteen years or older, 2) Identify as a woman and/or queer, non-gender conforming, and 3) engage/d in paid advocacy within GBV-specific NPOs and/or government agencies in SC. Due to the intention to closely examine

organizational dynamics that relate to the health and well-being of advocates, individuals who engage in unpaid advocacy were excluded from the study. Experiences of the individuals who volunteer for GBV-specific NPOs for a limited term differ from those who work for these organizations as paid staff members, as the duration of advocacy and levels of exposure to workplace structures and practices differ among these groups

43

(Thornton & Novak, 2010). To ensure a certain level of exposure to the workload, interpersonal relationships, and administrative dynamics within the NPOs, recruitment was limited to individuals who were paid staff members.

Target Sample Size. In qualitative research, data saturation occurs when the researcher is no longer able to gather new information or when new themes are no longer observed in the data (Guest, Bunce, & Johnson, 2006; Patton, 2002; Ulin, Robinson, & Tolley, 2004). What constitutes new information depends on the research aims, design, and theoretical frameworks guiding the research; therefore, the point of data saturation can vary greatly among different qualitative studies (Fusch & Ness, 2015). In CGT studies, researchers’ recruitment efforts are often informed by the concurrent data analysis they engage in (Charmaz, 2006).

Two main factors shaped the decision about the saturation point in this study. First, I examined the nature of the data that began to accumulate as I interviewed each participant, paying attention to the extent to which core research concepts were addressed. In addition, I identified the concepts that were partially highlighted by the existing data and therefore needed to be investigated further (Charmaz, 2006). Second, the framework of feminist intersectionality guided me in achieving a diverse sample that represents the multiple and intersecting identities (race/ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, nationality, etc.) of the individuals who work for the GBV-specific NPOs in SC. As I intended to observe how multiple and intersecting identities of individuals shaped their experiences and in turn, might influence health and well-being, it was necessary to collect rich (i.e., the quality of the information) and thick (i.e., the quantity of information) data (Dibley, 2011; Fusch & Ness, 2015), particularly from individuals who belonged to

44

under-represented and marginalized groups (Hunting, 2014). These considerations helped me to tailor the recruitment process accordingly until I achieved data saturation.

Recruitment. Participants were recruited using a combination of snowball and

purposeful sampling techniques to achieve a diverse and accurate representation of the staff composition of NPOs in SC that address GBV. In the early phases of recruitment, I enlisted dissertation committee members to assist me with recruitment by sending an initial email to their colleagues who met the inclusion criteria, and followed up with invitees by email and phone upon receiving referrals. Reaching out to potential

participants through the personal and work connections that my committee members and I had in Richland and other counties of the state helped me build trust with the

participants.

The first few interviews I conducted helped me initiate a purposeful and snowball sampling strategy (Patton, 2015). At the end of each interview, I asked the participants whether they would be willing to recommend me to any of her colleagues who might be willing to participate in the study. Purposeful sampling is suitable in qualitative research where “particular settings, persons, or events are deliberately selected for the important information they can provide that cannot be gotten as well from other choices” (Maxwell, 1997, p. 87). One of the purposeful sampling techniques – snowball sampling – also aided me in recruiting individuals with certain characteristics for the purposes of diversity (Sadler, Lee, Lim, & Fullerton, 2010; Teddlie & Yu, 2007).

One invaluable collaboration that I developed during the recruitment process has been with SCCADVASA, which became a partner in helping me reach my recruitment goals. The former Associate Director, Rebecca Williams-Agee, helped me recruit

45

participants from different organizations that are affiliated with SCCADVASA. Furthermore, having access to her wide connections in the field of GBV prevention enabled me to connect with a broader, more diverse group of potential participants than would have otherwise been possible.

Setting

Through the influences of southern history, culture, and contemporary politics, SC provided a unique social and geographical context for my dissertation research. The decision to limit the sample to SC was made for the following reasons: First, SC faces GBV as a pressing public health issue; until recently, the state ranked first among all US states in the number of women killed by men (Violence Policy Center, 2015). In response to this, multiple NPOs and government agencies in the state have been working towards reducing the rates of GBV through advocacy, community outreach, and education. The latest results from the Supplementary Homicide Report released by the Federal Bureau of Investigation lists SC as the fifth state in terms of the number of female homicide victims, suggesting that statewide efforts to prevent GBV and alleviate its consequences on

victims’ lives have been producing positive results (Violence Policy Center, 2016). Despite the decrease in the numbers of women killed by men in SC, the need for further prevention of GBV, and improvement of services for survivors and their families continues to exist. Therefore, GBV-specific advocacy continues its significance for the state.

Second, limiting data collection to SC made the most sense logistically, both in terms of transportation and given the connections and close relationships that I have built over time with a diverse group of advocates who work for GBV-specific NPOs. In SC, 23

46

NPOs that are working to prevent and raise awareness about domestic violence and sexual assault, as well as provide advocacy and services for the survivors, are affiliated with a statewide coalition, the South Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (SCCADVASA). SCCADVASA was established in 1981 to provide education and assistance to the GBV-specific NPOs, and to facilitate collaboration between these organizations at the state-level (SCCADVASA, 2017). Due to more than three decades of non-profit experience that SCCADVASA has in this field, it constituted the most important organization through which I was able to recruit participants for the study.

Data Collection Procedures

Development of the Interview Guide. I used a semi-structured interview guide (Appendix A) to conduct in-depth interviews with eligible study participants. Choosing a semi-structured interview approach helped me to consistently address the topics that were covered in the interview guide (Corbin & Strauss, 2015), while leaving room for potential modifications when such need arose during the interview process. I developed the

interview guide by reviewing the literature and in consultation with my dissertation committee members.

The preliminary interview guide was tested during the initial interviews I

conducted. I wrote down memos and recorded field notes to reflect on the extent to which the interview guide was helpful in facilitating the conversation between me and the participants. Although memoing is often described as taking reflective notes about what the data are telling the researcher, it can also be used outside of the analytical phase of the research to create a record of the researcher’s thoughts, observations, and emotional

47

reactions (Birks, Chapman, & Francis, 2008; Maxwell, 2012). Through writing memos, researchers preserve their reflections beginning from the early stages of their inquiry, and these reflections may play a significant role in the analysis (Birks et al., 2008). After sharing these memos and field notes with my committee members and receiving their feedback, I adjusted the interview guide. I also consulted with a key informant, Rebecca Williams-Agee, regarding the content and wording of the interview guide before making the final adjustments.

The interview questions focused on the individual and work experiences of advocacy in the area of GBV. The first part of the interview guide included questions about the participants’ current roles as a paid staff member in their respective NPOs, as well as their previous experiences in this field with other organizations doing similar type of advocacy and prevention work. In addition, questions regarding participants’ family background and educational and life experiences prior to working in the area of GBV were included to understand the potential reasons that led them to do this work and their own sources of motivation. The second part of the interview guide focused on the

interpersonal dynamics and structural factors within the work environment that influence participants’ productivity, work satisfaction, and ability to engage in self-care. Questions in this section sought to obtain information on existing organizational culture and

practices that facilitate and/or hinder self-care, growth, resilience, and physical and mental well-being among staff. The third part of the interview guide covered potential relationships between work experiences and personal health and well-being. Therefore, questions delved into the ways in which participants experienced the benefits, rewards, and costs of their work in relation to their mental and physical health and social well-

48

being. Finally, I asked the participants for their suggestions on how organizations could better support the work they do as well as support growth and resilience among their staff members in general. Example interview questions and probes are presented in Table 3.1

Qualitative Interviews. Before conducting each interview, I provided the

participants with an informed consentand information form to be signed. I also described the purpose of the study and their rights as participants and invited them to share any concerns and questions they had with regards to the study. I made an effort to conduct all of the interviews in person. When geographical challenges and scheduling conflicts prevented in-person interviews, I either contacted the participant via telephone or used an online video conferencing program (Microsoft, 2017). Most of the interviews (n=21) took place in the offices of the NPOs where the participants worked in addition to libraries, coffee shops, and other places that were convenient to the participants. The main criterion for determining the interview location was its suitability as a quiet, safe place where the interviewee would not be heard by others and a confidential conversation could take place. During the interviews that I conducted over the phone (n=2), I paid attention to any changes in the voice tone of the participants and pauses in the conversation to account for the lack of in-person communication cues to provide further clarification when they had questions (Sturges & Hanrahan, 2004). As I adopted a CGT approach, I treated the interview process itself as a component of the data analysis (Charmaz & Belgrave, 2002). I observed the nature of interactions between the participants and myself, their comfort level with the issues we discussed, and how they reacted to being interviewed on these issues.

49

Table 3.1 Example Interview Questions and Probes General Questions about

Work

Work Environment, Structure, and Processes

Personal Health and Well- Being

Perceptions/Work Experiences

Recommendations How long have you been

working with/for the {Name of ORG}?

What are your current and past roles in the {Name of ORG}?

Prior to working with the {Name of ORG}, what other experiences did you have in the area of GBV?

Tell me about the group dynamics in the {Name of ORG}.

PROBE: In general, how would you describe the interpersonal relationships within the {Name of ORG}? PROBE: How would you describe your personal relationships with your co- workers?

PROBE: How would you describe your personal relationships with your supervisors?

What types of organizational factors have been supportive of your work as an advocate in this field?

PROBE: Tell me about the conditions or situations within your work environment that facilitate your work.

PROBE: What resources are available to you in your organization that facilitate your development as a staff member?

Thinking of both the benefits and personal costs of the work you do, how has your work in this area influenced your health and well-being? PROBE: Have you noticed any changes in your physical or mental health since you started doing this work? [If yes] – Can you tell me more about them?

PROBE: To what extent do you think these changes relate to the advocacy work you engage in?

Tell me about how you care for yourself.

PROBE: What do you do to support your physical health?

PROBE: What kinds of practices do you engage in to support your emotional well- being?

What are the personally rewarding aspects and benefits of the work you do? PROBE: What are some important memories or significant events from your work?

PROBE: Give me some examples of the times you felt satisfied and

accomplished in your work.

What strategies would you suggest to organizations dealing with high rates of staff turnover?

What suggestions would you have for the organizations to best support health and well- being of their workforce?

50

I considered the positionality and past experiences of participants and made a conscious effort to understand how the ways in which they navigated answering the questions could be shaped by these factors. I also paid attention to the changes and improvements in my interviewing skills throughout the data collection process, as well as how this process transformed me as a qualitative researcher and, in turn, influenced the data that I was gathering. My ability to engage in reflexivity was limited during the two