Evaluación

The interaction between women reporting IPV and the police to whom they report the violence is complex and multifaceted. It would be overly ambitious to assume that a single study could produce a theoretical explanation that fully accounted for this interaction and all its aspects. Likewise, the influence police have on victims‟ final outcomes is difficult to extricate from the numerous other forces influencing their behaviour. Nevertheless, as representatives of the criminal justice system and of the values and attitudes of society in general, police have the potential to make a substantial difference in the lives of women experiencing IPV. This potential should not be underestimated and is certainly worthy of examination. Assuming it would not be possible to account fully for the processes and outcomes in every situation, the analysis sought to uncover the commonalities and patterns in the data that provided the most comprehensive and plausible interpretation of victims‟

experience. Therefore, the unique construction of meaning made by each victim of IPV and each police officer was paralleled by the construction of meaning made by me, as interviewer and researcher, as I firstly engaged with them at the time of the interviews, and later engaged with their stories during the analytic process. The findings are thus a regeneration or reconstruction (Charmaz, 1995, 2006) of each participant‟s unique experience and individual, subjective interpretation, influenced by my exposure to their multiple experiences. The analysis was the link that took each unique reality and created an understanding that best captured the shared experience of women who seek help from the police and also provided insight into the variation in their experience. Rather than generalising from a sample to the population, the analysis of data generated from these individual cases resulted in

65 “generalisation to theoretical propositions” (Reissman, 2008, p.13). The intention, therefore, was not to discover or verify causal explanations but to produce an understanding that can be shared (Schwandt, 2000). As Corbin noted, “out of these multiple constructions, analysts build something that they call knowledge” (p.39).

The analysis was underpinned by the assumptions inherent in Charmaz‟s (1995, 2006, 2009) constructivist approach to grounded theory and guided by the

techniques she explicates. The early analysis, particularly the line-by-line coding, was also informed by the very practical descriptions and advice of Corbin and Strauss (1990) and Dey (1993). The procedures and resultant analytical structure of a grounded theory analysis are hierarchical in nature (Charmaz, 1995, 2006, 2007; Straus & Corbin, 1990). All levels of analysis involve studying, contemplating, comparing and interpreting data. Initial coding involves staying very close to the data; taking small segments (e.g. line-by-line or incident-by-incident) and asking questions of it in order to define and label what is happening. The resultant codes are, therefore, induced from the data, which lessens the risk of forcing the data to fit preconceived ideas and prevents premature foreclosure. Thus line by line coding enhances the analyst‟s ability to be open to new ideas and concepts. By examining what is happening and what it means, the analysis is able to go beyond the explicit views of the participant and also capture implicit meanings (Charmaz, 2006).

As the analysis proceeds, coding becomes more conceptual and focussed. Focussed coding is applied to larger segments of data. It involves selecting analytically important codes and then categorising further data accordingly, thus ensuring that categories fit the data (Charmaz, 2006). Categories, which are more conceptual and less descriptive than codes, constitute the developing analytical framework

(Charmaz, 1995). Categories may encompass several related codes and may incorporate sub-categories (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Strauss and Corbin‟s concept of axial coding, which identifies the properties and dimensions of codes along with determining whether codes relate to action, strategies, context or outcomes, proved to be useful for making connections between codes and categories, and between categories and sub-categories.

66 Although the coding system is hierarchical in nature, consisting of initial, focussed and axial coding processes and a category-subcategory-code structure, in

application, the analytical process was iterative. At times, basic units of meaning were identified and then later combined to form more abstract concepts, consistent with the description of the process provided by Charmaz (2006) and Strauss and Corbin (1990). At other times, however, the superordinate was identified first, and then the subordinate properties emerged through asking axial questions of the data. For example, seeking safety (category) was identified first and seeking removal

(strategy: subordinate category) was identified by asking how does she seek safety (axial coding). Other subcategories within the safety category were incorporated by constantly comparing different incidents of seeking safety. These were then

connected to the overarching theme of women‟s needs, which is directly linked to the research aims. The end product, therefore, was an explanation that fits both the data and the research question.

Despite all the available guidance, as a novice qualitative researcher I was filled with trepidation and uncertainty. I wanted to be thorough, systematic and not make premature or unfounded interpretations but I was also fearful of missing important insights or forgetting early ideas as later ones emerged. Moreover I was concerned about failing to do justice to the trust participants placed in me as they shared their stories. However, I felt somewhat liberated by Corbin‟s (2009) reflection on the analytic process and quote her verbatim because I found her words so powerful at a time when I was still worried about “doing it properly.”

Techniques and procedures are tools to be used by the researcher as he or she sees fit to solve methodological problems. They are not a set of

directives to be rigidly adhered to. No researcher should become so obsessed with following a set of coding procedures that the fluid and dynamic nature of qualitative analysis is lost. The analytic process is first and foremost a thinking process. It requires stepping into the shoes of the other and trying to see the world from their perspective. Analysis should be relaxed, flexible, and driven by insight gained through interaction with data rather than being structured and based on procedures (pp. 40-41).

67 The importance of interacting with the data and the intuitive insights that can ensue was evident when, for example, I was re-reading the “Chelsea” transcript and was struck by her words, “I came to see him for what he is”. Although this line had not seemed to warrant much interest during earlier coding procedures, it suddenly stood out as an important factor in her eventual ability to terminate the relationship and regain her independence. That is, seeing him in a new light was part of her recovery process. It begged the question – how did she come to see him as he is? This insight and associated question, which was grounded in the data, was the catalyst for further analysis. Using the symbolic interactionist framework allowed me to

examine the role of the police, or more precisely, the role of her interaction with the police and then her interaction with herself, in coming to see him as he is. Further questions ensued such as, what else did she come to see differently. And so the analysis evolved into a combination of thorough and systematic coding along with the flexibility of following up on sudden, exciting insights that arose from prolonged immersion in the data. As my analysis progressed I became more confident that I did not want to force it to fit with notions of “doing grounded theory”. Rather, my analysis was informed and enhanced by grounded theory principles and techniques. Importantly, the analysis was induced from the data, stayed close to the data

initially, incorporated checks for fit, and become progressively more conceptual and focused as categories were constructed and refined.