La eclesiología del Concilio Vaticano y el derecho

Feeling comfortable with the broad theoretical scaffolding made explicit in chapter one, it was time to turn to questions of method – not an issue anticipated would present any particular difficulties. As this comment indicates/suggests, decisions and choices relating to specific research methods can seem almost automatic, even dictated, by particular philosophical positions (Acker, Barry & Esseveld, 1983). In this case, my chosen topic area appeared to automatically rule out a range of potential choices. For instance, participant observation and similar strategies are considered (at least by advocates of these methods) to produce the most richly detailed information (Letherby, 2003). However, their application in the area of domestic violence is clearly restricted - both in ethical and practical terms. The use of survey instruments, while having the potential to provide useful information around incident rates and the like, was a strategy I also gave little serious consideration. Experiential strategies were also precluded without serious consideration on the grounds of both safety (to participants and researchers) and ethical issues. While this data gathering method has the potential to provide useful information around incident rates and the like, I held a strong belief that ‘good’ feminist research is, and should be, firmly grounded in the details of women’s experience (Smith, 1987, Ramazanoglu & Holland, 2002, Naples, 2003). To borrow from Ramazanoglu and Holland, “feminist research is politically for women; feminist knowledge has some grounding in women’s experiences, and in how it feels to live in unjust gendered relationships” (2002, p. 16). The detailed accounts I saw as necessary to the project certainly seemed unlikely to result from use of any closely structured data gathering instrument, hence I chose to interview women who had lived through experiences of violence and abuse.

This position was/is grounded firmly in a feminist standpoint epistemology - in the belief that it is women’s experientially based accounts which offer us the best hope of obtaining the richly textured and nuanced information needed to produce accurate portrayals of women’s lives (Harding 2004). At the time, I therefore interpreted this particular form of method as involving a relatively simple process of going out and talking to women who had the experience that I was interested in researching. The myriad implications

contained within my largely uncritical adoption of this position remained unexamined as I began fieldwork – secure in an intuitive sense of the solidity and ‘rightness’ of the method selected. Face-to-face interviews presented as both the most appropriate, and in fact most viable, option available to me (Acker et al, 1983). In justifying my adoption of this position I must emphasise that it in no way signals an outright rejection of

quantitative data gathering methods. Such a position would be short-sighted and merely the mirror opposite of critiques leveled at qualitative methods. As Oakley (2000) points, there is nothing inherently good or bad, or right or wrong about either side in this debate – it is the way these are used or misused that should be the subject of critique, rather than the methods themselves. In addition, as Letherby notes “…if we focus on distinct

approaches and emphasize their differences we risk dividing feminist explanations into disparate positions, which is inappropriate as it implies mutual exclusivity, whereas many feminists have sympathies with aspects of each approach.” (2003, p. 43). For instance, data generated via quantitative means offers great value to those working in the area of domestic abuse - most specifically in relation to questions around funding and resource allocation issues, and must therefore be retained as a vital element of research in this area. That said, data obtained via this strategy cannot help but miss or gloss over the human reality/experience underpinning the numbers and percentages – an element absolutely necessary to change-focussed feminist activism. One can scarcely expect to design effective social change strategies without insight into the ways in which these experiences feel and their effect upon people’s everyday lives.

With this decision made, it then became important to determine which specific form of interviewing strategy was best suited to the topic concerned. As noted by Letherby

from extreme versions, they cannot always be clearly identified as qualitative or

quantitative in nature. At one pole of the continuum for instance, quantitatively oriented research will employ rigidly structured interview schedules offering only a limited range of possible responses, with participant answers required to fit within a range

predetermined by the researcher. Such research also normally requires that interviewers are carefully selected and coached to ensure that even the way questions are put remains uniform. Training in ways to limit the exchange of information with participants – in relation to the interviewer’s life, thoughts and/or opinions, and how to avoid entering into discussion around the research question itself are generally part of this coaching process (Babbie, 1995). Ideas like these were/are thought to maintain scientific detachment and objectivity and limit the possibility of researcher bias11_.

These ideas around scientific knowledge, particularly the notion that researchers should (or even can) aspire to a rigid objectivity and separation from both their topic area and the ‘subjects’ of their research have long been the subject of critique within both sociology and feminism. As many of these critics, including most feminist writers, point out, attempts to maintain an objective ‘scientific’ stance are impossible, given that all researchers are themselves part of the social environment under investigation. C. W. Mills, for instance, noted that “the social scientist is not some autonomous being standing outside society. No-one is outside society, the question is where he stands within it” (1959, p.204). Because of this pre-existing social positioning, there is no way to ensure researcher immunity from the range of socially constructed understandings and ‘common sense’ knowledge always and everywhere present in relation to any specific research question. By extension, there is equally little chance of eliminating the possibility of researcher bias. In relation to this project, such a strategy was clearly unworkable, most especially given my explicit commitment to a distinctly ‘biased’ political position. At the other end of the spectrum, a purely qualitatively focussed researcher will attempt to conduct interviews with sometimes little discernible structure, using interview

11 _{For examples see Goode and Hatte, 1952, Kahn and Cannell, 1957 or most pre-1970 research methods} texts.

schedules consisting of a range of key themes or suggestions within a broad topic area. If using this style, interviewers attempt to minimise differences – particularly in relation to issues of power- between themselves and respondents. In short, every effort is made to conduct the interview as closely as possible as a conversation between equals, with research participants encouraged to guide and shape interview direction – the participatory research strategy first suggested by Ann Oakley (1981) in discussing problems and contradictions raised in her research on motherhood. At first glance this appeared the most appropriate style to adopt, but was not without its own particular set of problematics.

I was in fact reluctant to fully embrace either of these extremes. Certainly neither seemed entirely suited to the project. I realized that if I insisted on maintaining my political stance and yet still wanted to maintain control over the direction of the project –

including some ability to direct the course of the interviews, my choices were relatively limited. The first option, given the specific research area, was rejected for a range of reasons, mainly related to the potential such a strategy contained to alienate and further traumatize participants. I was asking women to talk about relationships characterized by control, abuse and extreme power differentials. The idea that worthwhile information could be gained via a strongly controlled process seemed highly unlikely. The second position was also rejected as unsuitable, but for very different reasons. While, in theory, I wanted participants to discuss what they thought were the key, or most important,

elements of their experience, I was nonetheless pursuing my own particular research agenda – an agenda based on my questions and research requirements. Therefore, what I actually required from participants were their answers to my questions. To pursue a totally free-form and unstructured interview strategy would have meant taking the risk of participants failing to address the questions I had identified as central. So, while slightly uncomfortable with the idea of controlling the content or direction of participants’

narratives – a point somewhat at odds with my understanding of ‘truly’ feminist research, I was strongly aware of the need to maintain at least a degree of control over the

So, with these two extremes put to one side as unsuitable or simply inappropriate, yet still sure that in-depth interviewing was the most likely method to generate rich and detailed data, the decision to adopt a mid-point strategy – semi-structured in-depth interviews, was more a matter of necessity than choice. The semi-structured format was ‘chosen’ to fulfill two main criteria. Firstly, I hoped that participants would feel more relaxed with a conversational approach and thus be more likely to engage in open and frank discussion. That the interview be conducted in a relaxed and informal manner was an important point given the intimate and potentially distressing nature of the research topic. It was also hoped that this format might encourage participants to take a proactive rather than purely reactive role in conversational direction. To ensure though that the conversation

maintained its/my focus, an interview schedule12 _{was prepared, consisting largely of}

questions related to central themes. This was designed as a general rather than prescriptive guide and aimed to ensure that central issues were at least touched upon during each interview. Using a loosely formatted interview schedule in this way allows space for participant’s words and understandings to emerge without prompting. At the same time though it must be acknowledged the interview schedule was constructed according to my understanding of domestic abuse and was therefore designed to elicit information around the questions I, rather than participants, considered of primary importance.