This section outlines the process of recruiting participants for this project. It includes a brief overview of the sampling method and size, followed by a discussion of the sampling criteria and a detailed description of the recruitment process.
Sampling method
Qualitative research is concerned with collecting specific cases, events or actions that can clarify and deepen understanding (Neuman, 2004, p. 137) and to ‘capture depth and richness rather than representativeness’ (Padgett, 1998, p. 50). I initially decided to utilise a non- probability purposive sampling method in order to seek out
86 ‘information rich cases’ (Liamputtong & Ezzy, 2005, p. 46), with the intention of also using snowball sampling techniques. Snowballing relies on chains of referral and can be used to increase the diversity of the sample, particularly in hard-to-reach groups or women who fear exposure because of possible threats to security (Penrod, Preston, Caine & Starks, 2003).
Sampling size
The aim was to locate mothers who currently have or have had children in post- separation shared parenting arrangements in the aftermath of domestic violence. Patton’s (2005) recent feminist standpoint research on domestic violence had a sample size of 53 women. However, Patton felt she achieved saturation after approximately 30 interviews. In this study, saturation could be said to be achieved after 20 interviews, in that I was able to see the same patterns repeatedly emerging in the data and had gained a measure of appreciation of the women’s stories. A further 10 interviews were conducted to further observe an emerging similarity in the pattern of abuse between women who had or had not experienced physical violence. Limiting the interviews to 30 women achieved a balance between meeting the aims and
purpose of the study, the aims of feminist standpoint research, and the time constraints of the researcher.
Sampling criteria
Participants were included in this study if they were women who:
Are mothers with children currently or previously in their care. That is, the mother has/had primary residence and now shares the parenting with the father;
Have an ex-partner who has/had court ordered or privately arranged contact. This included supervised or unsupervised contact arrangements of any frequency or duration (for example, daytime only, overnights, weekends, holiday stays, weekly, and so on);
Self-identified as having been in an abusive relationship, whether or not this included physical violence;
87 Have been separated for at least two years prior to the interview; and
Currently reside in Tasmania.
A greater emphasis was placed on the overlap between a broader conceptualisation of domestic violence and shared parenting arrangements in general. Therefore, I did not set criteria for the particular type of shared parenting arrangement. In my experience as a counsellor, the forms of shared parenting arrangements can change very quickly between parents.
The criterion for abuse and violence posed a significant issue. As pointed out in Chapter One, at what point is a pattern of abuse identified as domestic violence if it does not include physical violence? Like Power (1998), Kirkwood (1993) and Kelly (1988), I wanted to avoid silencing women by using a particular definition of abuse, violence or domestic violence. My aim was to investigate the links between domestic violence, other than the experience of physical violence, and the experience of post- separation shared parenting. I therefore wanted to include the experiences of women who did not experience physical violence or sexual violence in their relationship, yet still considered themselves as having been in an abusive relationship. As noted by Power (1998), ‘…constructions of what constitutes an abusive relationship change … applying the language of domestic violence to a relationship is a particular strategy that not all women choose’ (Power, 1998, p. 44). This can be the case despite their experience of physical violence. The women in this study thus self-identified. If they were not sure, I used the broader definitions of domestic violence outlined in Chapter One.
I decided that the women should be separated for two years for several reasons. First, I wanted to avoid interviewing women who were in the initial period of crisis typical of separation. As with Power (1998), this was an ethical decision. Second, it
encouraged women whose arrangements for contact between the father and the children would be established to some degree. Third, it avoided a focus on a discrete stage of separation in the aftermath of domestic violence, such as two to five years,
88 and encouraged an understanding of the waxing and waning of issues over the
lifespan of a woman’s post-separation shared parenting arrangements.
I did not specify in the criteria the minimum length of living together in relationship prior to separation. This did not pose a problem until later in the research when one woman explained her relationship had been less than a year in duration and had ended soon after an unexpected pregnancy. Another woman had not had a period of living and parenting children together with her partner before separation. However, their pre-separation and post-separation experiences contributed greatly to my ability to see the patterns emerging from the data so I decided to include them in this study and have made reference to their situations in the data chapters.
Sampling recruitment
I initially expected to promote this study using strategies similar to previous
Australian researchers studying domestic violence (KPMG, 1994; Keys Young, 1998; Patton, 2005) who had proven successful in both the recruitment and protection of women who had experienced abusive relationships.
Three strategies were planned:
1. Arranging a meeting with the practitioner staff of Yemaya (North) and She (South). These agencies provide medium to long term support for women who are in or have left abusive relationships. The meetings were designed to provide information about this research and to allow for questions and clarification. Permission was requested by the researcher for these agency phone numbers to be included on fliers and the information sheet so that women could:
(a) Ring to clarify the authenticity of the research;
(b) Leave their name and contact number on the agency answering machine and have their details forwarded on to me;
(c) Speak to a worker to tell them they would like to participate and have their details forwarded to me; and
89 (d) Request debriefing after their interview if necessary.
2. Networking was to begin by contacting relevant government agencies and non- government service providers via letter. Follow-up visits were planned in order to distribute information about the research and provide fliers that might be distributed to women who could be interested in participating.
3. A media release was to be developed through the University of Tasmania’s Media Office, as Patton (2005, p. 102) found that this (and the subsequent newspaper articles and interviews) was the most successful strategy, recruiting 34 of the 53 participants in her study.
Although a face-to-face meeting with Yemaya and a telephone meeting with She were held, I found the second and third strategies were unnecessary because, over time, women came forward of their own accord. This initially occurred after
presenting my research ideas at two small conferences at the University of Tasmania where I disseminated pamphlets (Appendix A) advertising my research to counsellors and social workers who attended the conferences. Five women sought me out
afterwards to talk about participating and five women responded to pamphlets given to them by counsellors at the conferences.
As well, I inadvertently found that having conversations with women I didn’t know, such as in the supermarket or on an aeroplane, led to an exchange of information about their relationship status and my research. Women often showed enthusiasm to be part of the research. As word spread about this study, women approached me to be interviewed and then recommended the research project to other women whom they knew were in similar post-separation shared parenting situations. This allowed access to those ‘hard to reach groups’ described by Power (1998, p. 44) in her feminist poststructural analysis of women’s narrative of domestic violence. Women who would not ordinarily respond to pamphlets, attend an agency or seek professional intervention did respond to suggestions by their friends or acquaintances to
90 safety issues or too uncertain about the nature of the abuse they had experienced to respond to research invitations.
The process of snowballing was so successful that 30 women were interviewed with very little ‘formal’ promotion of the project. The strength of this sample was
increased using this method. Participants were from diverse socio economic
backgrounds and with a wide range of experiences. Their experiences also contribute to an understanding of the links between abusive relationships and post-separation shared parenting issues.
Making contact
After the initial contact by potential participants, an information package about the research was sent to those women who were still interested. This comprised an introductory letter, (Appendix B) an information sheet (Appendix C) and a consent form (Appendix D). Once the participants had received the package they were invited to contact me directly by email or telephone to organise a time and setting for an interview, or simply to discuss the interview process. They were also invited to contact Yemaya or She, although I am not aware of any women taking up this offer. The initial contact from potential participants was particularly important in order to establish a connection with the women (Patton, 2005), given the sensitivity of this research topic. I was guided by Patton’s (2005) approach in her research on women and domestic violence.
This entailed:
Providing clear, concise information on the research and on myself via the information sheet and consent form;
Skilfully establishing rapport around the sensitivity of the topic;
Responding appropriately to their concerns regarding my trustworthiness, including my knowledge of domestic violence; and
91 Detailing the importance of their participation in benefiting other women and effecting change (Patton, 2005, pp. 103–104).
I also negotiated methods and locations for contact with each participant to maximise safety and anonymity.
Only one of the women initially agreed to be interviewed but then declined. She decided it would be too upsetting. Three women asked to participate without a face- to-face interview. One of these women initially offered a face-to-face interview and then realised she would prefer a telephone interview, given the strength of her emotions after 30 years. The other two women requested that they write their stories for the same reason. These were clear indications of the emotional impact on the women of their experiences, which I took into consideration in the collection of the