Those consenting to take part in the study received a written outline of research
guidelines detailing their rights to withdraw at any time. The written outline explained
how the information would be used and advised of any potential negative
consequences of taking part in the research. As well as receiving this in writing;
participants had this explained verbally when making contact to ask them to take part
in the research. The process was explained on initial contact and then reiterated at the
time of interview. In addition, on consenting to take part in the study were asked to
sign to say they understood the nature of the research.
Participants were interviewed on a one to one basis either by telephone (due to
location) or face to face in a comfortable setting allowing time for breaks determined
at their request. Interviewees were given the choice of interview location so they felt
most comfortable, i.e. a Gentoo local office which had full safety policies and practices
in place, a local refuge which again had safety policies in place or their home (if they
no longer lived with the perpetrator). I ensured personal safety at all times by checking
into my workplace before and after each interview. Some participants were London
based so telephone interviews were utilised. Participants were given the opportunity
to select their own pseudonyms where necessary and all participants were advised
they could refuse permission for their information to be used.
Westmarland and Downes (2013); Antle and Regehr (2003); Edwards (2010) outline
the essential elements of informed consent should involve key factors such as an
152
the risks and benefits of participation so that an individual can make a meaningful
decision and enough time and space for an individual to fully consider involvement.
Given the sensitive nature of the research it was essential that I was aware of any
emerging ethical considerations that may have arisen during the research process.
Downes, Kelly and Westmarland (2014) comment that scrutiny of violence and abuse
as ‘sensitive’ topic that involves ‘vulnerable’ groups has made ethical clearance more challenging. They highlight the ethical dilemmas often faced by researchers in the
subject area necessitates a balance between informing social science research on the
issue and consideration of the impact on participants. There is a difficulty in framing all
victims as vulnerable and as a homogenous group given they may be at very different
stages in their journey and have other variables that may impact on whether they are
deemed vulnerable. The women interviewed were certainly not a homogenous group
and at differing stages in their recovery.
Fontes (2004) considers the effect of prior trauma on potential participants’ ability to understand the risks and benefits of participating in research and asks if women
experiencing or emerging from chronically abusive relationships can actually give
informed consent, or is their judgement impaired? Alternatively, a generic approach to
vulnerability and to avoid research for concern of impact on victims can according to
Downes, Kelly and Westmarland (2014) strip potential participants of their agency to
make an informed choice. They assert that refusal to participate is in fact a
demonstration of that agency and argue that it’s important to re-frame ‘victims’ as active stakeholders and agents in the research. This was apparent in some of the
153
to tell their lived experience of domestic abuse. Some women felt that by sharing their
experience they could help other women who may experience abuse acknowledging
that whilst they might find it upsetting they felt it would be worth it. In addition to having
altruistic reasons for wanting to participate in the research in that it could help other
women, some felt it would be a cathartic experience and commented afterwards it had
been a useful process for them. Although abuse is still considered by many to be a
‘private’ and ‘sensitive’ issue, Walker (1984) and McCosker (1995) highlight that many women interviewed feel a sense of relief to be able to talk about their experience ‘Being interviewed by you was more useful than the counsellors at X’. (McCosker, 1995, p.4).
On this theme, Kelly et al. (1992) argue that talking about the effects of experiences of
violence can be both cathartic and traumatic. To this end it was imperative to stress
the voluntary nature of the participation throughout the interviews and women could
withdraw at any time. Ford and Reutter (1990) assert this is more important than the
informed consent forms provided at the beginning of the process. I made clear the
interview would not continue with any participants who I felt may be damaged by
participating.
At the beginning of each interview I explained that I worked at Gentoo and as some of
the women interviewed were Gentoo tenants it was important to consider the impact
this could have. In using interviews with victims it was necessary to be aware of the
power imbalance in using the interview process is prone to a power imbalance in that
the interviewer initiates the interview, determines what will be discussed, manages the
interview guide, and ultimately decides when to terminate the conversation (Brinkmann
154
Women were asked to select the interview location and whilst most women selected
to be interviewed at home one woman chose to be interviewed at the Gentoo office.
Whilst I made it clear that although I was employed by Gentoo I was undertaking the
interviews as a researcher, whether women were interviewed at home or the Gentoo
office it is worth noting the power imbalance in the interviews as they were tenants of
the organisation that manages their homes and who they pay rent to. For those women
who were, or had been Gentoo tenants I was concerned that the women may have felt
obliged to participate. In an attempt to mitigate this; I spoke with support workers on
what the research was about and how the interviews would be conducted. The support
workers had a relationship with the women based on trust and support, which was a
useful conduit to the women considering participation, meaning they could ask
questions and raise any concerns with someone they trusted that they may have had
about taking part. Once women had agreed to speak to me to see if they would take
part, I spoke to each woman by telephone and if they were happy to go ahead we
arranged an appointment.
With respect to women interviewed in their home, the fact that the women had trusted
me enough to invite me to their home went a little way in counteracting the power
imbalance between researcher and participant. Morgan and Spanish (1984) assert
that much guidance on interviewing participants does not consider the importance of
the ‘spaces and places’ (Elwood and Martin, 2000), whilst Kreuger (1994) advises that researchers should use a neutral location to interview respondents. As the research
was undertaken from a feminist perspective it was crucial to mitigate any power
155
the home would not be considered neutral it was imperative the women felt
comfortable and in control as much as possible. Elwood and Martin (2000) suggest
that by participants having a choice in where they are interviewed may feel more
empowered. I reasoned that by that interviewing women in their own homes (their
choice) represented to some extent a choice they had power over, whether to invite
me in or not. I took the invitation very seriously and felt that being in their home it gave
me greater insight into them and their experiences. One woman wanted to show me
around her home and to illustrate how she had created it from nothing after leaving her
husband and much loved home of over forty years. I sensed this was important to her
and served as a pre-amble and statement as to where she was currently; a survivor,
before discussing more painful things in her past. I sensed it gave me greater insight
and understanding as to her sense of home and sense of pride in what she had created
mirroring Elwood and Martin’s point (2000) who state interview locations offer the researcher richer knowledge from the interview content alone. Ethically, I felt I had to
return to her and check that I had her permission to write about these observations as
she had consented to an interview and may not have been aware of my writing of
reflections pre-interview. I felt I needed her express permission to write about these
experiences as they felt very personal and something I have often reflected on since.