Talento Humano

Within a constructivist framework, the researcher plays a central role in the

production of knowledge. It is recognised that objectivity is an unattainable ideal of a positivist paradigm, which does not fit with the assumptions of a constructivist approach. The challenge for the qualitative researcher is to be aware of subjectivity and personal bias and to endeavour to identify the influence it may have on the analytic and interpretative process. Although we cannot separate our sociocultural history from our interpretive processes (Schwandt, 2000), we endeavour to be vigilant in ensuring our interpretations are grounded in the data rather than grounded in our own personal worldview. Nevertheless the prior experience, particular

interests and characteristics of the researcher will unavoidably influence the data collection processes, from the wording of questions to the development of rapport, and in determining what issues will be probed within the interview setting.

Similarly, during the analysis, the way we make sense of the vast amount of data collected will in part be influenced by the issues that stand out as most interesting or important. This is of course a matter of subjectivity; certain concepts will be more salient to us than others. As Charmaz (2009) argued, a reflexive stance, which is also a basic tenet of a feminist approach to research, is required.

To facilitate an awareness of and make explicit my own biases, and in

acknowledgement of the subjective nature of the research process, it is appropriate to make a reflective, personal statement. In reporting this and in describing the steps taken in the analysis, it is common practice amongst qualitative researchers to use the personal pronoun in acknowledgement of the researcher‟s intrinsic involvement in the construction of findings (Ponterotto, 2005).

I first became professionally interested in the area of policing IPV when I was working under contract as a research officer in the Policing Research Unit (PRU) at

46 Victoria Police in 2003. Shortly after my employment, the PRU was assigned to design and conduct a feasibility study of proposed legislative and procedural changes to the Crimes (Family Violence) Act 1987 (Vic) that the Victoria Police Legal Policy Unit was considering progressing to the Police Minister. The brief was to canvass views on the appropriateness, implementation issues, and anticipated benefits and risks of the proposed changes, as well as to consider alternative or additional changes. One of the more substantial changes was the introduction of a police holding power, whereby police could take a suspected perpetrator into custody for the purpose of applying for an intervention order. I was assigned to take a leading role in the project, working alongside a Sergeant who brought to the project many years of organisational knowledge and policing experience, including several years in one of the now defunct community policing squads, which

previously responded to IPV and child abuse. During the course of the project, interview data was collected from 30 police officers, two Magistrates, two

Registrars, two men‟s behaviour change program workers and six domestic violence social workers.

The PRU was reluctant to directly seek the views of victims of IPV recognising their vulnerability and possible reliance on the police in the future, which they felt contributed to an unacceptable power differential between the researchers and potential victim-participants. Therefore, domestic violence social workers were recruited to represent the views of the women they work with. I was ambivalent about this decision. Although I believe it was made with the best interests of victims in mind, I felt it was somewhat paternalistic. I was also not convinced that the social workers views would necessarily mirror victims‟ views, particularly since not all women seeking assistance from police necessarily engage with domestic violence social workers. I felt there was a gap in the information sought, and therefore, when I initially undertook this study, although its focus and aims were quite different, I wanted to ensure that victims‟ views were central.

During my time at Victoria police, and particularly through my work on the feasibility study, I gained considerable firsthand experience of the police culture. I was exposed to many different personal views about the police response to family violence both formally in the interview process and incidentally when talking

47 casually to colleagues about the project. As an insider, I believe police responded to my questions with an openness that might not be apparent in their dealings with people outside the organisation. This insight was valuable during the current research as it facilitated rapport building and emboldened me to be more probing with my questioning than I might otherwise have been. My understanding of the police culture and behaviour influenced my construction of the interview questions (see section 3.5.1.7). I believe it also influenced, and indeed enhanced, the

interpretative process during data analysis.

My personal belief, which evolved during my time at Victoria Police, about the police attitude towards policing IPV is that most officers start out with very

idealistic hopes of helping victims and making a difference in people‟s lives. Their optimism is quickly eroded once they are confronted with the realities of the nature of violent relationships, and they become frustrated by the forces that operate to keep women entrapped. They are further frustrated by what is seen by many as time consuming and wasteful paperwork that ultimately results in achieving very little tangible change in the lives of the women to whom they respond. Some are further influenced by older and much more cynical members to see policing IPV as a futile effort. These officers come to have a much greater affinity for other areas of

policing. However, there are also many officers who, although often frustrated and at a loss as to how to better help women escape IPV, remain committed to doing their utmost to enforce the law and contribute to women‟s safety. I was mindful of these members when writing the implications for policing in the discussion chapter.

My own personal life experience has also undoubtedly influenced my approach to the study. I understand relationship ambivalence. I understand how difficult it is to make the decision to leave a relationship, and how it is even more difficult and frightening to implement that decision, even when violence has not been present in the relationship. I also understand the insidious nature of destructive forces within a relationship. I have experienced the gradual, almost indiscernible deterioration of a relationship and the animosity that seemed to be unavoidably associated with its ending, compounded further by the adversarial nature of divorce. I felt tremendous empathy for the women I interviewed through these personal experiences. I believe my genuine compassion enhanced the interview experience. Additionally, my

48 knowledge of police processes and family violence legislation facilitated the

interview process as I readily understood the procedural aspects of the encounters with police that the women described. My knowledge of policing and legislation sometimes provided an opportunity to reciprocate by answering questions that victim-participants may have had regarding police processes and intervention orders. On the other hand, I sometimes struggled when I inferred that some women still maintained a degree of ambivalence. I had to refrain from taking the stance of counsellor or advocate. This was particularly difficult with women who were still living with their abusers and even more difficult when women voiced concerns about the emotional welfare of their children.

Another issue that caused great difficulty for me was in the choice of terminology when referring to the women I interviewed. In order to acknowledge the strength and endurance of women who are victimised by their intimate partners, a feminist perspective advocates the use of the term survivor or at least victim-survivor. Undoubtedly, I saw resourcefulness, dignity, fortitude and a remarkably humbling lack of self-pity in the women I interviewed. However, I could not reconcile myself to use the survivor terminology as it seemed to denote that survival has been

accomplished, and that the experience itself had been somehow one of

enhancement. In my mind, it does not give credence to the loss and suffering that women continue to endure, even long after a violent relationship has ended. Although these women were resisting violence, and some were recovering, they were certainly far from thriving. Further, I believe all the women interviewed were still being victimised to an extent, and still struggling to exert their right to live their lives independently and free from abuse. Therefore, while still being far from ideal, and cognizant of the danger of reducing women to victims (Denzin, 1984; Lempert, 1997), I settled for the term victim.

When developing my candidature proposal a question that really interested me was: How can police help women extricate themselves from an abusive relationship? Embedded in that question was the more fundamental question of why women stay in a relationship once violence has occurred. Landenburger‟s (1989) stage model of the process of entrapment in and recovery from an abusive relationship helped answer that question. Leaving is a process, not an event, as is entrapment, or as

49 Kirkwood (1993) described it, entanglement in an inwardly spiralling web of power and control. Landenburger‟s theory really spoke to me, especially her emphasis on the importance of the ways in which women construct meaning about their

experiences rather than the specific experiences per se. I found it enlightening and inspiring. It helped me understand how women struggle to find a way to survive or escape an abusive relationship. I did not want to disregard Landenburger‟s insights. As Charmaz (1995) advised, initial interests and perspectives can be used as points of departure, which enhance the development of ideas as long as we are also open to alternative ways of interpreting the data. Consequently, the Landenburger model was instrumental in developing my primary research question of whether

relationship stage influences victim-police encounters. However, I also needed to be open to other ways of accounting for the victim-police encounter; I did not want to force the data to fit Landenburger‟s model.

In contemplating my biases, the question I thought most pertinent to ask myself was, do I have an agenda? First and foremost, I want to contribute to the improvement of the police response to women experiencing IPV. Secondly, I would like to help police feel more satisfied in this area of their work. I believe these goals are intrinsically linked and any improvements to the policing in this area would be mutually beneficial to police and victims. So do I have a personal agenda? Yes, I believe so. I would like to see a social milieu, within the police force and the broader community, where intolerance of abuse is a deeply embedded value and practice, not mere rhetoric. I would like to see instilled in police the belief that every encounter with an abused woman provides an opportunity to help in some way, at the very least by demonstrating an uncompromising intolerance of IPV. I would like every abused woman to have confidence in the police response to IPV. I recognise that these are idealistic aspirations but I hope the findings of this study will make some contribution to that aim. I also am aware that these aims could inadvertently lead me to see more potential in the police response than is actually warranted; again, this was an influence that needed to be monitored.

50