What We Choose to Hear: Researching Human-Animal Violence

  • Nik TaylorEmail author
  • Heather Fraser
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Animals and Social Problems book series (PSASP)


In this chapter we detail the methods we used for the research that underpins this book. We start by outlining one of our research projects central to much of the data presented in the book Loving You, Loving Me: Companion Animals and Domestic Violence. We then discuss some of the theoretical, methodological, ethical, and personal issues raised for us as researchers involved in this research. We conclude by considering some of the problems associated with undertaking critically oriented research about, and on behalf of, companion animals.


  1. Adams, C., & Donovan, J. (Eds.). (1996). Animals and women: Feminist theoretical explanations. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ascione, F. R. (2001). Animal abuse and youth violence. Juvenile justice bulletin. Washington, DC: Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  3. ASPCA. (n.d.). Shelter intake and surrender: Pet statistics. Retrieved August 12, 2018, from
  4. Berns, N. (2009). Framing the victim: Domestic violence, media, and social problems. New Brunswick/London: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Campbell, R. (2002). Emotionally involved: The impact of researching rape. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Collard, R. (2014). Putting animals back together, taking commodities apart. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 104(1), 151–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cudworth, E. (2011). Social lives with other animals: Tales of sex, death and love. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Donovan, C., & Hester, M. (2014). Domestic violence and sexuality: What’s love got to do with it. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  9. Etherington, K. (1996). The counsellor as researcher: Boundary issues and critical, dilemmas. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 24(3), 339–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Finch, J. (1993). It’s great to have someone to talk to: Ethics and politics of interviewing women. In M. Hammersley (Ed.), Social research: Philosophy, politics, and practice (pp. 166–180). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Fraser, H., & Taylor, N. (2016). Neoliberalization, universities and the public intellectual: Species, gender and class in the production of knowledge. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  12. Gaard, G. (2012). Feminist animal studies in the U.S.: Bodies matter. DEP – Deportate, Esuli e Profughe, 20, 14–21.Google Scholar
  13. Hamilton, L., & Taylor, N. (2017). Ethnography after humanism: Power, politics and method in multi-species research. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kelly, L., & Westmarland, N. (2016). Naming and defining ‘domestic violence’: Lessons from research with violent men. Feminist Review, 112, 113–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lee, R., & Renzetti, C. M. (1993). The problems of researching sensitive topics: An overview and introduction. In C. Renzetti & R. Lee (Eds.), Researching sensitive topics (pp. 3–13). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Letherby, G. (2003). Feminist research in theory and practice. Buckinghamshire: The Open University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Murray, M. (2011). The underdog in history: Serfdom, slavery and species in the creation and development of capitalism. In N. Taylor & T. Signal (Eds.), Theorising animals: Re-thinking Humanimal relations (pp. 87–106). Boston/Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  18. Oakley, A. (1981). Interviewing women: A contradiction in terms? In H. Roberts (Ed.), Doing feminist research (pp. 30–36). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  19. Oakley, A. (2005). The Ann Oakley reader: Gender, women and social science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Oakley, A. (2016). Interviewing women again: Power, time and the gift. Sociology, 50(1), 195–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pain, R. (2014). Everyday terrorism: Connecting domestic violence and global terrorism. Progress in Human Geography, 38(4), 531–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rager, K. B. (2005). Self-care and the qualitative researcher: When data can break your heart. Educational Researcher, 34(4), 23–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sampson, H., Bloor, M., & Fincham, B. (2008). A price worth paying? Considering the ‘cost’ of reflexive research methods and the influence of feminist ways of ‘doing. Sociology, 42(5), 912–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sayers, J. G. (2016). A report to an academy: On carnophallogocentrism, pigs and meat-writing. Organization, 23(3), 370–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Scott, S. (1998). Here be dragons: Researching the unbelievable, hearing the unthinkable. A feminist sociologist in uncharted territory. Sociological Research Online, 3(3), 1–12. Scholar
  26. Sutton, Z., & Taylor, N. (forthcoming). Between force and freedom: Place, space and animals-as-pet-commodities. In R. White et al. (Eds.), Vegan geographies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Taylor, N., & Fraser, H. (2018). Resisting sexism and speciesism in the social sciences: Using feminist, species-inclusive, visual methods to value the work of women and (other) animals. Gender, Work and Organizations, online first.
  28. Vance, L. (1995). Beyond just-so stories: Animals, narrative and ethics. In C. Adams & J. Donovan (Eds.), Animals and women: Feminist theoretical explorations (pp. 163–191). Durham/London: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Walby, S., Towers, J., & Francis, B. (2014). Mainstreaming domestic and gender-based violence into sociology and the criminology of violence. The Sociological Review, 62(S2), 187–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. White, R. J., & Cudworth, E. (2014). Taking it to the streets: Challenging systems of domination from below. In A. Nocella, J. Sorenson, K. Socha, & A. Matsuoka (Eds.), Defining critical animal studies: An intersectional social justice approach for liberation (pp. 202–220). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand
  2. 2.School of Public Health and Social WorkQueensland University of TechnologyKelvin GroveAustralia

Personalised recommendations