Advertisement

Producing Stories About Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse: The Coral Project Methodology

  • Catherine DonovanEmail author
  • Rebecca Barnes
Chapter
  • 6 Downloads
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Victims and Victimology book series (PSVV)

Abstract

Chapter  2 focusses on the dominant methodologies for producing knowledge about intimate partner violence and abuse (IPVA), before offering a discussion and justification of the innovative methodology adopted for the mixed-methods Coral Project research. We argue that it is necessary to trouble, or queer, both the reproduction of simplistic binaries of male/female and victim/perpetrator and the invisibility of LGB and/or T+ people in the mainstream heteronormative, cisnormative IPVA literature. In particular, we critique the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) and emphasise the importance of capturing the contexts in which violence and ‘abusive’ behaviours are experienced and used. We demonstrate how our Coral Project methodology, which employed both an LGB and/or T+ population survey and follow-up qualitative interviews, sought to overcome some of the limitations of existing approaches. We explain the approach that we took to recruit as diverse a sample as we could, as well as the ethical and safety considerations that this research necessitated. Paving the way for the analysis which follows, we illustrate how the triangulation of quantitative and qualitative data can trouble simplistic readings of quantitative data.

Keywords

Coercive control Data analysis Domestic violence and abuse Measuring intimate partner violence and abuse Methodology Mixed-methods Perpetrators Qualitative interviews Research ethics Survey design 

References

  1. Abrahams, H. (2007). Supporting women after domestic violence: Loss, trauma and recovery. London: Jessica Kingsley Press.Google Scholar
  2. Abrahams, H. (2010). Rebuilding lives after domestic violence: Understanding long-term outcomes. London: Jessica Kingsley Press.Google Scholar
  3. Acker, J., Barry, K., & Esseveld, J. (1983). Objectivity and truth: Problems in doing feminist research. Women’s Studies International Forum, 6(4), 423–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ackerman, J. M. (2016). Over-reporting intimate partner violence in Australian survey research. British Journal of Criminology, 56(4), 646–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson, K. L., & Umberson, D. (2001). Gendering violence: Masculinity and power in men’s accounts of domestic violence. Gender and Society, 15(3), 358–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Archer, J. (2002). Sex differences in physically aggressive acts between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7(4), 313–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baker, N. L., Buick, J. D., Kim, S. R., Moniz, S., & Nava, K. L. (2013). Lessons from examining same-sex intimate partner violence. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 69(3–4), 182–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barnes, R. (2013). ‘I’m over it’: Survivor narratives after woman-to-woman partner abuse. Partner Abuse, 4(3), 380–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barnes, R., & Donovan, C. (2018). Domestic violence in lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender relationships. In N. Lombard (Ed.), Gender and violence research companion (pp. 67–81). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Bender, A. K. (2017). Ethics, methods and measures in intimate partner violence research: The current state of the field. Violence Against Women, 23(11), 1382–1413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bird, J. (2018). Art therapy, arts-based research and transitional stories of domestic violence and abuse. International Journal of Art Therapy, 23(1), 14–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burgess-Proctor, A. (2015). Methodological and ethical issues in feminist research with abused women: Reflections on participants’ vulnerability and empowerment. Women’s Studies International Forum, 48, 124–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Currie, D. H. (1998). Violent men or violent women? Whose definition counts? In R. K. Bergen (Ed.), Issues in intimate violence (pp. 97–111). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DeKeseredy, W. S., & Schwartz, M. D. (2011). Theoretical and definitional issues in violence against women. In C. M. Renzetti, J. L. Edelson, & R. K. Bergen (Eds.), Sourcebook on violence against women (2nd ed., pp. 3–22). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). (2014). Disability facts and figures. Retrieved September 9, 2019, from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/disability-facts-and-figures/disability-facts-and-figures
  17. Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1979). Violence against wives: A case against the patriarchy. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  18. Dobash, R. E., Dobash, R. P., Cavanagh, K., & Lewis, R. (2000). Changing violent men. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Dobash, R. P., & Dobash, R. E. (2004). Women’s violence to men in intimate relationships: Working on a puzzle. British Journal of Criminology, 44(3), 324–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dobash, R. P., Dobash, R. E., Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1992). The myth of sexual symmetry in marital violence. Social Problems, 39(1), 71–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Donovan, C., & Barnes, R. (2019, July 26). Re-tangling the concept of coercive control: A view from the margins and a response to Walby and Towers (2018). Criminology and Criminal Justice.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895819864622
  22. Donovan, C., & Hester, M. (2010). ‘I hate the word “victim”’: An exploration of recognition of domestic violence in same sex relationships. Social Policy and Society, 9(2), 279–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Donovan, C., & Hester, M. (2014). Domestic violence and sexuality: What’s love got to do with it? Bristol: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Donovan, C., Hester, M., Holmes, J., & McCarry, M. (2006). Comparing domestic abuse in same sex and heterosexual relationships: Initial report from a study funded by the Economic & Social Research Council. Sunderland and Bristol: University of Sunderland and University of Bristol. Retrieved March 30, 2019, from http://www.equation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Comparing-Domestic-Abuse-in-Same-Sex-and-Heterosexual-relationships.pdf
  25. Edin, K., & Nilsson, B. (2014). Men’s violence: Narratives of men attending anti-violence programmes in Sweden. Women’s Studies International Forum, 46, 96–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Edwards, R., & Mauthner, M. (2002). Ethics and feminist research: Theory and practice. In M. Mauthner, M. Birch, J. Jessop, & T. Miller (Eds.), Ethics in qualitative research (pp. 14–31). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Flynn, A., & Graham, K. (2010). ‘Why did it happen?’: A review and conceptual framework for research on perpetrators’ and victims’ explanations for intimate partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 239–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Francis, L., Loxton, D., & James, C. (2017). The culture of pretence: A hidden barrier to recognising, disclosing and ending domestic violence. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 26(15/16), 2202–2214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Frankland, A., & Brown, J. (2014). Coercive control in same-sex intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 29(1), 15–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Frohmann, L. (2005). The framing safety project: Photographs and narratives by battered women. Violence Against Women, 11(11), 1396–1419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA). (2014). Violence against women: An EU-wide survey: Main results. Vienna: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.Google Scholar
  32. Gadd, D., Farrall, S., Dallimore, D., & Lombard, L. (2003). Equal victims or the usual suspects? Making sense of domestic abuse against men. International Review of Victimology, 10, 95–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gavey, N. (1999). ‘I wasn’t raped, but…’: Revisiting definitional problems in sexual victimization. In S. Lamb (Ed.), New versions of victims: Feminists struggle with the concept (pp. 57–81). London: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2003). Intimate terrorism and common couple violence: A test of Johnson’s predictions in four British samples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(11), 1247–1270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hartman, J. (2011). Finding a needle in a haystack: Methods for sampling in the bisexual community. Journal of Bisexuality, 11(1), 64–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hearn, J. (1998). The violences of men: How men talk about and how agencies respond to men’s violence to women. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hester, M., Donovan, C., & Fahmy, E. (2010). Feminist epistemology and the politics of method: Surveying same sex domestic violence. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 13(3), 251–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hodes, C., & Mennicke, A. (2019). Is it conflict or abuse? A practice note for furthering differential assessment and response. Journal of Clinical Social Work, 47(2), 176–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jaquier, V., Johnson, H., & Fisher, B. S. (2010). Research methods, measures, and ethics. In C. M. Renzetti, J. L. Edelson, & R. K. Bergen (Eds.), Sourcebook on violence against women (2nd ed., pp. 23–48). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Johnson, M. P. (2008). A typology of domestic violence: Intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Johnson, M. P. (2011). Gender and types of intimate partner violence: A response to an anti-feminist literature review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(4), 289–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Johnson, M. P., Leone, J. M., & Xu, Y. (2014). Intimate terrorism and situational couple violence in general surveys: Ex-spouses required. Violence Against Women, 20(2), 186–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Karakurt, G., & Silver, K. E. (2013). Emotional abuse in intimate relationships: The role of gender and age. Violence & Victims, 28(5), 804–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kelly, L., Sharp, N., & Klein, R. (2014). Finding the costs of freedom: How women and children rebuild their lives after domestic violence. London: Solace Women’s Aid.Google Scholar
  45. Kelly, L., & Westmarland, N. (2016). Naming and defining ‘domestic violence’: Lessons from research with violent men. Feminist Review, 112(1), 113–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kimmel, M. S. (2002). ‘Gender symmetry’ in domestic violence: A substantive and methodological research review. Violence Against Women, 8(11), 1332–1363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kirkwood, C. (1993). Leaving abusive partners: From the scars of survival to the wisdom for change. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  48. Loseke, D. R., & Kurz, D. (2005). Men’s violence toward women is the serious social problem. In D. R. Loseke, R. J. Gelles, & M. M. Cavanuagh (Eds.), Current controversies in family violence (2nd ed., pp. 79–95). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Meezan, J. E., & Martin, J. I. (2003). Exploring current themes in research on gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender populations. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 15(1/2), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mennicke, A., & Kulkarni, S. (2016). Understanding gender symmetry within an expanded partner violence typology. Journal of Family Violence, 31, 1013–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Messinger, A. M. (2011). Invisible victims: Same-sex IPV in the national violence against women survey. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(11), 2228–2243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Messinger, A. M. (2014). Marking 35 years of research on same-sex intimate partner violence: Lessons and new directions. In D. Peterson & V. Panfil (Eds.), Handbook of LGBT communities, crime, and justice (pp. 65–85). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Messinger, A. M., Fry, D. A., Rickert, V. I., Catallozzi, M., & Davidson, L. L. (2014). Extending Johnson’s intimate partner violence typology: Lessons from an adolescent sample. Violence Against Women, 20(8), 948–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Messinger, A. M., Sessarego, S. N., Edwards, K. M., & Banyard, V. L. (2018). Bidirectional IPV among adolescent sexual minorities. Journal of Interpersonal Violence.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518807218
  55. Miller, S. L. (2001). The paradox of women arrested for domestic violence: Criminal justice professionals and service providers respond. Violence Against Women, 7(12), 1339–1376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Miller, T., & Bell, L. (2002). Consenting to what? Issues of access, gate-keeping and informed consent. In M. Mauthner, M. Birch, J. Jessop, & T. Miller (Eds.), Ethics in qualitative research (pp. 53–69). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  57. Myhill, A. (2017). Measuring domestic violence: Context is everything. Journal of Gender-Based Violence, 1, 33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Myhill, A., & Kelly, L. (2019, July 11). Counting with understanding? What is at stake in debates on researching domestic violence. Criminology & Criminal Justice.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895819863098
  59. Nicholls, T. L., & Dutton, D. G. (2001). Abuse committed by women against male intimates. Journal of Couples Therapy, 10(1), 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency. (2012). Census 2011: Key statistics for Northern Ireland. Belfast: Department of Finance and Personnel.Google Scholar
  61. Office for National Statistics (ONS). (2012). Ethnicity and national identity in England and Wales: 2011. London: ONS.Google Scholar
  62. Office for National Statistics (ONS). (2013). Annual survey of hours and earnings: 2013 provisional results. London: ONS.Google Scholar
  63. Office for National Statistics (ONS). (2018). Women most at risk of experiencing partner abuse in England and Wales: Years ending March 2015 to 2017. London: ONS.Google Scholar
  64. Presser, L. (2009). The narratives of offenders. Theoretical Criminology, 13(2), 177–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Radford, L., & Hester, M. (2006). Mothering through domestic violence. London: Jessica Kingsley Press.Google Scholar
  66. Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  67. Ristock, J. (2002). No more secrets: Violence in lesbian relationships. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  68. Rollnick, S., Heather, N., Gold, R., & Hall, W. (1992). Development of a short ‘readiness to change’ questionnaire for use in brief, opportunistic interventions among excessive drinkers. British Journal of Addiction, 87(5), 743–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Ruel, E., Wagner, W. E., III, & Gillespie, B. J. (2016). The practice of survey research: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Saunders, D. G. (2002). Are physical assaults by wives and girlfriends a major social problem? A review of the literature. Violence Against Women, 8(12), 1424–1448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Scottish Government. (2015). Analysis of equality results from the 2011 Census—Part 2. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.Google Scholar
  72. Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scales. Journal of Marriage and Family, 41(1), 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Straus, M. A. (1999). The controversy over domestic violence by women: A methodological, theoretical, and sociology of science analysis. In X. B. Arriaga & S. Oskamp (Eds.), Violence in intimate relationships (pp. 17–44). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Straus, M. A. (2004). Prevalence of violence against dating partners by male and female university students worldwide. Violence Against Women, 10(7), 790–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Straus, M. A. (2005). Women’s violence toward men is a serious social problem. In D. R. Loseke, R. J. Gelles, & M. N. Cavanaugh (Eds.), Current controversies in family violence (2nd ed., pp. 55–77). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Straus, M. A., & Douglas, E. M. (2004). A short form of the revised Conflict Tactics Scales, and typologies for severity and mutuality. Violence and Victims, 19(5), 507–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Walby, S., & Myhill, A. (2001). New survey methodologies in researching violence against women. British Journal of Criminology, 41(3), 502–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Walby, S., & Towers, J. (2018). Untangling the concept of coercive control: Theorizing domestic violent crime. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 18(1), 7–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Walters, M. L., Chen, J., & Breiding, M. J. (2013). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 findings on victimization by sexual orientation. Atlanta: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Google Scholar
  82. Wilcox, P. (2006). Surviving domestic violence: Gender, poverty and agency. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Durham UniversityDurhamUK
  2. 2.University of LeicesterLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations