Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Queering Narratives of Domestic Violence and Abuse

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Victims and Victimology ((PSVV))

  • 749 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    We chose the terminology ‘same-sex, bisexual and/or transgender relationships’ to encompass any relationships where either the respondent or their partner identified as LGB and/or T+. Whilst clunky, our intention was to move beyond the focus in the COHSAR research on same-sex relationships, and to be inclusive of bisexual people with opposite-sex partners and trans+ people who identify as heterosexual. In our work now, we tend to refer to LGB and/or T+ people’s relationships, and we also recognise that the terms same-sex and opposite-sex reinforce a cisnormative gender binary.

  2. 2.

    Respondents were invited to leave their contact details if they were willing to take part in a follow-up interview, but these details were securely stored separately from the rest of their data.

  3. 3.

    Ethnicity statistics in the UK are devolved, making it difficult to make comparisons with a UK-wide sample. In England and Wales, people in Black, Asian, mixed or other minority ethnic groups accounted for 14% of the population in the 2011 census (ONS 2012). However, the corresponding figures from the 2011 censuses in Scotland and Northern Ireland are just 4% and 1.8%, respectively (Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency 2012; Scottish Government 2015).

References

  • Abrahams, H. (2007). Supporting women after domestic violence: Loss, trauma and recovery. London: Jessica Kingsley Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abrahams, H. (2010). Rebuilding lives after domestic violence: Understanding long-term outcomes. London: Jessica Kingsley Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acker, J., Barry, K., & Esseveld, J. (1983). Objectivity and truth: Problems in doing feminist research. Women’s Studies International Forum, 6(4), 423–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackerman, J. M. (2016). Over-reporting intimate partner violence in Australian survey research. British Journal of Criminology, 56(4), 646–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, J. (2002). Sex differences in physically aggressive acts between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7(4), 313–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, R. (2013). ‘I’m over it’: Survivor narratives after woman-to-woman partner abuse. Partner Abuse, 4(3), 380–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1979). Violence against wives: A case against the patriarchy. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobash, R. E., Dobash, R. P., Cavanagh, K., & Lewis, R. (2000). Changing violent men. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donovan, C., & Hester, M. (2014). Domestic violence and sexuality: What’s love got to do with it? Bristol: Policy Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frankland, A., & Brown, J. (2014). Coercive control in same-sex intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 29(1), 15–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frohmann, L. (2005). The framing safety project: Photographs and narratives by battered women. Violence Against Women, 11(11), 1396–1419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA). (2014). Violence against women: An EU-wide survey: Main results. Vienna: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartman, J. (2011). Finding a needle in a haystack: Methods for sampling in the bisexual community. Journal of Bisexuality, 11(1), 64–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hearn, J. (1998). The violences of men: How men talk about and how agencies respond to men’s violence to women. London: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Johnson, M. P. (2008). A typology of domestic violence: Intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karakurt, G., & Silver, K. E. (2013). Emotional abuse in intimate relationships: The role of gender and age. Violence & Victims, 28(5), 804–821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kelly, L., & Westmarland, N. (2016). Naming and defining ‘domestic violence’: Lessons from research with violent men. Feminist Review, 112(1), 113–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimmel, M. S. (2002). ‘Gender symmetry’ in domestic violence: A substantive and methodological research review. Violence Against Women, 8(11), 1332–1363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkwood, C. (1993). Leaving abusive partners: From the scars of survival to the wisdom for change. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mennicke, A., & Kulkarni, S. (2016). Understanding gender symmetry within an expanded partner violence typology. Journal of Family Violence, 31, 1013–1018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messinger, A. M. (2011). Invisible victims: Same-sex IPV in the national violence against women survey. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(11), 2228–2243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Myhill, A. (2017). Measuring domestic violence: Context is everything. Journal of Gender-Based Violence, 1, 33–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Nicholls, T. L., & Dutton, D. G. (2001). Abuse committed by women against male intimates. Journal of Couples Therapy, 10(1), 41–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency. (2012). Census 2011: Key statistics for Northern Ireland. Belfast: Department of Finance and Personnel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office for National Statistics (ONS). (2012). Ethnicity and national identity in England and Wales: 2011. London: ONS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office for National Statistics (ONS). (2013). Annual survey of hours and earnings: 2013 provisional results. London: ONS.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Presser, L. (2009). The narratives of offenders. Theoretical Criminology, 13(2), 177–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radford, L., & Hester, M. (2006). Mothering through domestic violence. London: Jessica Kingsley Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ristock, J. (2002). No more secrets: Violence in lesbian relationships. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruel, E., Wagner, W. E., III, & Gillespie, B. J. (2016). The practice of survey research: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scottish Government. (2015). Analysis of equality results from the 2011 Census—Part 2. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scales. Journal of Marriage and Family, 41(1), 75–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Straus, M. A. (2004). Prevalence of violence against dating partners by male and female university students worldwide. Violence Against Women, 10(7), 790–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walby, S., & Myhill, A. (2001). New survey methodologies in researching violence against women. British Journal of Criminology, 41(3), 502–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walby, S., & Towers, J. (2018). Untangling the concept of coercive control: Theorizing domestic violent crime. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 18(1), 7–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Wilcox, P. (2006). Surviving domestic violence: Gender, poverty and agency. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Durham University, Durham, UK

    Catherine Donovan

  2. University of Leicester, Leicester, UK

    Rebecca Barnes

Authors
  1. Catherine Donovan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rebecca Barnes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catherine Donovan .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Donovan, C., Barnes, R. (2020). Producing Stories About Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse: The Coral Project Methodology. In: Queering Narratives of Domestic Violence and Abuse. Palgrave Studies in Victims and Victimology. Palgrave Pivot, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35403-9_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35403-9_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Pivot, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-35402-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-35403-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation