Advertisement

Feminist Dilemmas in Researching Women’s Violence: Issues of Allegiance, Representation, Ambivalence, and Compromise

  • Lizzie SealEmail author
Reference work entry

Abstract

This chapter explores feminist dilemmas in researching women’s violence. It suggests that women’s use of violence is a sensitive topic for feminist researchers because feminists have sought to delineate the role of male violence in continuing women’s subordination. Highlighting women’s violence potentially detracts from this. Feminists also wish to avoid lending credence to misogynistic and antifeminist stereotypes, which inaccurately claim that women are equally as violent as men. Researching women’s violence using feminist methodologies, which place value on creating knowledge from women’s experiences, hearing marginalized voices, and democratizing the research process, raises dilemmas. The chapter considers these dilemmas across three areas – questions of allegiance, questions of representation, and questions of ambivalence and compromise. Allegiance refers whether researchers are “on the side” of their research participants, which can be a complex issue if their research participants have harmed others. The politics of representation are significant to how data are interpreted and how research participants and their actions are portrayed when writing up sensitive data. Researchers may experience feelings of ambivalence when they find their research participants difficult to empathize with and this can compromise researchers by making them in some sense vulnerable. The chapter discusses a range of examples in order to highlight these issues. Due to the limited methodological literature specifically on women’s violence, it also draws on insights from other relevant feminist and criminological studies.

Keywords

Women’s violence Feminist methodology Allegiance Politics of representation Ambivalence 

References

  1. Ballinger A. Dead woman walking: executed women in England and Wales 1900–1965. Aldershot: Ashgate; 2000.Google Scholar
  2. Ballinger A. Feminist research, state power and executed women. In: Farrall S, Sparks R, Maruna S, Hough M, editors. Escape routes: contemporary perspectives on life after punishment. Abingdon: Routledge; 2011. p. 107–33.Google Scholar
  3. Becker HS. Whose side are we on? Soc Probl. 1967;14(3):239–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blackman SJ. “Hidden ethnography”: crossing emotional borders in qualitative accounts of young people’s lives. Sociology. 2007;41(4):699–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blagdon N, Pemberton S. The challenge of conducting qualitative research with convicted sex offenders. Howard J. 2010;49(3):269–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burman M, Batchelor SA, Brown JA. Researching girls and violence: facing the dilemmas of fieldwork. Br J Criminol. 2001;41(3):443–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burman M, Brown J, Batchelor S. Taking it to heart: girls and the meaning of violence. In: Stanko EA, editor. The meanings of violence. London: Routledge; 2003. p. 71–89.Google Scholar
  8. Campbell R. Emotionally involved: the impact of researching rape. London: Routledge; 2002.Google Scholar
  9. Cowburn M. Men researching men in prison: the challenges for profeminist research. Howard J. 2007;46(3):276–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DeKeseredy WS. Violence against women: myths, facts, controversies. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 2011.Google Scholar
  11. Dickson-Swift V, James EL, Kippen S, Liamputtong P. Doing sensitive research: what challenges do qualitative researchers face? Qual Res. 2007;7(3):327–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dickson-Swift V, James EL, Liamputtong P. Undertaking sensitive research in the health and social sciences: managing boundaries, emotions and risks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. England KVL. Getting personal: reflexivity, positionality, and feminist research. Prof Geogr. 1994;46(1):80–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fitzroy L. Violent women: questions for feminist theory, practice and policy. Crit Soc Policy. 2001;21(1):7–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Friedman T. Feeling. In: Ely M, Anzul M, editors. Doing qualitative research: circles within circles. London: Routledge; 1991. p. 107–38.Google Scholar
  16. Frigon S. Mapping scripts and narratives of women who kill their husbands in Canada 1866–1954: inscribing the everyday. In: Burfoot A, editor. Killing women: the visual culture of gender violence. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier Press; 2006. p. 3–20.Google Scholar
  17. Godfrey B. “Dear reader I killed him”: ethical and emotional issues in researching convicted murderers through the analysis of interview transcripts. Oral Hist. 2003;31(1):54–64.Google Scholar
  18. Griffin G. The compromised researcher: issues in feminist research methodologies. Sociol Forskn. 2012;49(4):333–47.Google Scholar
  19. Hall S. New ethnicities. In: Morely D, Chen K-H, editors. Stuart Hall: critical dialogues in cultural studies. London: Routledge; 1996. p. 442–51.Google Scholar
  20. Heberle R. Law’s violence and the challenge of the feminine. Stud Law Polit Soc. 2001;22:49–73.Google Scholar
  21. Hesse-Biber SN. Feminist research: exploring, interrogating, and transforming the interconnections of epistemology, methodology, and method. In: Hesse-Biber SN, editor. Handbook of feminist research: theory and praxis. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2012. p. 2–26.Google Scholar
  22. Hester M. Who does what to whom? Gender and domestic violence perpetrators in English police records. Eur J Criminol. 2013;10(5):623–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hester M, Donovan C. Researching domestic violence in same-sex relationships – a feminist epistemological approach to survey development. J Lesbian Stud. 2009;13(2):161–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Holland J. Emotions and research. Int J Soc Res. 2007;10(3):195–209.Google Scholar
  25. Hollway W, Jefferson T. Doing qualitative research differently. 2nd ed. London: Sage; 2012.Google Scholar
  26. Jackson S, Backett-Milburn K, Newall E. Researching distressing topics: emotional reflexivity and emotional labour in the secondary analysis of children and young people’s narratives of abuse. Sage Open, April–June, 2013. p. 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kirsch GE. Ethical dilemmas in feminist research: the politics of location, interpretation and publication. Albany: State University of New York Press; 1999.Google Scholar
  28. Kruttschnitt C, Carbone-Lopez K. Moving beyond the stereotypes: women’s subjective accounts of their violent crime. Criminology. 2006;44(2):321–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee RM, Renzetti CM. The problems of researching sensitive topics: an overview and introduction. In: Lee RM, Stanko EA, editors. Researching sensitive topics. London: Sage; 1993. p. 49–65.Google Scholar
  30. Liamputtong P. Researching the vulnerable: a guide to sensitive research methods. London: Sage; 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Liebling A. Whose side are we on? Theory, practice and allegiances in prisons research. Br J Criminol. 2001;41(3):472–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Liebling A, Stanko B. Allegiance and ambivalence: some dilemmas in researching disorder and violence. Br J Criminol. 2001;41(3):421–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Luff D. Dialogue across the divides: ‘moments of rapport’ and power in feminist research with anti-feminist women. Sociology. 1999;33(4):687–703.Google Scholar
  34. Matravers A. Understanding women who commit sex offences. In: Letherby G, Williams K, Birch P, Cain M, editors. Sex as crime? London: Routledge; 2008. p. 299–320.Google Scholar
  35. Morrissey B. When women kill: questions of agency and subjectivity. London: Routledge; 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Oberman M, Meyer C. When mothers kill: interviews from prison. New York: New York University Press; 2008.Google Scholar
  37. Plummer K. Documents of life 2: an invitation to a critical humanism. London: Sage; 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Preissle J, Han Y. Feminist research ethics. In: Hesse-Biber SN, editor. Handbook of feminist research: theory and praxis. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2012. p. 583–605.Google Scholar
  39. Presser L. Negotiating power and narrative in research: implications for feminist methodology. Signs. 2005;30(4):2067–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ramazanoglu C, Holland J. Feminist methodology: challenges and choices. London: Sage; 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reeves CL. A difficult negotiation: fieldwork relations with gatekeepers. Qual Res. 2010;10(3):315–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Renzetti C. The challenge to feminism posed by women’s use of violence in intimate relationships. In: Lamb S, editor. New versions of victims: feminists struggle with the concept. New York: New York University Press; 1999. p. 42–56.Google Scholar
  43. Ristock JL. No more secrets: violence in lesbian relationships. London: Routledge; 2002.Google Scholar
  44. Seal L. Issues of gender and class in the Mirror newspapers’ campaign for the release of Edith Chubb. Crime Media Cult. 2009a;5(1):57–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Seal L. Discourses of single women accused of murder: mid twentieth-century constructions of ‘lesbians’ and ‘spinsters’. Women’s Stud Int Forum. 2009b;32(3):209–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Seal L. Women, murder and femininity: gender representations of women who kill. Basingstoke: Palgrave; 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Seal L. Emotion and allegiance in researching four mid-20th-century cases of women accused of murder. Qual Res. 2012;12(6):686–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Skinner T, Hester M, Malos E. Methodology, feminism and gender violence. In: Skinner T, Hester M, Malos E, editors. Researching gender violence. Cullompton: Willan; 2005. p. 1–22.Google Scholar
  49. Sollund R. Tested neutrality: emotional challenges in qualitative interviews on homicide and rape. J Scand Stud Criminol Crime Prev. 2008;9(2):181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stanko EA, Lee RM. Introduction: methodological reflections. In: Lee RM, Stanko EA, editors. Researching violence. London: Routeldge; 2003. p. 1–11.Google Scholar
  51. Wilczynski A. Mad or bad?: child killers, gender and the courts. Br J Criminol. 1997;37(3):419–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SussexBrightonUK

Personalised recommendations