The Ontario Rural Woman Abuse Study (ORWAS), final report

3. RESEARCH STRATEGY AND METHODOLOGY

3. RESEARCH STRATEGY AND METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Scope

The literature review undertaken by Brookbank (1996) revealed that there was a lack of statistical data, as well as limited original research on family violence in rural areas.  In 1998, the project backgrounder (Biesenthal and Sproule, 1998) further reinforced this data gap.  The backgrounder, which included an updated literature review, made the following observations pertaining to directions for further research on woman abuse in rural areas:

3.2 Research Approach

Building on the initial literature review (Brookbank, 1996) and the project backgrounder (Biesenthal and Sproule, 1998), a program of research was developed by the Department of Justice Canada on violence against women in rural areas that recognised the need for both quantitative and qualitative research.  In an effort to address the limited statistical information available on domestic violence in rural areas, a quantitative assessment was required which assessed available Canadian victimisation data.  A project was developed with the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada, to undertake a detailed statistical analysis of the 1993 Statistics Canada Violence Against Women Survey (N=12,300 interviews) from an urban and rural perspective (Levett and Johnson, 1998).  The analysis concluded that overall,women living in rural areas reported only a

slightly less amount of abuse in comparison to urban women (26% and 30%, respectively), however, the sample size was often too low to report certain phenomena in rural areas.

While such an analysis provided a much needed national perspective on the extent to which women in urban and rural areas experienced violence, the data alone could not respond to some of the narrower gaps of information that were identified in the literature.  In order to address some of these voids, it was clear that a qualitative, community-based research methodology was required to better understand the nature of woman abuse in rural areas and to develop a more comprehensive and informed response to it, from a policy perspective.  Given the gendered-nature of the violence, it was felt that such a method required that the research focus on women’s experiences, as told by women survivors.

3.3 Methodology

Due to time, resource and access constraints, it was not possible to undertake the research in-house.  Informed by principles of participatory, collaborative, feminist and community-based research methodologies, the Departmental researchers were committed to an inclusive research methodology.  As such, in order for the research to be truly community-based, it was imperative that the research skills came from, or were developed and kept in the community. It became apparent that in order to fulfil these requirements, a community-based partner was needed.

As previously noted, this project was the result of the collaboration between the Department of Justice and CAPRO.  In light of CAPRO’s mandate and interest in the issue of woman abuse, the partnership was a natural one.  CAPRO’s contacts in rural communities across Ontario facilitated the identification and recruitment of researchers in each of the six sites.  The sites were chosen according to their demographic profile, location and size.  The community researchers were selected for their commitment to the issue of domestic violence and were trained by the Department of Justice researchers.

The research team consisted of two Department of Justice principal researchers (who were raised in rural communities), six community researchers, and the CAPRO co-ordinator.  Over three 2-3 day workshops, the team collectively developed the research scope, themes[2], interview guides[3], and participation criteria for the project, as well as a guide for conducting focus groups[4].

3.3.1 Research Focus

It was agreed that the initial focus of the research would be the women’s experiences.  As the women had lived the abuse, they were recognised as the experts and it was therefore imperative that the evidence came directly from them.  In an effort to generate a thorough picture, it was decided that perspectives were also needed from community service providers (e.g., police, crown counsel, shelter workers, doctors, case workers); community leaders (e.g., reeves, municipal councillors, clergy); and everyday citizens.  It was felt that since the abused women live within their communities and continuously interact with each of these groups, the community context needed to be taken into account.

3.3.2 Creating the Research Instruments

The team met to establish the research focus and the instruments that were to be used in the study.  As the team felt that the issue of woman abuse needed to be located in a broad framework, they identified eight themes that require further investigation with survivors.  These included:

The techniques employed to gather information on these themes included interviews with survivors and focus groups with community members.  Minimally, 10 qualitative, in-depth, open-ended interviews (which were recorded on tape) with women survivors were to be held in each site.  Criteria for participation included the requirement that all survivors must have terminated their relationships for at least a year.  In addition, they could not be engaged in a court case.  Open-ended interview guides for survivors were developed with suggested phrasing of questions to assist the interviewer.  The interview guide was designed to “meet women where they were at”.  They were to be used as tools to guide and facilitate the interview, not strictly to control the data being collected.  Consent forms were developed and signed by all survivors who participated.

In an effort to connect the issue of woman abuse to the community, three individual focus groups were to be undertaken with community residents, service providers and community leaders.  The community focus group guides were developed around five key questions:

The community researchers conducted all of the interviews and focus groups.

3.3.3 Preparing the Team for Fieldwork

The community researchers were trained during two team workshops by the Justice Canada principal researchers.  This training included preparation in how to undertake one-on-one interviews and how to facilitate focus groups.  The interview guides were developed with direct “step by step” instructions leading up to the interview/focus group, with topic areas to be covered in the interview, tips for phrasing questions, and room to record questions that worked well for the researcher.  The researchers tested the interview guide and simultaneously practised their interview techniques with survivors from an Ottawa second stage-housing program.  The tool was refined and made ready for the field.

Each community researcher was set up with a confidential private telephone in their home with voice mail.  This was to ensure that anyone participating in the study could contact the researchers with any questions.  Each researcher was further prepared for the field with “Research Kits”.  The kits included:

Each community researcher also prepared a list of local contact numbers for emergency services to be distributed to the survivors.  As well, all the researchers contacted their nearest shelters to inform them that the study was ongoing in the community.  The shelters in all six communities were supportive of the project.  Some shelters directly assisted the researchers by providing space to conduct the interviews, suggesting research contacts and participating in the focus groups.

3.3.4 The Harvest:  Information Data Gathering and Sorting

The community researchers conducted a total of 60 qualitative, in-depth interviews with women survivors of abuse.  The interviews lasted between one and three hours.  The researchers also hosted three 1 to 2 hour focus groups with community residents, service providers and community leaders.  Several researchers also conducted key informant interviews with participants who were unable to attend the community meetings.  More than 100 individuals participated in the research study.

Upon completion of the interviews and focus groups, the researchers sent the tapes to Ottawa for transcription.  Transcribers typed the content of the tapes and removed any references that could identify the participants.  Two copies of each interview transcript were sent back to the researchers -- one for their files and one for the survivor/key informant.  The researchers distributed the transcripts as well as any requested tapes to the participants.  Only a few survivors requested changes to the transcript.  Only one copy of the focus group transcripts was sent to the researcher.  Due to time constraints, focus group participants did not have the opportunity to comment on the transcript.

Upon completion of the interviews and focus groups, the researchers were brought together again to reflect on the process and collectively analyse the data at a fourth workshop.  It became apparent that the process had had a profound impact on the researchers and all persons who had participated.  It was decided that participants needed to receive something fairly quickly which reflected their participation as well as the community-specific issues that were captured in each site.  As a result, it was collectively decided that each community researcher would prepare a community report based on an in-depth perusal of the interviews and focus group transcripts.

In an effort to build a framework for the community reports, the community researchers were asked to identify common themes that arose from their data.  From these themes, a common framework emerged that captured the implications of rurality on woman abuse.  In an attempt to provide a product that reflected the knowledge and experience of the participants, the reports were compiled with extensive quotes from the survivors’ interviews and focus groups.

Each community researcher prepared a draft community report that was given to the survivors for their reflections and input.  Final reports were completed by mid-September 1998 and distributed to all research participants.  All participants were informed that a synthesis report that summarised the findings from all six sites would be compiled and distributed.

In December 1998, the researchers participated in the final ORWAS workshop to discuss the project’s findings, the contents of the synthesis report, to reflect on the research process and to discuss future directions that evolved out of ORWAS.[5]  The workshop was hosted simultaneously with the Communities Against Violence conference organised by CAPRO.  Here, the researchers presented the ORWAS findings for the first time publicly.  In addition, the researchers facilitated a workshop on how to increase awareness about woman abuse utilising rural community assets.