Women Speak: The Value of Community-Based Research on Woman Abuse

4. INTERVIEWS WITH COMMUNITY RESEARCHERS

The following presentation of interview material is based on the analysis of a group interview by conference call with four community researchers and of individual interviews with each of these community researchers. The questions in the interview were organised around the three project objectives and the quotations and commentary are presented under those objectives.

4.1 Research Process

Training and Meetings

One of the highlights for the community researchers was the group interaction.

“The relationship during the meetings was great, they’re a fantastic group of women.”

Practice interviews with women volunteers from a second-stage housing project were conducted in Ottawa during one of the training sessions. These practice interviews with women survivors of violent relationships were found to be helpful in building confidence in their interview skills.

“And that was really helpful because it gave us a chance to interview, they told us their stories and then they gave us a critique about how we interviewed, how they felt and how it could have been done more effectively, so that was really important, I think.”

The community researchers expressed frustration that there never seemed to be enough time when they were together for training sessions and meetings. On the one hand, they described the training sessions as “excellent”, but also used such words as “gruelling”, “exhausting”, “draining and difficult” and “frustrating at times.”

“It was like, ‘Okay guys, we’ve got two and a half days, let’s just do it,’ whereas if we had more time to talk about things it would have … made me more relaxed anyway.”

“It wouldn’t have been an issue for me if we’d had more time to work together as a group. But I always had that pressured feeling.”

One researcher spoke of how she would have liked to know what was ahead but that “they didn’t either”, referring to the Department of Justice Canada researchers. The lack of structure made some of the community researchers uncomfortable.

“A lot of unknown. The training was excellent. Always a good agenda and handouts. You knew what you were doing at each meeting, but not at the next meeting until you got there.”

Interviews and Focus Groups

In general, the community researchers found the interviews to be an effective method of gathering the information. Some thought the interviews were definitely “the best part” of the work.

“Doing the interviews didn’t really feel like work. It felt like, you feel like you’re a friend going over for coffee.”

“It was exciting work, especially the interviews.”

Although it seems that she had no difficulty getting into the story with the survivors, one researcher said that the interview experience was “never easy” and that she found it “scary”. Another spoke of a feeling of “helplessness”.

“Sort of at a loss sometimes because I wasn’t there as a counsellor and sometimes it seemed like they needed someone to talk to in a counselling session.”

Many of the researchers found the focus groups a challenge to organise.

“That was sheer hell! Initially when we talked about it I thought it was a great idea but when I started to organise them I found that nobody wanted to come. Nobody.”

“There were people in the community that really didn’t want to participate.”

“Tense to get going. Who to bring together.”

In spite of some reluctance to participate, when a focus group came together, the researchers found that it went relatively smoothly and the members participated fully.

“They really did work.”

“That was great. I enjoyed that … I couldn’t shut them up.”

“They went well. The people that did come were willing to talk.”

Analysis

The data analysis was done as a group during a two-and a half day session in Ottawa. Prior to arriving, the community researchers were to have categorised their transcript data according to the topics in the research framework, using any method they chose. Once in Ottawa, an exercise using “sticky notes” was utilised to identify themes and develop the framework for the community reports. This necessitated each researcher going through her transcripts and writing on individual post-it notes the significant quotes for each theme that arose from the interviews. The analysis proved to be a bigger task than anticipated and researchers’ reactions to this exercise varied.

“I was really scared … It was so mind boggling and vague and huge.”

“So it was scary to be confronted with all this paper.”

“I had no idea how to pull out facts for the reports, had a really hard time with that.”

Some found the results of the sticky note exercise very satisfying.

“Stickies were phenomenal.”

“Amazed at how they could pull information out of a few sheets of paper.”

Report Writing

Each community researcher was responsible for writing the report of the findings from her own community (although a Justice Canada researcher wrote the community report in one case in which the community researcher could not continue). The Justice Canada researchers developed a common framework for these reports based on the results of the theme analysis in Ottawa. Researchers were encouraged to follow the framework and to use direct quotations from the survivors’ transcripts.

The writing of the community reports was a stressful experience for most of the researchers. This was due in part to the fact that the original target date for completion was delayed and researchers found themselves writing the report when they were otherwise very busy, and in part because they had no model to follow. The common framework provided headings only and left many decisions about style to the individual researcher.

“My fear was, was I doing it the right way? The way they wanted it?”

“I wasn’t sure if I was doing the right thing.”

“I felt perfectly capable of doing it, but I didn’t know if I was doing it in the right sort of way. And nobody seemed to know.”

There was consensus among the researchers that there was too little direction given in how to write the community report.

“That would have helped to take a bit of the pressure off to talk just a little bit about what type of structure we would use and the styles we would use in writing it up. That’s an area I think we overlooked.”

A couple of the researchers had to take time away from their jobs to accomplish the writing.

“I worked 4 very long days, 5 am to midnight.”

“The report had to be written at a very busy time in my life, so it was very busy and I’ve never seen a summer pass so fast. It was emotional and tiring and draining.”

The CAPRO Conference

The Department of Justice Canada researchers and the community researchers presented the community reports at a conference sponsored by CAPRO in December 1998. The conference focused on a number of rural, women’s, and community development issues, in keeping with CAPRO’s mandate to address rural woman abuse through community-based action. Police officers, service providers, policy analysts and many other interested parties attended the conference. The findings of the ORWAS project, as one of the projects that CAPRO was involved, were presented at one of the sessions. Although not all of the researchers were able to attend the conference and some for only a portion of the time, it was generally considered to be a valuable opportunity to bring some closure to the project.

“Being part of the group at the conference was neat. Closure for us.”

“I was able to be there for the whole thing. Very valuable to be there.”

Assessment of Method

The community researchers agreed that they would recommend more planning. Although there was acknowledgement that such a project requires a non-structured environment to some degree, frustrations were expressed about the need to be more focused in order to make the best use of limited time and resources. Researchers felt that this lack of structure was a reflection of the fact that they were, to some extent, “breaking the trail”.

“Because it was from scratch we went in a lot of directions at times.”

“Maybe it will be simpler for the next group that comes along.”

When asked to evaluate the use of community-based methodology for such a research project, the researchers were generally supportive. Two of them made the point that the topic of the research should determine if a community-based methodology is the most appropriate method.

“It was for this topic because it is intimate.”

“Anything where you’re trying to evaluate human experience … I don’t think you could get truer results than you could in this type of research.”

“There were so many layers and layers of information that came out through this process that we would never, ever have come upon if we had done it in a traditional kind of way.”

Othermerits of the community-based approach that the researchers identified focused on its applicability in rural areas.

“It’s hard to understand the dynamics of rural Ontario, you have to be brought up or live in that kind of environment.”

“To have people who actually are rural contribute their input really kept that kind of focus on the project from beginning to end.”

“… and the unique opportunity it provided for community people to be involved in research.”

“It’s a great opportunity for local people to find something interesting to work at that they wouldn’t normally have the opportunity to do otherwise.”

Two of the researchers talked about another distinct advantage that community-based research offers to the community in terms of fostering change.

“You give ownership to the community … It’s therefore their responsibility to continue, carry through with the project, find some of the solutions, put them into practice. I think it’s excellent.”

“Keep the skills in the community. Because of that I’m able to take the data through the violence council and through victims services and try to implement changes.”

The involvement of a researcher who knows the area well and is known was also seen as beneficial.

“I think there was definitely local-speak with all of the women. To what degree that influenced how comfortable they were with me, I don’t know. I don’t think it hurts to be a community person.”

“They know me. I am an active member of their community, I have my face in the newspaper, and they know that if they had to that they could get a hold of me.”

Value of a Participatory Approach[1]

Community researchers strongly believed that it was important for them to be involved in every aspect of the project and that there were definite advantages that accrued from the participatory approach. Some of the advantages they identified were as follows:

“We were all really, really committed to the process … which makes you that much more sensitive to the people that you are interviewing.”

“It gave it a power, I think, that you couldn’t have had if someone, a third party, would go through those transcripts and pull out different issues.”

“It made us accountable to each other in some ways. We saw ourselves as a community.”

“I don’t think anyone else could have written the report … It’s a sensitive topic, it has to have that kind of sensitivity and emotion to it to really do justice to what the women told us.”

“I think that’s the key for this whole project, such a collective process.”

“They [Justice Canada researchers] had the belief … that we all had something to contribute, some knowledge or expertise in our area, and that that could be useful. They believed that we were all capable of doing this. That was a huge help for me.”

The Role of Compensation

Initially, the community researchers were offered an honorarium of $1000 for their work on the ORWAS project and all out-of-pocket expenses covered. It seems clear that money played little part in the community researchers’ decisions to participate in the project.

“I work for a lousy salary, so it’s the process, the project, the issue.”

“And I was really excited to be doing research so money was not a motivator.”

As the project became more involved than originally anticipated, community researchers were relieved to learn that the honorarium would be increased to $3000.

“Which was nice because when I found out how much work it was, I don’t think $1000 would have covered it.”

“Thank goodness they managed to push that up a little as the project grew.”

When asked if the compensation was adequate, the community researchers’ responses indicated that there was some conflict in their minds concerning this question. It is interesting to note that the issue was never discussed in the group.

“The honorarium validated that what we were doing was important.”

“By the end I didn’t think so. ‘Cause I was so tired. But looking back on it, for me it was.”

“That sort of ran through my mind after we got into it and after the ball started rolling. I thought, ‘Well, gee, here I have this flipping degree. What did I work for, so I could do free research, basically?”

“I would still have done it if I wouldn’t have been paid.”

Some of the community researchers questioned the reasons for paying only an honorarium to community members. However, it must be noted that even those who voiced criticisms did not regret their participation.

“Is it ethical to do it that way? Probably not. You know, just because you’re doing work with community members does that automatically devalue what they’re worth?”

“They managed to save themselves quite a bit of money by doing it this way. That’s another benefit, if they put it towards the [National] debt.”

The community researchers recognised that funding is almost always a problem for research projects, and acknowledged that they received in-kind supports and valuable research experience in lieu of increased compensation. When considering how the project would have been different if there had been more financial compensation for their work, the community researchers voiced doubts about their participation and about the fate of the project.

“The project would never have panned out to anything if real world salaries were paid. And that’s too bad.”

“I would have said, ‘Oh my god, do I have the skills? Am I worthy of $20,000?’. And frankly, they probably would never have hired me, not having any experience.”

I would have been much more intimidated by the project, that’s for sure.”

“And maybe that’s what contributed to getting a group of people together that were so enthusiastic because they weren’t doing it for the money.”

4.2 Effects of Participating

Reasons for Participating

Although all the community researchers were interested in the topic of rural woman abuse, that was not what prompted them to participate in ORWAS. Their personal circumstances at the time of the study provided the motivation for most of them to get involved. The reasons they gave fell into one of three categories:

Expectations

It is clear that none of the researchers knew what to expect at the outset of the project. Most knew only that it involved some kind of research on violence against women.

“I really wasn’t sure what I had said yes to.”

“I really had no idea, in fact I didn’t know until the first meeting, as to what I was really getting into.”

This uncertainty created some concerns among the researchers in the early stages of the project.

“I had such different expectations, it kind of caught me off guard, so I really felt in the first day or two of that meeting that we were all over the place, not focusing.”

“Not so much misgivings as concern that I really didn’t know what was expected of me. Was I going to be able to live up to [Justice Canada Researchers’] expectations, that was my fear at that point.”

Emotional Toll of the Interviews

One of the community researchers said that even though she works with abused women regularly, “ I was not prepared for the emotional effects on me.” In asking herself why she was so affected by the work, she postulated that it could be related to the importance of the study and “the impact the overall study would have.”

Researchers described the emotions they experienced after doing the interviews in the following terms:

The researchers were impressed by the strength of the survivors.

“They agreed, they gathered the strength and courage to do it [participate]. That had an overwhelming effect on me.”

Emotional Toll of the Transcripts

One researcher described the period of receiving and reading over the transcripts as “intense”. Others said that they were not prepared for the intensity of the emotions that they experienced. In comparing the reading of the transcripts to hearing the women’s stories for the first time in the interview, one community researcher described it this way:

“You could have let it go when you heard it the first time, but now you’ve been poking at it like a scab covering a sore. Now it’s starting to bleed because you’ve been going over it so much.”

The researchers described their reactions to reading the transcripts in the following ways:

Researchers spoke of “carrying [the women’s] stories” and being able to hear the women’s voices again as they read the transcripts. The cumulative effect of the stories was “like bringing all of those women into one room.” Although generally they said they enjoyed doing the interviews, they found that reading the transcripts was surprisingly difficult.

“Going through the transcripts was just a burden, it was a burden, a very heavy feeling.”

Several researchers suggested that they could have been better prepared for the emotional impact of the work.

“We could have had a little more information on vicarious trauma.”

Benefits of Participating

The researchers all stated that it was a valuable experience that they would repeat if circumstances would allow. The following benefits were identified:

Challenges Associated with Participating

Lack of time was the most commonly cited challenge that arose during the course of the project. Community researchers were not aware at the outset of the time commitment they were making.

“Time was certainly our biggest enemy throughout the whole thing.”

“Quite a lengthy process. I was used to a smaller scale that gets done quicker.”

“It dragged on. When we first started I thought it would be maybe a two to three month project. I did not anticipate it going on for a year and a half.”

Because the project stretched out over a considerably longer period of time than initially envisioned, the community researchers found that their circumstances changed. All of the researchers were faced with choices between ORWAS and their other commitments, and one researcher had to leave the project before the end.

“I was wishing it would end.”

“I had to take some time off work and do my calls at night.”

“For me it ended differently than I thought it was going, than I expected because I couldn’t make it to one of the meetings after all the transcribing was done … because of a work conflict … so it ended more abruptly than I thought it was going to, or hoped it was going to, basically.”

It is interesting to note that, in spite of the pressure, none of the researchers wanted to quit the project before it was over, including the one researcher who was unable to continue.

“Never a time when I thought of giving it up. Probably a time when I think I wished I hadn’t taken it.”

“I didn’t want to walk out without knowing how it would end.”

Another aspect of the time issue that was identified by one researcher was the difficulty she had in scheduling interviews.

“Just doing the scheduling of interviews and focus groups, I found that took up a lot of time. Finding the women to interview.”

One researcher expressed concerns about the effect the extended time frame had on the participants as well as on the community researchers.

“For those who were very eager to see the final copy, it was an exercise in patience.”

4.3 Benefits of a Collaborative Partnership

Impact at the Local Level

Two of the community researchers were optimistic that ORWAS would result in some positive change at the community level. One researcher had already seen evidence of change in her own community, while another was anticipating that some changes would happen in her town. It is interesting to note that these two researchers are the two who are employed in anti-violence agencies in their community.

“I know locally what we are doing is taking information and making changes here.”

“It has stirred up a lot of activity anyway in a sense … Because of the project it’s gotten other people involved in the issue in this area.”

Another of the researchers did not expect to see change in her own community.

“Didn’t gain a whole lot of ground. I think they’ve seen so many studies come and go that, it’s not to say that they totally discredit it, but they don’t find it worthy of their time because they don’t think that it’s going to make any change.”

The hope was expressed that CAPRO would take the lead in facilitating change at the local level.

“But I really see … CAPRO taking the information and running with it and doing something concrete with it that will lead to good consequences, concrete results.”

“Maybe CAPRO could look at that if nobody else takes the initiative.”

Impact at the Government Level

There was much less optimism among the community researchers concerning the possibility of change occurring at the provincial or national government level as a result of ORWAS. One researcher expressed the opinion that it was important for the Department of Justice Canada to have been the vehicle for this project because “it gives good exposure to this type of research”, but “I can’t really see them doing incredible things with it.” Another researcher expressed similar cynicism: “You hear of so many things that government does that don’t come to anything.”

It seems that the community researchers generally felt that it was up to the communities to take the responsibility for making change happen.

“If all communities would talk, have meetings, handouts … ”

“But at least we who participated will have taken what we learned and walked away and tried to do something. So it wasn’t for nothing. I will never feel that way.”

Impact on the Participants

Two of the community researchers expressed a sense of pride in having made a valuable contribution to the issue of violence against women.

“To know that because of the project it’s stirred up the fire a bit and in some way I have just a little bit to do with it. That’s good.”

“I got such a gratifying feeling from doing that because I spoke to people who were in the audience [at the CAPRO conference], and they were so impressed with the information that had been gathered, with the work that had been done, they felt it was such an important part of the conference.”

When asked to assess what changes participation in the ORWAS project would bring for the survivors, the community researchers saw some very positive effects.

“She said, ‘I’ve never been the same.’ And I thought, ‘Is she going to say I wish I hadn’t done it?’ and she said, ‘I wish I had done it, I wish I had had the opportunity, I wish somebody had asked me about this forty years ago.’”

“She has told me how it has opened up her life.”

“One said to me that her life has changed so much since the interview and she looked at all she had accomplished. Reclaimed her spirit.”

“And I know from just speaking with her recently that she said, oh definitely, it had a very big impact on her.”

“A couple who dealt with social services, some satisfaction that someone was listening to them, really listening to how they were treated.”

On the other hand, researchers also reported that the survivors expressed doubt as to the value of the research.

“Some were hesitant to believe that the report could make a difference.”

“A standard reaction was, ‘What will be next? Will this change anything?’”

One researcher said she found it frustrating to not be able to guarantee the survivors that the study would yield positive results in terms of making a difference for other abused women.

“All the survivors were so keen on participating to make a difference, participating to help someone else … And that was a question that was asked, ‘What is it going to do?’ I think that would have been the hardest, not being able to give them the [answer].”

[1] “Participatory approach” is defined here in terms of the involvement of the community researchers in all aspects of the research. This is distinct from the meaning of participatory that might be used in methodologies like Participatory Action Research, in which participatory would mean grass-roots involvement of survivors.