Women Speak: The Value of Community-Based Research on Woman Abuse
5. INTERVIEWS WITH PROJECT LEADERS
The leadership of the ORWAS project came initially from two researchers at the Department of Justice Canada, Research and Statistics Division. The Community Abuse Program of Rural Ontario (CAPRO) became a partner in the project in its early stages. Health Canada provided financial support for the project. Interviews were conducted with the two Justice Canada researchers and the co-ordinator of CAPRO. To provide some degree of anonymity for the respondents, direct quotations are used to a limited extent in this section. Where necessary for purposes of clarity, the organisation has been identified. The questions in the interview were organised around the three project objectives, and the commentary and quotations are presented under those objectives.
5.1 Research Process
Key Factors in the Development of ORWAS
The ORWAS project developed as a number of threads came together. The Justice Canada researchers were given a directive to conduct research on violence against women in rural areas; they had an interest in doing participatory research; and they had personal experiences of living in rural and/or Northern areas and had an understanding of these areas. Justice Canada needed a connection with a community organisation, through which the Department could identify local people to train as community researchers. CAPRO had a need for documentation of rural violence as a lobbying tool, and also wished to further their goals of training community people to do community development work. So as Justice Canada and CAPRO came together, it was with a recognition that this project could potentially meet the aims of both groups.
The key factors that contributed to the development of the ORWAS project include:
- The research fit into an existing context within the organisation, and could play an identifiable role within that organisation. The project had an objective and a value beyond simply doing the research; it was part of a larger picture. For the Justice Canada researchers, a directive to conduct research on violence against women gave them the opportunity to design a process which allowed them to hear directly from the women most affected. For CAPRO, the community-based process dovetailed with their basic beliefs in community development and would provide the documentation on rural violence that they needed.
CAPRO:
“I have learned over the years that to lobby I need documentation.”
- The researchers had a desire to do qualitative research, guided by previous work in the area. There was a deep commitment to exploring a participatory, community-based, feminist process.
“The other thing that we came across in the literature is that here’s a movement that is about women and the women are invisible.”
-
The leaders had a commitment to ethical, meaningful research. They wanted to do research differently than the traditional paradigm because they thought the benefits to the communities would be greater in a community-based approach.
“The impulse for me to engage in this kind of methodology is that it hopefully exploits the respondents less and creates opportunities for the participants to continue whatever constructive process might happen along the way.”
- The Justice Canada researchers had a personal connection to rural areas and brought with them an understanding of rural issues and an interest in exploring these issues in a way that would be acceptable in rural communities. Of course, CAPRO’s mission is specifically concerned with abuse in rural areas, so the rural connection is built in to CAPRO’s perspective on the project.
Funding
Securing funding for the project was a challenge that continued through the life of the project. The Justice Canada researchers continued to seek funding for the project as it evolved. Not having the money at the start of the project created uncertainty for both Justice Canada and CAPRO. For Justice Canada, this uncertainty had an impact on their project planning, while for CAPRO it caused some cash-flow problems.
CAPRO:
“I had to wait a long time to get reimbursed … We have to recognise that with nonprofits when they are project-based, that there's a little more problem that way financially.”
Working with Community Researchers
The involvement of community-based researchers was a key feature of this approach. The community researchers did not necessarily have research skills, or extensive knowledge of woman abuse issues, but they did have a willingness to participate in a project of this nature in their communities. There were clear reasons that the leaders chose to work with community people rather than hiring professional researchers. Working with community people also raised challenges for the leaders.
The community researchers brought knowledge of their communities that would not have been possible for an outsider to obtain.
Challenges identified by the leaders were those of range of research experience, distance, transportation, general co-ordination of six locales, and security. Finding enough time when everybody could be together seemed to be the biggest challenge of all.
“The challenges were that they all came with different backgrounds and different degrees of ability to converse with us about research issues, research methods. Some of them had done quite a bit of research, others hadn’t. There was also an age range. But that was the challenge. The challenges also enriched it because we got such a range of perspectives, informing the work and the methods. The other challenge was distance and co-ordination and communication.”
The community researchers, together with the project leaders, developed a strong bond and commitment to the project and to each other.
“Everybody brought something to the group. It’s that kind of stuff you can’t impose … It either happens or it doesn’t.”
The honorarium paid to the community researchers was seen by the Justice Canada researchers as inadequate, given the amount of work that the researchers did. However, the community researchers began the project expecting only a small honorarium.
Justice Canada:
“I certainly would have liked to have given them more than an honorarium, that’s for sure, because I know how hard they worked.”
Method
The project leaders generally felt that the methods used in ORWAS were appropriate and had worked well, although more time for data analysis would have been useful.
Interviews were considered to be the only appropriate way of collecting information in keeping with the goals of the project.
Transcription of the interviews was done by staff at Justice Canada. This process was time consuming, and the sound quality was not always good enough for easy transcribing.
“That would be a little tip. Making sure that your tapes are high quality.”
Data analysis was done using “sticky notes” to identify themes. This proved to be a lengthy process. Although the plan had been to involve the community researchers in analysis, lack of time meant that most of their time together was spent sorting the data into headings.
“We barely got to where their insights and their analytical perspective could have been really helpful, because we just spent so much time sorting into headings. Under more ideal circumstances that work would have already been done before they would have arrived.”
Community focus groups were conducted by the community researchers with service providers and community members. The community focus groups were intended to provide an indication of the community perspective on woman abuse. This was an important part of the process for CAPRO, as an indication of “where the community was at”, thus providing CAPRO with a starting point for work in the community. For the Justice Canada researchers, there was some initial uncertainty as to how the focus group process would fit with the interview process, and upon reflection, the suggestion was made that a different sequence might have been more useful.
Justice Canada:
“ [ Would have been better to ] do the research with the women first as the owners of the experience and then using that for community education … The focus group first of all had to satisfy themselves that it was a problem … Had they had the result of what the women had to say, and then structured the discussion along that line, it would have been a better use of everybody’s time.”
Each community researcher wrote a community report based on the interviews and focus groups that she had conducted. These reports were intended to communicate results to the participants fairly quickly after the interviews. The Justice Canada researchers knew that finishing the synthesis report would be a lengthy process, and did not want the survivors to have to wait for that before they saw any result. The community reports, once read by the survivors, acted as a validity check for the analysis process. The community reports were also intended to be used to address the issue within each community, aiming to contribute to local ownership, action and advocacy.
“So they could be used at the community level. So that there would be a product owned by the women who participated in the study … and used in whatever way they wanted to use it.”
Although it was not part of the method, the project could have extended the participatory approach by involving survivors in the research. Although they are open to the idea, and see the potential benefits of such involvement, the Justice Canada researchers are cautious about assuming that the survivors would be willing or interested in being more involved. They also recognise that it would be an enormous undertaking to involve survivors from multiple locations.
5.2 Effects of Participating
Emotional Effects
Although the project leaders did not conduct interviews themselves with survivors, they did read the transcripts and participate in the data analysis and report writing. The emotional effect of their exposure to the interview transcripts was similar to that of the community researchers: they felt overwhelmed by the content of the interviews. They also found the experience to be meaningful in terms of leading to their own growth and personal reflection. One researcher described feeling shamed, because she saw that the survivors had so much trust in government, and yet she was aware of the difficulties there would be in creating change at the policy level.
“It was overwhelming at times, and then I think about the researchers, and I think how overwhelming it must have been for them at times. It's affirming in another way; the stories have to be told.”
5.3 Benefits of a Collaborative Partnership
Roles of CAPRO and the Department of Justice Canada
The Justice Canada researchers felt that they needed a connection to a community-based organisation so that there could be access to community-based researchers and to survivors of violence in those rural communities. This access was achieved through the relationship with CAPRO. Justice Canada was able to provide co-ordination for a multi-site project, expertise in research and training, project funding, and in-kind supports for the community researchers.
Justice Canada:
“If I were to do it again, I would do it exactly the same way, with wanting to hook up with a community-based organisation that already had contacts in the community.”
There were some challenges in the relationship between Justice Canada and CAPRO. Issues of power were identified as central to the challenges. The project leaders were clear that in a government/community organisation partnership, there will inevitably be a power differential. The challenge is not to eliminate the differential, but to acknowledge it, and then take steps to create a level playing field where possible. All parties feel that working openly on power and role issues is necessary for an effective government/community partnership. They also acknowledge that the trust and comfort necessary for an open dialogue only comes with time, so these issues need to be monitored as the project progresses.
“I don’t know how to address that [power differential] except to spell it out as clearly as possible at the outset and get senior level commitment to that as well.”
Impact on the Department of Justice Canada
The Justice Canada researchers felt that the research findings would have a positive impact in their department and other departments. At the time of writing, some findings had already been brought forward within departments. Despite the positive contribution made by the research, however, they felt that there would be some hesitation about the qualitative, participatory methodology among researchers who were accustomed to quantitative approaches. They anticipated that there would be a need to present the research as a valid and rigorous piece of research, in order to counter some of the methodological criticisms.
Impact on CAPRO
CAPRO considers the ORWAS project as a tool in its community development work. Their position is that research can be used to determine and support future directions for action. Both CAPRO and Justice Canada agree that the research should be used to propel further action on the issue of rural woman abuse. They also appear to agree that Justice Canada is not the organisation that will be responsible for driving that action at the community level, but rather that CAPRO will play that role.
CAPRO:
“Our research is always very action oriented and the research does not sit on a shelf. We use it to propel us to the next step.”
Impact on the Communities
One desired outcome of ORWAS was to contribute to community ownership. Community ownership is seen as a key part of encouraging community change in responses to violence against women.
“There is potential for actually creating opportunities for action on the ground through more participatory research process than you have in more conventional research approaches.”
“If there's more ownership and responsibility there will be more action.”
ORWAS was not a grassroots project that came from the communities. Therefore, there were challenges associated with it having an impact in the communities. All project leaders see that community-level change is desirable and worthy of support. However, the next steps toward community change, and the actual mechanisms of change, are still to be determined. The skilled researchers in the communities may be a resource for ongoing work on the issue, although the ways that they might be involved are uncertain. There is no specific plan for their continued involvement on the issue, but new projects may find ways to draw on their skills. The next step may be to involve community members in decisions about community action, an approach favoured by CAPRO.
“The information needs to go to them [the community] and then the next step is asking them what they think needs to be done.”
- Date modified: