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

6. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

In this section, the views of the survivors, community researchers, and project leaders are discussed under each objective of the study. The authors have used the data generated by this case study as a backdrop in analysing the benefits and the knowledge that may be gained from using a collaborative, community-based methodology. This discussion of findings is presented with accompanying recommendations for researchers who may be interested in using a similar methodology. Recommendations are grouped at the end of each section to accommodate the fact that many of the themes cut across some or all of the three groups.

6.1 Research Process

Survivors

Many of the women who chose to participate in ORWAS were motivated by the desire to make good use of a bad experience. While it is impossible to know why some women chose not to participate, for those who did, it seems that once they had made the decision to participate, they did not have any significant doubts about confidentiality or anonymity. The majority were interviewed in their homes and found that comfortable. Taping of the interview sessions did not seem to create any problems. It is not clear that the choice of a community researcher made the decision to participate any easier for the survivors. Although knowing the interviewer may have made them less nervous before the interview, even the women who did not know their interviewer said they found the experience to be comfortable and positive.

It seems that even more important than having a researcher who is a known member of the community, it was important for the survivors to have personal contact with a sensitive interviewer in a familiar setting. The open-ended interview format and the sensitivity of the community researchers allowed the survivors to tell their stories in an atmosphere of respect. This respect was further evidenced by the opportunity for the women to provide feedback on the transcripts and on the draft report. The transcripts yielded rich data, surprising even some of the survivors with the amount of information they felt comfortable sharing.

Many of the survivors indicated that they would have liked to meet the other participants. Although this was not a required part of the study design, two of the community researchers gave the women the option of meeting after the community report came out. For those survivors who took this opportunity, it was generally viewed as a valuable experience that further reduced their feelings of isolation in their community. Future similar research projects may want to include such a meeting as an option for the participants.

It is interesting to note that when survivors were asked if they would have liked more involvement in this study, most said no. When asked if they would like to be more involved in a future similar study, most said yes. This would seem to suggest that their participation in this study sparked an interest in research and perhaps increased self-confidence in their ability to make an important contribution in this field. This is an indication that, for most of the women, the research process was empowering.

Community Researchers

As the ORWAS project evolved, community researchers developed a strong bond with the project leaders and with each other. All the interviewees spoke very warmly of the other researchers and leaders, and expressed their appreciation for the opportunity to be part of such an enthusiastic and positive group of women. The bond among team members contributed to the success of the project by providing positive, shared experiences, even when the work was difficult and demanding. The high degree of commitment to the project speaks favourably of the effectiveness of the team building process. It is important to invest significant time and effort into team building.

The leadership of the Justice Canada researchers received high praise from the community researchers for the way each member’s experience and insight was sought and utilised. The community researchers strongly believed that the participatory method made the project stronger, the findings more significant and the experience more memorable for all who participated. It was their opinion that the employment of community members as researchers resulted in the collection of data of greater quality and depth than would have been possible with researchers from outside the survivors’ communities.

The project that the community researchers thought they were signing up for was clearly not the project that they ended up with. Initially, they believed that their involvement would be limited to doing interviews over a period of about three months. The fact that the project stretched out over a full year while they went on to assist with data analysis, writing the community reports and reporting publicly on their findings caught them by surprise and caused some difficulties for all of them.

Community researchers identified lack of time as the most serious obstacle encountered. Three specific difficulties with time were identified. The first difficulty concerns the lack of forewarning about the full extent of the commitment involved in such a project. Project leaders should attempt to be as clear as possible about the time commitment required at the outset of the project.

The second difficulty concerns the issue of deadlines, which seemed firm but ended up being changed frequently. While this flexibility was welcome and necessary in some respects, it did have the result of delaying the project, thus creating more conflict with other responsibilities for the community researchers.

One final difficulty with time concerns the frustration expressed by most of the team members about the training sessions and especially about the data analysis meeting. There was too little time for the amount of work that needed to be accomplished and team members said they often felt rushed. Future project leaders should be aware of the difficulties of trying to co-ordinate meetings with community researchers, and of not setting an overly ambitious agenda.

It may not be realistic to suggest project leaders build more time into the process. It may be that more planning and somewhat more rigid guidelines are necessary. There are advantages and disadvantages of an evolving process such as the ORWAS project. The employment of a research model that was meant to evolve throughout the process, the sense of ‘making it up as they went along’ left some of the community researchers worried that they were not doing it ‘right’. On the other hand, that same dynamic process may have kept all members of the team interested and involved throughout in spite of the extended time.

What other factors may have motivated the researchers to get involved and to stay involved throughout the unexpectedly long process? As they indicated, most of them were in a period of low employment activity and were interested in research for various reasons. Clearly, money was not a motivating factor, but the research experience was seen as a form of compensation. In considering the question of monetary compensation, it is noteworthy that most of the community researchers did not see themselves as being worthy of being paid standard research rates yet were well able to do the work required of them. Some of them felt that the project would have been less effective if ‘expert’ researchers had been used, yet at the same time expressed questions about whether their contribution had been undervalued.

Project Leaders

Development of the method

The ORWAS project happened because there was a place for it to happen within Justice Canada, and because of the commitment of the leaders to do meaningful research in a qualitative, community-based way. For any future project, this kind of context and commitment will be necessary for success. The co-ordination, planning and execution of a research project of this type place great demands on everyone concerned, and cannot be undertaken lightly.

The Justice Canada researchers chose to work with community researchers in order to work within communities in a respectful way. The partnership with CAPRO had the result of successfully linking the community researchers to the project. Certainly the Justice Canada researchers identify that working with these women was the best part of the ORWAS project for them, and they feel that using community-based people to conduct the interviews was an advisable path to follow.

Funding

Because CAPRO was under a research contract to Justice Canada, CAPRO was expected to incur the costs of the researchers’ travel and other expenses and then to invoice Justice Canada for those costs. This is a standard arrangement for federal departments when they administer research contracts. CAPRO, as a small, non-profit organisation, does not have deep pockets and struggled to front the money for these costs. Community organisations can bring a great deal to research projects, but they do not generally bring a lot of ready cash. In government/community partnerships, alternative contract arrangements should be made when government enters into agreement with community organisations.

Securing funds for the ORWAS project was an ongoing challenge. The approach taken by the Justice Canada researchers was to plan the research program, and then find funding for one step of the project at a time. Although this ultimately proved to be a successful approach, the lack of full, up-front funding may have proved to be an obstacle to complete, long-range planning. The community researchers did not know what they were committing to at the beginning; this is due in no small part to the uncertainty around funding. The project evolved as new money was found to support parts of the project; as the project evolved, so did the tasks of the community researchers.

Although the community researchers received an honorarium for their work, they were basically volunteers rather than paid staff. This meant that they became involved with the project because they wanted to, rather than for financial reasons. This may have contributed to the strong commitment made by the researchers to see the project through. Having a volunteer research team may, therefore, have been an asset to the project. However, using volunteers also meant that the Justice Canada researchers were not in a position to set deadlines, insist that community researchers attend meetings, or make other demands. Having a paid research team might have reduced the level of commitment the researchers brought to the project, but it would have allowed the team leaders more control over the process, and the project might have been completed in less time. If this had been a paid position, the community researchers would not have had to make choices between their paid work and the ORWAS project, as they sometimes had to do.

The Justice Canada researchers both feel that greater compensation for the community researchers would have been desirable and justified, although there were challenges in accessing even the amount of money that was available for the project. This struggle for adequate funding is typical of community research in general. To augment the limited financial compensation, the Justice Canada researchers provided many in-kind supports for the community researchers. They made every effort to accommodate other pressures in the community researchers’ lives when scheduling the conference calls and meetings. The Department of Justice Canada provided all of the transcription of interview tapes and covered the costs of many lengthy conference calls to keep the research team in close contact. To assist the community researchers in writing the community reports, Justice Canada research staff subjected all interview data to analysis using the QSR NUD*IST program, producing voluminous charts of categorised quotations for the community researchers to use. Training sessions and team meetings, while perhaps overly ambitious in the amount of work to be accomplished, invariably made allowance for social time, good food, excellent accommodation and plenty of laughter.

As noted in the discussion of the community researchers’ perspectives, there are mixed feelings about the honoraria. On one hand, the researchers were grateful to receive the money. On the other hand, some community researchers also questioned whether the use of community-based researchers was partly a way to conduct the research without having to pay researchers’ wages. However, even the community researchers who were critical of the compensation stated that they benefited from the experience and received valuable non-monetary rewards through their participation.

The issue of honoraria was not a point of contention during the project. All participants seemed to recognise that there were real limitations to the money available and that, although more money would have been desirable, as a team they had to do the best they could with what they had. The experience of being a member of the team and the quality of the relationships formed were cited by all participants as intangible but lasting benefits of the project.

For government researchers seeking to implement community-based projects, there are issues surrounding payment that need to be addressed. Is there an advantage to having volunteers as opposed to hiring paid staff within the communities? The potential increase in commitment to the project among volunteers as opposed to paid staff may be a factor. If funding will not allow payment of researchers at market rates, what other ways can be found to show appreciation for their work?

Focus groups

The focus groups required additional work on the part of the community researchers; whether or not they were worth that extra work was a matter of some disagreement on the part of the project leaders. Because the process from the outset had been democratic, the strong feelings of the CAPRO co-ordinator that the focus groups should be included carried the day. As one Justice Canada researcher said, “That’s part of collaborative research design.”

Different definitions of “community” may be responsible for the different feelings about these focus groups. The Justice Canada researchers appear to have defined the community in terms of the community researchers and the survivors. By working with community-based researchers, the Justice Canada researchers felt that they had an entrée into the community, which could lead to further action. By gaining access to survivors in the communities, they heard from the critical informant group. They also hoped that the survivors and community researchers might be moved to pursue changes inspired by the research process because of feelings of ownership and empowerment. In contrast to the Justice Canada definition of “community”, CAPRO appears to have defined the key aspects of community in terms of mainstream community members and community leaders. These groups were pursued for the community focus groups. It was hoped that these groups would set direction on next steps for community action.

No single definition of “community” is correct or incorrect, but the definitions have implications for decisions about method. As seen in ORWAS, the different definitions raise the following methodological questions: Is the priority to address the community at large, or the survivors within that community? Do community members most need to know about the views of other community members like them, or about the views of survivors? If “ownership” is a precursor to action, are survivors or community members most likely to take ownership of the problem of woman abuse? The purpose and importance of the focus groups rests on the answers to these questions.

Recommendations

6.2 Effects of Participating

Survivors

The women survivors found their participation in the study to be a positive experience and said that they would not hesitate to do it again if asked. Some of the benefits they identified were the opportunity to use their experience to benefit others and the realisation that others cared about what they had been through. Having the opportunity to tell their stories made many women feel better about themselves, stronger and more competent. Thus, it can accurately be said that this research process proved to be empowering for at least some of the survivors.

Although many women experienced negative emotions at some point in the process, not one woman expressed any regret about participating. The interview itself seems to have been a generally positive experience. Although some spoke about experiencing feelings of fear before and after the interview, there was no one who expressed concern that her participation in the study had endangered her further or had led to any negative consequences for her in her community. It seems the memories of the abuse are still able to generate some pain, but this is overshadowed by the women’s sense of pride in having survived the ordeal and having moved on with their lives. The benefits of participation outweighed the costs for the women in this study.

It is interesting to note that many of the women were shocked to discover that they were not alone in their communities. In spite of the fact that people in small communities believe that they live in a fish-bowl environment where everyone knows the details of everyone else’s life, there is still such silence around the issue of abuse that some women lived for many years in abusive relationships and never knew that there were other women in the same community living in similar situations. A reduced sense of being isolated in their communities has been an important side effect of this study for many women. The outrage expressed when they read the community reports is an indication that many survivors had seen woman abuse as a personal experience rather than a societal phenomenon. Participation in this project seemed to help some of the survivors make a transition from personal to political.

Community Researchers

Hearing the women’s stories had a powerful impact on the community researchers. They reported experiencing a range of emotions, from anger and frustration to grief and exhaustion. Not only were the interviews emotionally taxing; even more so, the reading of the transcripts became what one described as a “burden”. Some of the community researchers had little prior experience in domestic violence work, but even those with many years of experience in the field were unprepared for the emotional effects of the research. It is recommended for future studies of this type that some time be spent educating participants about vicarious trauma and ways to minimise its effects.

These negative emotions were balanced for the community researchers by their admiration and respect for the women survivors whom they came to know through this project. Increased understanding of the issue of woman abuse and a new appreciation of the courage and strength of the survivors were benefits identified by all the community researchers. That courage proved to be somewhat infectious, it would seem, as some of the researchers spoke of their own determination to speak out now about the issue in their communities. “A wonderful opportunity,” was how the community researchers described the benefits they gained through the unique experience and the acquisition of new research skills. Perhaps the best indication that the research project was empowering can be seen in the fact that they felt they had made a contribution to something of lasting importance.

An important factor in the positive response of the community researchers to the overall experience can be seen in the interaction among the research team. The group dynamics at training sessions and meetings were described as “fun”, and the commitment of the community researchers throughout the long process is testimony to the obvious bond that formed between the members of the team. Community researchers and project leaders alike enjoyed the meals and leisure time together in the evenings. For researchers hoping to use a similar methodology, the importance of time spent together in such relaxed activities cannot be underestimated. Of course, such time might have been wasted had it not been for the collaborative research approach that set the tone for each person to feel like a valued member of the team.

Project Leaders

The emotional effects of the ORWAS project were similar for the project leaders and the community researchers. All felt that reading the interview transcripts was difficult and sometimes overwhelming. They also appreciated the contribution the survivors had made by describing their experiences, and the project leaders found themselves very attached to and involved in the project, partly due to the emotional content of the material.

The feeling of shame identified by one Justice Canada researcher raises an issue for future government studies on woman abuse. In asking women survivors of abuse to recount their experiences, there is an implicit responsibility for the researchers to hear those accounts and act in response. Many of the survivors expected that “Ottawa” or “the researchers” would take action to address the issues raised by their experiences. There is a more immediate connection between survivors and researchers in this type of research, and the Justice Canada researchers felt the increased burden of responsibility.

Recommendations

6.3 Benefits of a Collaborative Partnership

Survivors

The survivors were glad to have been asked for their views on rural woman abuse. Certainly, one of the benefits of a collaborative partnership between government and community is that hard-to-reach community members, such as survivors of woman abuse, can be located and queried about their opinions and experiences. This type of access to women who have lived through a violent intimate relationship is one of the significant advantages of a government/community partnership.

The survivors appreciated receiving the community reports. Those survivors who had a chance to scrutinise the draft reports endorsed the recommendations for their own community. Many of the survivors had suggestions as to how the reports could be used in their communities. They felt it was important that the reports should be widely distributed to community leaders, agencies and media. Seeing their own words in print was a validation for the women that their experiences and their contribution were significant. For some women, the opportunity to have communicated directly with the federal government on an issue of such importance was empowering.

The survivors are hopeful that some legislative change and public education will be an outcome of the study. However, they expressed uncertainty about whether the research would actually make changes happen in their communities or for abused women more generally. There is a risk of contributing to cynicism about research generally, and government research in particular, if survivors and community members contribute data to the study, expect some change to result, and find that no such change occurs. Such cynicism is not specific to community-based studies; all research projects that do not produce identifiable results may lead to a mistrust of research. Unfortunately, in community-based, participatory research, the expectations of change may be greater because the level of involvement is greater.

Community Researchers

Community researchers were very supportive of the government /community partnership in studying the issue of violence against women in rural areas. They underscored the benefits of knowing the community and of being known in it, for the recruitment of participants for the focus groups, and for the added comfort it provided the survivors. They considered it important to have people who understand rural life involved in the design as well as the implementation of the research. The collaborative, community-based methodology was seen to benefit the community in terms of new skills in the community, new awareness of the issue in the community and a new sense of responsibility to effect change in the community.

Some of the community researchers were optimistic that change would happen in their communities as a result of ORWAS. In fact, at the time of the interviews, some were able to report changes that had already happened, and they were very encouraged by these changes. They considered their roles in ORWAS to be very important ways of contributing to their communities. The community researchers also looked forward to the role that CAPRO might play in using the results of ORWAS to support future community-level changes.

The community researchers had less sense of how the research would be used at the government level. This is partly a reflection of their lack of familiarity with the ways that research can inform policy. They expressed the hope that the effect of the research process would be felt at many levels: the individual level of the survivors and the community researchers; the community level of the service providers and community members; the provincial level of CAPRO and similar organisations; and the federal level of Justice Canada. Each of these has a role to play in making the most of the collaborative research process.

Project Leaders

The project leaders from Justice Canada and CAPRO were very encouraged by the outcome of their partnership. The project met expectations of Justice Canada at the level of the federal government (providing policy-relevant research findings) and of CAPRO at the level of the community organisation (indicating next steps for community action). The shared development of a research process that respected women survivors, involved community researchers and met the leaders’ goals is an achievement of which both Justice Canada and CAPRO can be proud.

Although the partnership between CAPRO and Justice Canada worked very well in many respects, both parties agree that there was a power differential, and both parties consider that these issues should have been worked out in a more direct way. If there is a lesson in these challenges, it is that the parties have to commit themselves to open discussion of these power issues at the beginning of the study, as well as throughout the study as they arise. Feelings of trust and good will are important in making these partnerships work.

The problems are not the direct result of the power imbalance. In other words, the solution is not that power be equalised, that all parties must share equally in every decision and every aspect of the research. Power imbalances are inevitable in any government/community partnership. Problems are likely to arise as much out of efforts to share power as they are out of efforts to wield power. In a well-intended effort to be democratic and co-operative, community and government parties may choose to not raise issues that possibly should be raised.

There is a need to define roles in a way that recognises people’s expertise, and also the limits to their abilities. Community/government partnerships have to pay close attention to clear role definition among all parties to the research. This requires significant forecasting of what roles might be as the research progresses, including such basic issues as determining research questions and designing the research, but also less obvious issues such as training of community researchers, ownership of the data, dissemination of findings, and responsibility for possible action phases. An early process of determining shared goals can also contribute to the role definition and team building that have been identified as key factors in community-government partnerships.

Recommendations