Feminist Research Practice

When CWASU was founded an orthodoxy - that feminist research was research with, by and for women, and that only qualitative methods were adequate for feminist research - was widely accepted. Over the years we have broken with virtually all of these assumptions, and moved to a position where we see our feminism as providing the theoretical backdrop to our work, and methods as tools through which we explore specific research questions (see Kelly, Regan and Burton 1992; Kelly, Burton and Regan 1994 for more detailed discussion of some of these issues). Some of the ways our research practice has developed include:

• Frequent use of questionnaires - both because they enable access to larger numbers of respondents, and provide participants with control. It is far easier to choose not to answer certain questions in self-report written responses than it is in interpersonal interaction, and some people choose to tell things where they can be anonymous which they would not say directly to another person. Our experience, and developing methodology in prevalence research suggests that face-to-face interviews are not the only way to get more accurate data; the way questions are asked, and the provision of multiple opportunities to reveal difficult and painful experiences, also make a huge difference.
• Many of our projects include male participants - as survivors, community members, policy makers, professionals and perpetrators.
• Whilst we hope the end result of our work is 'for' women and children, in the first instance it is more often 'for' funders, policy makers and practitioners.

Negotiating our way through ideal constructions of feminist research has also led us to question another presumption - that participation in research not only can, but ought to be, empowering. Any research involving the powerful, particularly perpetrators in our area of work, leads to questioning this injunction. But even with women and children we have come to think that this is a grand claim to make, an impossible standard to always meet; since we often do not really know what the impact on individuals of involvement in research has been. We now work with rather more humble aspirations: to do no more harm; to endeavour not to exploit; and where possible, give something back. Some of the ways we do this include:

• Using what we know to construct questionnaires and interview guides, so that they can accommodate complexity and not unintentionally exclude. We also use open-ended questions in questionnaires to explore why participants think as they do, and to invite responses to current debates (both in terms of policy and theoretical frameworks).
• Including 'reality checks' in all our questionnaires and interviews that ask for feedback about participation.
• Automatically including information about support services which participants are encouraged to take away with them.
• Working with staff in our access points so that they both respect confidentiality and at the same time are also ready to pick up any difficulties raised by participation for individuals.

In analysing and writing up our research three central themes have emerged: noticing what is new or challenges our preconceptions; paying attention to what matters most to children and women; and the implications and nuances of definitions, naming and conceptualisation. All involve questioning what is often 'taken for granted', including by feminists, and making connections between experience, practice and theory.

Several recent projects have confirmed the crucial insights of early feminist perspectives. Both women and children revealed that basic messages mattered most to them in seeking support: that someone named what was happening/had happened to them as violence/abuse; a clear message that it was not their fault; that abuse is the responsibility of the abuser; being told and believing they were not alone; and being told, and thus being able to feel, that they deserved something better.

TOP