This article invites dialogue on qualitative research strategies for understanding the social contextual and subjective complexities of interpersonal violence. The epistemological assumptions and practical challenges of qualitative methods are contrasted with traditional quantitative approaches. The authors assert that (a) the differences between the two approaches are not paradigmatic, in the Kuhnian sense of scientific revolutions; (b) there are important links, yet no necessary connections, between a feminist ethos in the social sciences and qualitative methods; (c) both qualitative and quantitative methodologists wish to increase the credibility of research findings, and may benefit from conceptual cross-fertilization; and (d) questions of values and politics in research on spouse abuse cannot be reduced to questions of methodology. Throughout, the article advocates both methodological diversity and rigor in the effort to understand spousal violence.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arkes, H. R. (1981). Impediments to accurate clinical judgment and possible ways to minimize their impact.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 323-330.
2.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
3.
Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature.New York: Bantam.
4.
Berk, R. A. , Berk, S. F., Loseke, D. R., & Rauma, D. (1983). Mutual combat and other family violence myths. In D. Finkelhor, R. J. Gelles, G. T. Hotaling, & M. A. Straus (Eds.), The dark side of families (pp. 191-212). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
5.
Breines, W. , & Gordon, L. (1983). The new scholarship on family violence.Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 8, 490-531.
6.
Campbell, D. T. (1975). “Degrees of freedom” and the case study.Comparative Political Studies, 8, 178-193.
7.
Cantos, A. , Neidig, P. N., & O'Leary, K. D. (1992). Gender differences in injury rates in domestic violence. Unpublished manuscript, State University of New York at Stony Brook.
8.
Cascardi, M. , Vivian, D., & Meyer, S. L. (1991, November). Context and attributions for marital violence in discordant couples. Paper presented at the Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy, New York.
9.
Cialdini, R. B. (1984). Influence.New York: William Morrow.
10.
Coleman, V. E. (1992, August). Breaking the silence about lesbian battering: New directions in domestic violence theory. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
11.
Dobash, R. E. , & Dobash, R. P. (1979). Violence against wives: A case against the patriarchy.New York: Free Press.
12.
Dulany, D. E. (1974). On the support of cognitive theory in opposition to behavior theory: A methodological problem. In W. B. Weimer & D. S. Palermo (Eds.), Cognition and the symbolic processes (pp. 43-56). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
Dutton, D. G. (1988). The domestic assault of women.Newton, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
14.
Eisikovits, Z. , & Peled, E. (1990). Qualitative research on spouse abuse. In D. J. Besharov (Ed.), Family violence: Research and public policy issues (pp. 1-12). Washington, DC: AEI Press.
15.
Festinger, L. , Riecken, H. W., & Schacter, S. (1956). When prophecy fails.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
16.
Feyerabend, P. K. (1975). Against method.London: NLB.
17.
Follingstad, D. R. , Rutledge, L. L., Berg, B. J., Hause, E. S., & Polek, D. S. (1990). The role of emotional abuse in physically abusive relationships.Journal of Family Violence, 5, 107-120.
18.
Fuller, S. (1988). Social epistemology.Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
19.
Gilgun, J. F. (1992). Hypothesis generation in social work research.Journal of Social Service Research, 15, 113-135.
20.
Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man.New York: Norton.
21.
Harding, S. G. (1986). The science question in feminism.Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
22.
Harding, S. G. (Ed.). (1987). Feminism and methodology: Social science issues.Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
23.
Ianni, F.A.J. , & Orr, M. T. (1979). Toward a rapprochement of quantitative and qualitative methodologies. In T.D. Cook & C. S. Reichardt (Eds.), Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research (pp. 87-98). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
24.
Island, D. , & Letellier, P. (1992, August). Battering disorders: Individual causation theory alternatives to heterosexist sociopolitical theory. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
25.
Keller, E. F. (1985). Reflections on gender and science.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
26.
Kelly, J. (1990). Changing contexts and the field of community psychology.American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 769-792.
27.
Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28.
Latour, B. , & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
29.
Lincoln, Y. S. , & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
30.
Martin, D. (1976). Battered wives.New York: Pocket Books.
31.
Meehl, P. E. (1954). Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and a review of the evidence.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
32.
Meehl, P. E. (1967). What can the clinician do well? In D. N. Jackson & S. Messick (Eds.), Problems in human assessment (pp. 594-599). New York: McGraw-Hill.
33.
Meehl, P. E. (1978). Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 806-834.
34.
Miles, M. B. , & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
35.
Murphy, C. M. , & Cascardi, M. (1993). Psychological aggression and abuse in marriage. In R. L. Hampton, T. P. Gullotta, G. R. Adams, E. H. Potter, & R. Weissberg (Eds.), Family violence: Prevention and treatment (pp. 86-112). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
36.
Murphy, C. M. , & Meyer, S. L. (1991). Gender, power and violence in marriage.Behavior Therapist, 14, 95-100.
37.
O'Leary, K. D. , Barling, J., Arias, I., Rosenbaum, A., Malone, A., & Tyree, A. (1989). Prevalence and stability of physical aggression between spouses: A longitudinal analysis.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 263-268.
38.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
39.
Pillemer, K. (1987). Combining qualitative and quantitative data in the study of elder abuse. In S. Reinharz & G. Rowles (Eds.), Qualitative gerontology (pp. 256-273). New York: Springer.
40.
Popper, K. (1968). The logic of scientific discovery.New York: Harper & Row.
41.
Reichardt, C. S. , & Cook, T. D. (1979). Beyond qualitative versus quantitative methods. In T. D. Cook & C. S. Reichardt (Eds.), Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research (pp. 7-32). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
42.
Schechter, S. (1982). Women and male violence: The visions and struggles of the battered women's movement.Boston: South End Press.
43.
Schwartz, M. D. (1987). Gender and injury in spousal assault.Sociological Focus, 20, 61-74.
44.
Shields, S. A. (1975). Functionalism, Darwinism, and the psychology of women: A study in social myth.American Psychologist, 30, 739-754.
45.
Snell, J. E. , Rosenwald, R., & Roby, A. (1964). The wifebeater's wife: A study of family interaction.Archives of General Psychiatry, 11, 107-112.
46.
Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics Scales.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-88.
47.
Straus, M. A. (1990). The conflict tactics scales and its critics: An evaluation of new data on validity and reliability. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families (pp. 49-74). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
48.
Strauss, A. , & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
49.
Trend, M. G. (1979). On the reconciliation of qualitative and quantitative analyses: A case study. In T. D. Cook & C. S. Reichardt (Eds.), Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research (pp. 68-86). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
50.
Tversky, A. , & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.Science, 185, 1124-1131.
51.
Walker, L. E. (1979). The battered woman.New York: Harper & Row.
52.
Wardell, L. , Gillespie, D. L., & Leffler, A. (1983). Science and violence against wives. In D. Finkelhor, R. Gelles, G. Hotaling, & M. Straus (Eds.), The dark side of families (pp. 69-87). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
53.
Watzlawick, P. (Ed.). (1984). The invented reality.New York: W. W. Norton.
54.
Wiggins, J. (1973). Personality and prediction: Principles of personality assessment.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
55.
Wiggins, J. (1981). Clinical and statistical prediction: Where are we and where do we go from here?Clinical Psychology Review, 1, 3-18.
56.
Yllö, K. (1988). Political and methodological debates in wife abuse research. In K. Yllö & M. Bograd (Eds.), Feminist perspectives on wife abuse (pp. 28-50). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
57.
Yllö, K. , & Bograd, M. (Eds.). (1988). Feminist perspectives on wife abuse.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
