Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Purpose: Existing literature identifies the agency used by survivors of domestic violence when they participate in research. However, some human research ethics committees act as gatekeepers on research into survivors’ lived experience due to their perceived vulnerability. This article explores factors that influence survivors’ decision-making when they participate in research interviews.

Methods: Sixteen survivors of intimate partner strangulation participated in interviews about their lived experience. The analysis of the interview transcripts was guided by the research question: What factors influence the agency that survivors of domestic violence draw on when making decisions about participating in research interviews?

Results: The findings revealed four processes through which the self-efficacy of participants became apparent – cognitive, motivational, affective and selection processes. Self-efficacy underpins a person's agentic behaviours, particularly their decision-making.

Conclusion: This article highlights how survivors of intimate partner strangulation, notwithstanding their lived experience of extreme violence, exercise self-efficacy. Knowledge in this area is valuable because it indicates survivors who have left the abusive relationship and have engaged in support can make informed decisions about their participation in research interviews. Such understandings can provide researchers with an increased awareness about the wellbeing of participants during interviews and human research ethics committees can be confident that research participants, who may be considered ‘vulnerable’, have the ability to assess their capacity to engage in research, if the caveats of having left the abusive relationship and having sought support are satisfied.

Keywords

Human research ethics committees intimate partner strangulation domestic violence self-efficacy interviews

Introduction

Survivors of intimate partner strangulation are silenced by the acts of violence perpetrated against them; they can be further silenced when human research ethics committees act as gatekeepers preventing researchers from exploring their lived experience (Bredal et al., 2022; Buchanan and Wendt, 2018; Dragiewicz et al., 2023; Elliffe et al., 2020). Strangulation is a highly lethal form of violence, with most victims being women and most perpetrators being a current or former male intimate partner (Glass et al., 2008; Gwinn et al., 2014; Lansdell et al., 2021; Reckdenwald et al., 2019; Strack et al., 2001; Thomas et al., 2014; Vella et al., 2017). Survivors of intimate partner strangulation have often experienced multiple strangulation events perpetrated concurrently alongside other forms of violence (Wilbur et al., 2001). Seeking to give these survivors a voice to express their experiences is vital to understanding this severe form of violence; however, efforts to achieve this may be hampered when human research ethics committees have an overriding focus on the potential harm to participants without a concomitant concern for the potential benefits.

Intimate partner strangulation

Intimate partner strangulation is considered a ‘hidden epidemic’ (Tailiaferro et al., 2001: 294) and creates an environment where considerable coercion and control is exercised over the victim (Brady et al., 2021; De Boos, 2019; Douglas and Fitzgerald, 2020; Glass et al., 2008; Joshie et al., 2012; Pritchard et al., 2017; Sorenson et al., 2014; Thomas et al., 2014; Vella et al., 2017). The ensuing terror and fear can often trap women in the abusive relationship (Tolmie et al., 2018). Concerningly, survivors of intimate partner strangulation have a seven-fold increased risk of becoming a victim of an attempted/successful homicide in a subsequent domestic violence incident (Glass et al., 2008); strangulation is the second most common cause of domestic violence deaths involving women (Thomas et al., 2014). Research shows that 37% of men who killed their current or former intimate partner used strangulation (Dobash et al., 2007); hence, non-fatal strangulation events are a serious warning about the increased risk of escalating violence (Douglas and Fitzgerald, 2014: 231). This insidious form of violence can cause serious psychological and physical health burdens, including brain injuries (Farrugia et al., 2020; Nemeth et al., 2019; Vella et al., 2017); as well, some women will die from a blood clot or stroke (De Boos, 2019; Manne, 2019; Vella et al., 2017).

Human research ethics committees

To deepen the knowledge base on the impacts of intimate partner strangulation, feminist researchers seek to provide pathways for the voices of survivors to be heard. However, researchers can experience hurdles when proposing research that includes survivors of domestic and family violence; with human research ethics committees seeking to ensure the safety of both participants and researchers (Bredal et al., 2022; Buchanan and Wendt, 2018; Dragiewicz et al., 2023; Elliffe et al., 2020; Taylor-Dunn, 2023). Although this harm minimisation approach is focused on the psychological and physical safety of all individuals involved in a project, particular emphasis is placed on the ‘vulnerability’ of participants (Bredal et al., 2022; Buchanan and Wendt, 2018; Dragiewicz et al., 2023; Elliffe et al., 2020) who can be considered ‘too fragile to give informed consent or participate [safely]’ (Downes et al., 2014: 6).

‘Vulnerability’ is a social construct (Liamputtong, 2019; Ten Have, 2016) drawn on to describe individuals who are perceived to be in need of care and protection due to experiencing economic, social, psychological and/or physical disadvantage (Bracken-Roche et al., 2017; Liamputtong, 2019; Quest and Marco, 2003; Shivayogi, 2013). However, referring to all women who have experienced domestic violence as being vulnerable overlooks the fact that individual women are at different phases in the processing of their lived experience of violence (Downes et al., 2014; Dragiewicz et al., 2023). Downes and colleagues (2014: 4) determine that labelling survivors as ‘vulnerable is a paternalistic practice that undermines the agency, capacity, and diversity’ of individuals. As well, Fisher (2012) and Downes et al. (2014) emphasise the resistance and agency survivors of domestic violence can exercise when they choose not to take part in research projects. This leads to concerns about ‘how the term vulnerable is mobilized, by whom, and to what effect in research governance’ (Downes et al., 2014: 4). These concerns mirror early feminist debates about the term ‘victim’ eroding the agency of women (Lamb, 1999).

Human research ethics committees have been criticised for ‘undermining researchers’ professional responsibilities and integrity’ and exercising ‘unwarranted paternalism’ (O’Reilly, 2009: 192) when reviewing research proposals into certain ‘cultural and social contexts’; including the ‘private, stressful or sacred’ and where ‘discussion tends to generate an emotional response’ (McCosker et al., 2001: 1). Rigorous ethical procedures can hamper the recruitment of research participants; consequently, many individuals and their experiences ‘remain hidden in the shadows’ (Elliffe et al., 2020: 5). Hence, when risk averse, methodologies are imposed on researchers by human research ethics committees; boundaries are also imposed on the depth of knowledge that can be produced. This can impede the development of sound understandings on how to assist women to heal, how to support them to become safe and how to prevent other women from being victimised (Stark, 2007); ultimately impacting on service delivery and policy development in this context (Downes et al., 2014).

Buchanan and Wendt (2018) found that survivors of domestic violence acknowledged benefits of being involved in research interviews, such as being listened to and having the opportunity to potentially help other women. The outcomes of Buchanan and Wendt’s (2018) research advocated for changing the discourse around sensitive research from harmful to beneficial to reflect the empowering experience that participants can gain from their engagement in interviews. Jefferson and colleagues (2021: 2) concurred that ‘participation in trauma research is not inherently harmful’. Therefore, feminist research into intimate partner strangulation has the capacity to lead to survivor empowerment, but only if an arguably paternalistic human research ethics committee can be satisfied of a low likelihood of participant harm arising from the proposed research methods. In so doing, human research ethics committees determine which methodologies they deem suitable for knowledge generation, which may ultimately exclude feminist methodologies which are steeped in more advanced understandings of survivor trauma, needs and likely sources of empowerment.

Research undertaken by Bredal and colleagues (2022: 1) revealed that many survivors of interpersonal violence ‘welcome the opportunity to participate [in research] and often use the interviews for their own purposes’. Some participants stated they engaged in interviews for their own ‘personal development and healing’ (Bredal et al., 2022: 7). Others participated for more altruistic purposes – they wanted to prevent other women from experiencing the same harm (Bredal et al., 2022). The remaining participants commented their only purpose was to be involved in the study (Bredal et al., 2022). These findings reveal that participants use agency when it comes to deciding whether to engage in research interviews (Bredal et al., 2022).

Another study exploring the interview experiences of survivors of technology-facilitated domestic violence also found participants reflected positively on their engagement in the research process (Dragiewicz et al., 2023). Participants valued ‘the opportunity to reflect on their experiences, help other women avoid violence and abuse, and have their experiences validated by a non-judgmental listener’ (Dragiewicz et al., 2023: 9). Dragiewicz and colleagues (2023) also highlighted the importance of ‘timing’; survivors were able to determine whether they were at a point of recovery where they could comfortably participate in research interviews – reflecting again, survivors’ use of agency to decide about their involvement in research.

Agency speaks to a person’s ability to develop a plan of action; set goals and consider outcomes; motivate and regulate their actions; and reflect on how they carried out their actions and why (Bandura, 2006). The capacity for survivors of domestic violence to have and use agency contradicts the discourses of vulnerability and harm that underpin many research proposal reviews by human research ethics committees. This article seeks to examine factors that influence the agency that survivors draw on when making decisions about participating in research interviews. Knowledge in this area is valuable because it can indicate how, and whether, participants consider their potential re-traumatisation when consenting to engage in research; additionally, this knowledge can inform human research ethics committees when they are reviewing research proposals.

Methodology

The question underpinning the research for this article was: What factors influence the agency that survivors of domestic violence draw on when making decisions about participating in research interviews? This research was guided by feminist methodology. The aim of applying this methodology was to produce knowledge that aligned with the feminist perspective, emphasising a social justice focus (Ackerly and True, 2020). This methodology encouraged the researchers to continually reflect on the purpose for undertaking this research, their ethical responsibilities, data collection methods and any assumptions that could impact on the project (Ackerly and True, 2020). Feminist scholarship provides researchers with a way to engage with gender and power relations created by the broader structural and institutional factors that sustain the oppression of women. This exploration can expose the relational and contextual associations that increase a woman’s vulnerability to domestic violence.

The data for this article come from a parent study involving interviews with 16 survivors of intimate partner strangulation (Lovatt et al., 2020). The study participants were accessed via a strangulation survivor support group. These women were all subjected to one or more intimate partner strangulation events. As stated previously, strangulation is a potentially lethal form of violence often perpetrated within a compendium of other forms of domestic abuse (Wilbur et al., 2001). Most of the participants had experienced high-level anxiety about dying when they were being strangled (Hoelterhoff and Chung, 2017; Vella et al., 2017). Hence, survivors of strangulation often carry the scars of serious psychological and physical harms (Vella et al., 2017). Nevertheless, each woman in this study exercised agency when determining whether to consent to participate in this study.

Method

In-depth interviews were conducted with research participants to ensure they were provided adequate opportunity to narrate their lived experience. The interviews were conversational in style, with both the participant and the researcher contributing to the production of knowledge through interactions that were based on both individual experience and the collective good (Brinkmann, 2009; Rubin and Rubin, 2011). Initially, participants were provided with information and consent forms written in plain English, inclusive of profiles and photos of interviewers so they could choose who would conduct their interview. They were also invited to nominate how they would prefer their interview be conducted, with face-to-face and telephone options elected by the participants.

Ethics

The safety and wellbeing of participants were prioritised by the researchers and by CQUniversity’s Human Research Ethics Committee who provided approval (No. 22089) for the research study. All researchers conducting interviews were domestic violence and trauma informed and all had participated in 2 days of strangulation awareness training through a specialist provider. The feminist ethics of care philosophy guided the researchers in the practice of reflexivity to ensure they identified any assumptions they could bring to the interview, and it also provided impetus for them to be alert to, and address, the power differential between themselves as the researcher and the participant (Ethics of Care, 2011; Oakley, 1981). The adoption of feminist standpoint theory for this study reinforced the stance that survivors of intimate partner strangulation are experts of their lived experience; to gain credible understandings about this lived experience, their voices must be heard (Collins, 1990; Harding, 2004). When nearing the end of each interview, participants were asked about their interview experience ‘to assess benefits, harms, and regrets’ associated with their involvement in the process (Gekoski et al., 2012: 177). This interaction was designed primarily so participants could be encouraged to engage/re-engage in support if required.

Analysis

The feminist perspective does not dictate a particular technique for data analysis, rather there are techniques that can be adapted to align with this perspective (Ackerly and True, 2020). The implications of a feminist informed data analysis process include attention being focused on the ‘dynamics of power, relationships, and marginalization’ (Ackerly and True, 2020: 168). Analysis requires an interpretation of the results of the research in alignment with the research question (Ackerly and True, 2020). This is ‘an iterative process of reading data, constructing an interpretation or argument, rereading data, and reconstructing an interpretation or argument’ (Ackerly and True, 2020: 169). All authors read through the transcripts; identified the prominent ideas; and then reviewed, defined and named the themes. The following themes were decided upon and will be discussed in the next section: cognitive processes, motivational processes, affective processes and selection processes. These themes align with Bandura’s (1997) theory of self-efficacy.

Findings

Literature shows that survivors of domestic violence usually have substantially low levels of self-efficacy (Ross, 2012; Thomas, 2020); however, the transcript analysis revealed participant responses reflecting factors aligning with Bandura’s (1997) theory of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is described as a person’s belief or confidence in their ability to carry out an activity; without this belief, there is little reason or incentive for a person to take action (Bandura, 2006). ‘Efficacy beliefs affect whether individuals think optimistically or pessimistically, in self-enhancing or self-debilitating ways. Such beliefs affect people’s goals and aspirations, how well they motivate themselves, and their perseverance …’ (Bandura, 2006: 170). Self-efficacy is not agency, but influences a person’s use of agency through cognitive, motivational, affective and selection processes; it is the foundation for agency (Bandura, 1997, 2006). Delving into factors that are foundational to the use of agency by research participants can provide human research ethics committees with deeper understandings about participants’ abilities to make informed consent regarding their engagement in research undertakings, challenging paternalistic notions about participants’ vulnerability. It is important to reiterate that each of these participants had left the abusive partner and been engaged in a support group prior to being interviewed.

Cognitive processes – ‘… I put it in my work brain …’

Reflections from the participants in this study highlight how they cognitively processed their decision to engage in the interview process, illustrating they were not restricted by the harms incurred through their lived experience of violence. Bandura (1997) confirms that people, like Jane below, can move beyond limiting factors if they have self-efficacy; self-efficacy enables them to perceive or believe they have the ability to carry out an action:

I think if this can help other women or the next generation even …. I’m going to take my power back and do whatever I can. (Jane)

When people engage in certain actions, they have usually given thought to the processes involved and they have likely set some goals (Bandura, 1997). If a person has strong efficacy, they might set substantial goals because they have the confidence and commitment to meet them (Bandura, 1991; Locke and Latham, 1990). For example, Jane set the goal to regain her power and take action by participating in the interview process.

The cognitive processes associated with self-efficacy enable people to concentrate on achieving goals and overcoming risks, as compared to becoming stagnant in a loop of fear (Bandura, 1997; Kruegar and Dickson, 1993, 1994). In the following reflection, Janette articulates her cognitive processing prior to engaging in the research interview:

I thought I was going to get upset. Yeah, it wouldn’t have bothered me, it wouldn’t have lasted very long. But, no, you see, yeah, I’m a very strong person, I’ve come from a very strong family and things do happen in life, so yeah, it’s easy for me to just do this. (Janette)

People with high self-efficacy, like Janette, have ‘greater cognitive resourcefulness and strategic flexibility’ (Bandura, 2000: 18). Whereas Jessica’s comments below reveal the ongoing development of efficacy in her life. She discusses the cognitive processes she undertakes to ascertain the self-belief that she can participate in the interview process and ‘cope’:

When I have to go to the detail of, and then that happened and then that was the next, that’s where I struggle. But this sort of thing, I suppose I put it in my work brain and kind of how I analyse things at work and unpack it, that’s how I cope a lot. (Jessica)

This cognitive resourcefulness, as demonstrated by Jessica, provides people with scope to predict likely outcomes from events and manage their experiences more successfully (Wood and Bandura, 1989) – leading to increased motivation to engage in actions. This provides additional support to calm the concerns of an overly risk averse human research ethics committee.

Motivational processes – ‘… I just want to be able to help others’

Survivors of domestic violence often voice a desire to share their stories of abuse to prevent other women from experiencing the same fate (Bredal et al., 2022; Buchanan and Wendt, 2018; Dragiewicz et al., 2023). The motivational processes that effect self-efficacy are influenced by the perceived positive outcomes from actions (Bandura, 1997, 2006), as illustrated in the following vignettes:

I’m always here if you want to ask anything else. I would love to be involved in it. I feel like I should be involved in anything, you know, I’m always here. (Karen)

Yeah, I just want to be able to help others. Yeah, so it was good to talk to somebody and I just really want more awareness out there of the impacts and yeah, these people need to be brought to justice, they really do. (Wendy)

Because if I can help change or save someone else’s life, I want to be a part of it, I want to help. (Amy)

Jill’s statement below reveals that once people have undertaken an action and they have identified the benefits, there can be an intensification of their efforts – an enhanced level of motivation and confidence in their ability to cope (Bandura, 1997):

No. I mean look, I feel like the more I can share, the more people can benefit from it, so I’m good, yep, feel free to ask me anything, it’s fine. (Jill)

Participating in altruistic behaviours such as helping others by contributing to research can create a ‘sequence of helping and healing’ (Gibson, 2019: 54); often leading to survivors drawing a sense of purpose and meaning from their traumatic experiences (Lietz, 2011). These findings also fit with a feminist narrative that encompasses the empowerment of survivors through participation in research.

Affective processes – ‘I’m all good with it …’

People have an inner thought environment they have constructed; this environment provides potential for the self-regulation of their emotions – Bandura (1997) referred to this self-regulation of emotions as affective processes. When people have considered carrying out a task (cognitive processes) and developed motivation to complete it (motivational processes), self-efficacy enables them to regulate any stress associated with the task (affective processes) (Bandura, 1997):

It was good. I’m all good with it, I’m fine, I’m not triggered, I’m not upset, nothing like that, not at all, yeah. (Janette)

As described by Janette, self-efficacy enhances a person’s ability to cope because they are not thinking about failing; they do not ‘magnify risk and worry about perils that rarely happen’; rather they ‘transform threatening environments into benign ones’ (Bandura, 1997: 19). Laura’s vignette below illustrates how she recognised that participating in the interview process could cause heightened emotions; she then took action to overcome any distressing outcomes:

I mean I know I had to go into a little bit of detail, having these little notes actually helped me not have to relive the emotion. (Laura)

Importantly, people can ‘exercise control over their affective states in palliative ways without altering the causes of their emotional arousal’ (Bandura, 1997: 19). Therefore, notwithstanding the harms resulting from their lived experience of violence, the survivors of strangulation in this study could understand and regulate their emotional responses when it came to participating in the research interviews. This self-regulation of emotions can occur through engagement in purposely chosen strategies that relieve stress and anxiety (Bandura, 1997), as shown in Jill’s reflection that follows:

I’ve put time aside so I could go to the beach after we talked and just kind of breathe. (Jill)

Affective processes can also be enriched through the presence of supportive relationships, particularly when others model appropriate coping strategies (Bandura, 1997, 2006). The vignettes below demonstrate how the trauma-informed demeanour of the researchers impacted positively on the participants’ perceptions of interview experience:

Very supportive. Yeah. You’ve given me time to answer, you’ve been empathetic, respectful. I like the process. I think it’s really wonderful. (Laura)

You’ve been great, thank you. But yeah, I mean it’s a delicate topic and you’ve been great, so yeah. My feedback is positive, absolutely. (Jill)

Well, I haven’t had any problem with it … And just, you know, just the support, you know, just having someone who’s actually interested, you know. (Holly)

It’s been good, yeah, but difficult but it’s always there and I think having somebody, yeah, I think you’re very empathetic and seeing that you can understand the things that I’m saying has certainly helped. (Jane)

Traumatic experiences do not always sentence a survivor of domestic violence to a life of sorrow; many draw on efficacy beliefs that shape what they do and who they become, with some becoming agents of positive social change (Gibson, 2019; Staub and Vollhardt, 2008). A feminist perspective identifies ‘trauma as a tool of dominance’ and recognises ‘the process of recovering from trauma’ as ‘a political opportunity in refusing to remain silent’ (Griffiths, 2018:118).

Selection processes – ‘I suppose I pick and choose …’

People have some input into who they become through the activities and environments they decide to engage with. Strong levels of self-efficacy can enable people to generate, adapt and influence challenging environments; people are then positioned to be positively shaped through engagement in these environments (Bandura, 1997). Conversely, low levels of self-efficacy can prevent people from participating in challenging tasks, particularly if they sense there could be any associated personal risks (Bandura, 1997). Therefore, people with good self-efficacy tackle challenges rather than avoid them, while those with low self-efficacy tend to focus on ‘obstacles, negative consequences, and personal deficiencies’ (Bandura, 1997: 20):

I suppose I pick and choose what I do very carefully. But if I didn’t do anything I wouldn’t be able to live with myself. And it’s being heard, and it’s being seen - and hopefully it will change someone else’s life. (Vanessa)

Vanessa’s vignette above shows her decision-making process regarding her participation in the study (selection process). She decided to be heard and seen (cognitive process), rather than considering her participation to be a threat to her wellbeing or a problem to avoid (affective process). As well, Vanessa’s hope to bring about change was a motivating factor for her participation in the interview process (motivational process). She focused on effectively engaging in the interview process, not on difficulties that could restrict her participation (Bandura, 1997).

Mary and Amy’s comments below provide further insight into their decision-making in relation to participation in the research interviews (selection processes) and how these decisions can influence self-belief and confidence – their self-efficacy:

I’m willing to do whatever I have to so other people don’t have to go through that. … and to keep it from happening to just one person, it’ll be worth it. (Mary)

I actually feel much better. When it’s constructive, something that’s going for the right benefits and it’s not me sitting here telling a sob story, like this is me trying to, you know, make a difference for someone, yeah. No, I feel good and it’s kind of empowering and benefitting. (Amy)

Feminist psychologist, Judith Herman (1998: 98), considers feelings of empowerment and the desire to connect with others to be indications that survivors are on the path to recovering from trauma:

The core experiences of psychological trauma are disempowerment and disconnection from others. Recovery therefore is based upon empowerment of the survivor and the creation of new connections. … No intervention that takes power away from the survivor can possibly foster her recovery, no matter how much it appears to be in her immediate best interest.

Importantly, the self-efficacy that comes from achieving goals, like successful participation in research interviews, is enhanced through a cyclic process – people begin to goal set and gain successful outcomes from other scenarios, leading to growth in efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Bandura et al., 1982).

Discussion

Many survivors of trauma make a choice to not only survive life-threatening events, but to also gain control over their lives in the aftermath of these events (Hoelterhoff and Cheung, 2017). A survivor’s ‘sense of autonomy and choice’ along with ‘their comprehension of reality and understanding of their place in the world’ can all improve as they recover (Staub and Vollhardt, 2008: 269), leading to a confidence in their ability ‘to confront challenges, achieve goals and manage stressful circumstances’ (Hoelterhoff and Cheung, 2017: 21). As well, survivors can have insight into situations that could potentially cause further harm, with this insight enabling them to make decisions about engaging in research that explores their traumatic experiences (Downes et al., 2014).

This sense of autonomy, confidence and insight represents self-efficacy – the foundation of agency (Bandura, 1997). When survivors of domestic violence have self-efficacy, it is a significant indicator they are beginning to move forward with their lives (Bandura, 1997). The efficacy beliefs that are produced through cognitive, motivational, affective and selection processes enable people to ‘redouble their efforts in the face of difficulties and display low vulnerability to stress and depression and quickly recover their sense of efficacy after failure or setbacks’ (Bandura, 1997: 21). Research participants on this journey of recovery from trauma can demonstrate the intent to ‘survive, thrive, and act in prosocial ways’ (Gibson, 2019: 55). However, this does not mean survivors live without anguish, rather they learn to ‘thrive in spite of it’ (Gibson, 2019: 37).

Existing literature has identified how survivors of domestic violence use agency when deciding to participate in research interviews (Bredal et al., 2022; Buchanan and Wendt, 2018; Dragiewicz et al., 2023). The findings from this study reveal the processes that research participants navigate to effect self-efficacy and pave the way for their use of agency in decision-making. Further, we can ascertain through these findings that people who have experienced extreme violence, including those who have navigated the possibility of dying during the violence, can still have a belief or confidence in their ability to engage in activities that some, including human research ethics committees, may consider re-traumatising. Building on Buchanan and Wendt’s (2018) statement that research involving victim/survivors of domestic violence need not be grounded in the discourse of harm, this study found that participants had the self-efficacy to determine how they could mitigate stresses associated with re-telling their lived experience in a research context. When survivors of domestic violence are embraced as ‘active agents and stakeholders’ in a project, the focus on enhancing participant safety can shift to developing skilled researchers, improving the informed consent and confidentiality processes, and the sharing of feminist research practices (Downes et al., 2014: 1).

The above findings provide researchers with understandings about factors that can influence the agency of participants. Having deeper knowledge about these factors can build an awareness that contributes to successfully applying a feminist ethics of care. Without an understanding about the foundations of agency, researchers may not recognise participant self-efficacy, or conversely, be alert to signs of diminished self-efficacy which could prompt a shift in the direction of discussion during an interview, a move towards the early completion of the interview, and/or a suggestion about accessing support following the interview. In addition, the findings can enable human research ethics committees to review research proposals with due consideration being given to researchers who show they have a deeper understanding about participant wellbeing and the application of the feminist ethics of care. Further, these findings underscore two important caveats – participants had left the abusive relationship and had been engaged in a support group.

Conclusion

Two assertions about involving survivors of domestic violence in research can be drawn from this article’s findings. The first assertion is survivors of domestic violence, including those who have experienced extreme violence such as strangulation, understand their vulnerability to further traumatisation and have the self-efficacy to carry out personal risk assessments before consenting to participate in research. The survivors in this study, who had left the abusive partner and been engaged in a support group, understood how engagement in an interview process about their lived experience could impact on them emotionally, and they were also able to explain how they planned to mitigate any potential harms. Therefore, survivors, under the stated conditions, will likely have the self-efficacy to assess their capacity to engage in research. This finding can provide human research ethics committees with confidence that participants can make informed decisions regarding their consent to participate in research projects.

The second assertion drawn from this study builds on Buchanan and Wendt’s (2018) suggestion that the discourse surrounding the engagement of survivors of domestic violence in research can shift from harmful to beneficial. Feedback provided by participants in this study confirmed that skilled researchers can provide a safe interview environment; the development of rapport between an interviewer and participant can assist survivors of domestic violence to feel valued and understood. This context enabled the participants to meet their altruistic goal of sharing their lived experience so other women could be prevented from the same fate. The ensuing feelings of connectedness from a safe interview environment are also significant to a survivor’s journey of recovery, with the feeling of connectedness contrasting deeply with the feeling of isolation many navigated in an abusive relationship. This finding can provide researchers with confidence that by adopting a feminist ethics of care approach to research, the interview process can contribute to a survivor’s journey of recovery. It can also provide human research ethics committees with understandings about the benefits that can arise when survivors are enabled to participate in research interviews.

These assertions provide qualitative researchers with evidence to draw on to support research ethics applications with participants often considered ‘vulnerable’. They also highlight the importance of developing comprehensive project information sheets so potential participants can make informed decisions about their involvement. It is recommended that further research be undertaken into the personal risk assessment processes carried out by research participants to ensure the details required for comprehensive decision-making are provided in project information sheets. The limitations on these assertions are once again reiterated – the participants in this study had left the abusive partner and were engaged in a support group, as well the interviewers were skilled qualitative feminist researchers in the area of domestic violence.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclose receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by a CQ University Merit Grant [RSH/5308; Nicola Cheyne].

ORCID iDs

Vicki Lowik

Nicola Cheyne

Data Availability Statement

Due to the sensitivity of this data, it is not available for placement in a public depository. The data is the property of CQUniversity and is kept in a secure data storage depository.

References

Ackerly

True

(2020) Doing Feminist Research in Political and Social Science. 2nd edition. London: Red Globe Press.

Bandura

(1991) Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In: Kurtines

Gewirtz

(eds), Handbook of Moral Behavior and Development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 45–103.

Bandura

(1997) Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman.

Bandura

(2000) Self-efficacy: the foundation of agency. In: Perrig

Grob

(eds), Control of Human Behavior, Mental Processes and Consciousness: Essays in Honour of the 60th Birthday of August Flammer. London: Psychology Press, 16–30.

Bandura

(2006) Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science 1(2): 164–180. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00011.x

Bandura

Reese

Adams

(1982) Microanalysis of action and fear arousal as a function of differential levels of perceived self-efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 43: 5–21.

Bracken-Roche

Bell

McDonald

, et al. (2017) The concept of ‘vulnerability’ in research ethics: an in-depth analysis of policies and guidelines. Health Research Policy and Systems 15(8): 1–18. DOI: 10.1186/s12961-016-0164-6

Brady

Fansher

Zedaker

(2021) How victims of strangulation survived: enhancing the admissibility of victim statements to the police when survivors are reluctant to cooperate. Violence Against Women 28(5): 1098–1123. DOI: 10.1177/10778012211022772

Bredal

Stefansen

Bjornholt

(2022) Why do people participate in research interviews? Participant orientations and ethical contracts in interviews with victims of interpersonal violence. Qualitative Research 0(0): 1–18. DOI: 10.1177/14687941221138409

10.

Brinkmann

(2009) Interviews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. Newbury Park, Cal: Sage Publications.

11.

Buchanan

Wendt

(2018) Opening doors: women’s participation in feminist studies about domestic violence. Qualitative Social Work 17(6): 762–777. DOI: 10.1177/147332501769

12.

Collins

(1990) Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. UK: Unwin Hyman.

13.

De Boos

(2019) Review article: non-fatal strangulation: hidden injuries, hidden risks. Emergency Medicine Australasia 31(3): 302–308. DOI: 10.1111/1742-6723.13243

14.

Dobash

Cavanagh

, et al. (2007) Lethal and nonlethal violence against an intimate female partner: comparing male murderers to nonlethal abusers. Violence Against Women 13(4): 329–353. DOI: 10.1177/1077801207299204

15.

Douglas

Fitzgerald

(2014) Strangulation, domestic violence, and the legal response. Sydney Law Review 36: 231–254. https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/SydLawRw/2014/11.html

16.

Douglas

Fitzgerald

(2020) Women’s stories of non-fatal strangulation: informing the criminal justice response. Criminology and Criminal Justice 22(2): 1–17. DOI: 10.1177/174889582094960

17.

Downes

Kelly

Westmarland

(2014) Ethics in violence and abuse research - a positive empowerment approach. Sociological Research Online 19(1): 1–13. DOI: 10.5153/sro.3

18.

Dragiewicz

Woodlock

Easton

, et al. (2023) “I’ll be okay”: survivors’ perspectives on participation in domestic violence research. Journal of Family Violence. Published online 8 March 2023. DOI: 10.1007/s10896-023-00518-6

19.

Elliffe

Holt

Overlien

(2020) Hiding and being hidden: the marginalization of children’s participation in research and practice responses to domestic violence and abuse. Social Work and Social Sciences Review 22(1): 5–24.

20.

Ethics of Care (2011) Carol Gilligan . Ethics of Care. Available at: https://ethicsofcare.org/carol-gilligan/

21.

Farrugia

Funston

Verco

, et al. (2020) Time Is of the Essence: Domestic and Family Violence and the Potential for Acquired Brain Injuries in Victim/survivors. Parramatta, New South Wales: NSW Health Education Centre Against Violence.

22.

Fisher

(2012) Ethics in qualitative research: “Vulnerability”. Citizenship and Human Rights. Ethics and Social Welfare 6(1): 2–17. DOI: 10.1080/17496535.2011.591811

23.

Gekoski

Gray

Adler

(2012) Interviewing women bereaved by homicide: assessing the impact of trauma-focused research. Psychology, Crime and Law 18(2): 177–189. DOI: 10.1080/10683161003718692

24.

Gibson

(2019) ACEs Wild: Making Meaning Out of Trauma Through Altruism Born of Suffering. PhD Thesis. New England: Antioch University.

25.

Glass

Laughon

Campbell

, et al. (2008) Non-fatal strangulation is an important risk factor for homicide of women. Journal of Emergency Medicine 35(3): 329–335. DOI: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2007.02.065

26.

Griffiths

(2018) Feminist interventions in trauma studies. In: Kurtz

(ed), Trauma and Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 118–195.

27.

Gwinn

Strack

Mack

(2014) Law reform targets the crime of strangulation. Domestic Violence Report 19(6): 81–84.

28.

Harding

(2004) The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies. Abingdon, Oxfordshire: Routledge.

29.

Herman

(1998) Recovery from psychological trauma. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences 52(1): 98–103. DOI: 10.1046/j.1440-1819.1998.0520s5S145.x

30.

Hoelterhoff

Chung

(2017) Death anxiety resilience: a mixed methods investigation. Psychiatric Quarterly 88(3): 635–651. DOI: 10.1007/s11126-016-9483-6

31.

Jefferson

Stanhope

Jones-Harrell

, et al. (2021) A scoping review of recommendations in the English language on conducting research with trauma exposed populations since publication of the Belmont report - thematic review of existing recommendations on research with trauma exposed populations. PLoS One 16(7): e0254003. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254003

32.

Joshi

Thomas

Sorenson

(2012) “I didn’t know I could turn colors”: health problems and health care experiences of women strangled by an intimate partner. Social Work in Health Care 51(9): 798–814. DOI: 10.1080/00981389.2012.692352

33.

Kruegar

Jr Dickson

(1993) Self-efficacy and perceptions of opportunities and threats. Psychological Reports 72: 1235–1240.

34.

Kruegar

Jr Dickson

(1994) How believing in ourselves increases risk taking: perceived self-efficacy and opportunity recognition. Decision Sciences 25: 385–400.

35.

Lamb

(1999) Constructing the victim: popular images and lasting labels. In: Lamb

(ed), New Versions of Victims: Feminists Struggle with the Concept. New York: New York University Press, 108–139.

36.

Lansdell

Saunders

Eriksson

, et al. (2021) Strengthening the connection between acquired brain injury (ABI) and family violence: the importance of ongoing monitoring, research, and inclusive terminology. Journal of Family Violence. [online 08 May 2021]. DOI: 10.1007/s10896-021-00278-1

37.

Liamputtong

(ed) (2019) Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences. Singapore: Springer.

38.

Lietz

(2011) Empathic action and family resilience: a narrative examination of the benefits of helping others. Journal of Social Service Research 37: 254–265. DOI: 10.1080/01488376.2011.564035

39.

Locke

Latham

(1990) A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

40.

Lovatt

Heather

Lowik

Vicki

Cheyne

Nicola

(2020) The voices of women impacted by non-fatal strangulation: Summary Report - Key themes. CQUniversity, Australia: Queensland Centre for Domestic and Family Violence Research.

41.

Manne

(2019) Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny. Great Britain: Penguin Books.

42.

McCosker

Barnard

Gerber

(2001) Undertaking sensitive research: issues and strategies for meeting the safety needs of all participants. Forum for Qualitative Social Research 2(1). Article 22. https://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/983/2142

43.

Nemeth

Mengo

Kulow

, et al. (2019) Provider perceptions and domestic violence (DV) survivor experiences of traumatic and anoxic-hypoxic brain injury: implication for DV advocacy service provision. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma 28(6): 744–763. DOI: 10.1080/10926771.2019.1591562

44.

Oakley

(1981) Interviewing women: a contradiction in terms? In: Roberts

(ed), Doing Feminist Research. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 30–61.

45.

O’Reilly

Armstrong

Dixon-Woods

(2009) Subject positions in research ethics committee letters: a discursive analysis. Clinical Ethics 4(4): 187–194. DOI: 10.1258/ce.2009.00902

46.

Pritchard

Reckdenwald

Nordham

(2017) Nonfatal strangulation as part of domestic violence: a review of research. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 18(4): 407–424. DOI: 10.1177/1524838015622439

47.

Quest

Marco

(2003) Ethics seminars: vulnerable populations in emergency medicine research. Academic Emergency Medicine 10(11): 1294–1298. DOI: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2003.tb00616.x

48.

Reckdenwald

Fernandez

Mandes

(2019) Improving law enforcement’s response to non-fatal strangulation. Policing: International Journal 42: 1007–1021. DOI: 10.1108/PIJPSM-12-2018-0186

49.

Ross

(2012) Impact of Psychoeducational Advocacy Training as Compared to Psychoeducational Support Group as an Empowering Tool for Female Survivors of Domestic Violence. PhD Thesis. New York, NY: Fordham University. https://research.library.fordham.edu/dissertations/AAI3545597/

50.

Rubin

(2011) Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. Newbury Park, Cal: Sage Publications.

51.

Shivayogi

(2013) Vulnerable population and methods for their safeguard. Perspectives in Clinical Research 4(1): 53–57. DOI: 10.4103/2229-3485.106389

52.

Sorenson

Joshi

Sivitz

(2014) A systematic review of the epidemiology of nonfatal strangulation, a human rights and health concern. American Journal of Public Health 104(11): e54–e61. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302191

53.

Stark

(2007) Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life. New York: Oxford University Press.

54.

Staub

Vollhardt

(2008) Altruism born of suffering: the roots of caring and helping after victimization and other trauma. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 78(3): 267–280. DOI: 10.1037/a0014223

55.

Strack

McClane

Hawley

(2001) A review of 300 attempted strangulation cases Part I: criminal legal issues. Journal of Emergency Medicine 21(3): 303–309. DOI: 10.1016/s0736-4679(01)00399-7

56.

Taliaferro

Mills

Walker

(2001) Walking and talking victims of strangulation. Is there a new epidemic? A commentary. Journal of Emergency Medicine 21(3): 293–295. DOI: 10.1016/s0736-4679(01)00397-3

57.

Taylor-Dunn

(2023) Researching domestic abuse and sexual violence – ethical and methodological considerations. In: McLoone-Richards

(ed), Researching Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence: Critical Perspectives for Student-Practitioner Researchers. Taylor & Francis Group, 10–19.

58.

Ten Have

(2016) Vulnerability: Challenging Bioethics. Abingdon: Routledge.

59.

Thomas

(2020) A Feminist-Centered, Self-Efficacy, Psychoeducational Intervention for Low-Income Rural Abused Women. Thesis. Claremont, California: Scripps College. Available at: https://scholarship.claremont.edu/scripps_theses/1502

60.

Thomas

Joshi

Sorenson

(2014) Do you know what it feels like to drown? Strangulation as coercive control in intimate relationships. Psychology of Women Quarterly 38(1): 124–137. DOI: 10.1177/0361684313488354

61.

Tolmie

Smith

Short

, et al. (2018) Social entrapment: a realistic understanding of the criminal offending of primary victims of intimate partner violence. New Zealand Law Review 2: 181–217.

62.

Vella

Miller

Lambert

, et al. (2017) “I felt close to death”: a phenomenological study of female strangulation survivors of intimate terrorism. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy 29(4): 171–188. DOI: 10.1080/08952833.2017.1370572

63.

Wilbur

Higley

Hatfield

, et al. (2001) Survey results of women who have been strangled while in an abusive relationship. Journal of Emergency Medicine 21(3): 297–302. DOI: 10.1016/s0736-4679(01)00398-5

64.

Wood

Bandura

(1989) Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of Management Review 14: 361–384.

‘I’m going to take my power back and do whatever I can’: The self-efficacy of survivors of intimate partner strangulation and their engagement in research interviews

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Intimate partner strangulation

Human research ethics committees

Methodology

Method

Ethics

Analysis

Findings

Cognitive processes – ‘… I put it in my work brain …’

Motivational processes – ‘… I just want to be able to help others’

Affective processes – ‘I’m all good with it …’

Selection processes – ‘I suppose I pick and choose …’

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

Data Availability Statement

References