Abstract
Keywords
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].
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.