The research strategy employed in this study takes as its point of departure community-based action research from a feminist perspective. This perspective privileges the voices of women survivors, acknowledging that their experience is central to gaining a clear understanding of the issue (Reinharz, 1992). Community-based research lends itself well to a feminist perspective by emphasizing the shared understandings and conceptualizations of a specific issue by those who live within a community and who experience its impact more directly. As well, this research paradigm is particularly suited for investigations of sensitive topics such as woman abuse in small communities (Ristock and Pennell, 1996). As this was not a participatory-action research project,⁽⁷⁾ every attempt was made to incorporate a community-based approach in order to elicit data that were representative of community definitions, concerns and suggestions regarding woman abuse. Thus, this study relied on community-based researchers who had worked extensively in the area of woman abuse, and who were knowledgeable about their communities.

RESEARCH IN RURAL COMMUNITIES

It has been noted that rural communities have a close-knit nature and that outsiders are viewed with suspicion (Weisheit, et al., 1994). Community-based research circumvents or substantially reduces this problem by involving members of the community in the research process and enabling them to define the focus of the research (Barnsley and Ellis, 1992). In addition, a community-based approach utilizes the expertise inherent within communities thereby resulting in a more holistic and richer analysis. However, research that is community specific also raises concerns about ethics, especially since in smaller communities confidentiality cannot be guaranteed.

ETHICAL CONCERNS

Weisheit, et al. (1994) note that researchers studying rural communities face a range of ethical issues that may otherwise not surface in investigations of the same phenomenon in urban milieux. In part, ethical concerns arise because of the small size of rural communities and the attendant lack of confidentiality that ensues (Edleson and Frank, 1991; Fahnestock, 1992). In addition, studying woman abuse in rural areas where familiarity and social cohesion are extant, can serve to endanger women who are living with or have left abusive relationships. This is particularly true of those women who continue to be harassed by their ex-spouses. Additionally, community-based researchers themselves may face backlash as a result of the research or become targets of hostility by abusive ex-partners (Dempster, 1995; Geauvreau, 1996).

This study utilized a number of measures that addressed ethical concerns. These included providing interviewees and key informants with assurances of confidentiality, obtaining consent forms, and using pseudonyms to protect the identities of participants and the research sites.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This study used a combination of methodological tools. They included: (1) individual, semi-structured interviews; (2) focus group methodology; and (3) informal discourse analysis resulting in a thematic analysis of the data. The use of a multi-method approach allows for the collection of data from diverse groups within a community. The use of different methods also allows for better triangulation as the findings of each method are assessed in relation to another (Ristock and Pennell, 1996). Thus, in this study, the multi-method approach enabled collection of data from four different sources: (1) women survivors of violence; (2) key informants; (3) service providers; and (4) community residents and leaders. These groups are described below.

INTERVIEW METHODOLOGY

Informal semi-structured interviews permit a greater degree of participation between the interviewer and interviewee. In addition, this interview format allows interviewees to expand on different issues and recount pertinent experiences. From a feminist perspective, informal semi-structured interviews encourage a more equitable sharing of information between the feminist interviewer and the interviewee (Reinharz, 1992). For these reasons, interview methodology was used to obtain the views and experiences of women survivors and key informants.

Women Survivors

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 women survivors, 10 from each of the research sites. The objective of the interviews was to gain insight into the experiences of women living with violence in rural settings. For purposes of safety and legality, women selected for the interviews were required to be safe from violence for one year or more, and could not be involved in a court case concerning their abusive partners at the time of the interview.

The rationale for interviewing survivors of violence derives from the use of feminist methodologies and epistemology which argue for the centrality of women's experiences (Kirby and McKenna, 1989). As survivors, women have an intimate knowledge of violence and can relate the ways in which that experience is influenced by rurality. Since the aim of the study was to determine the ways in which rurality impacted on women's experiences of abuse, semi-structured interviews were seen as being the most appropriate tools for soliciting data which are qualitative in nature, and grounded in the experiential reality of the interviewees.

Key Informants

A total of 13 key informants (6 from one site and 7 from the other) were interviewed using a semi-structured, open-ended interview format. The use of key informants as a source of data was based on the need to obtain different perspectives on the issue of rural women and violence, using interview methodology. The aim was to "cast the net as widely as possible" (Reinharz, 1992), so as to solicit deeper insights into the issue of rural woman abuse. As well, the use of interview methodology helps to counter a weakness of focus group methodology where group discussion can be dominated by some participants at the expense of silencing other points of view, and where issues of public representation may compromise the quality of the data (Gibbs, 1997). Key informants interviewed included front-line service delivery personnel; directors of various community agencies, transition houses, and victim services; advocates; as well as local police officers and counsellors.

FOCUS GROUP METHODOLOGY

Focus group methodology obtains multiple perspectives on an issue in a short period of time. At the same time, the group setting enables dialogue and discussion about an issue, reflecting different points of departures and understandings of a given topic. However, as pointed out earlier, focus group methodology has certain weaknesses which arise from the unequal relations of power among representatives at the table. This can be expressed in the form of some participants dominating the group and thereby silencing others (Gibbs, 1997). Despite this, focus groups offer a valuable opportunity to obtain a sample of differing views at a given point in time. Focus group methodology was used to access the views of service providers and community residents and leaders.

Service Providers

A focus group of service providers was convened at each research site. Each focus group was attended by 7 representatives from diverse organizations that included the local transition house, crisis line, various outreach programs, drug and youth counselling services, community coordination programs, sexual assault centres, police and crown-based victim assistance programs and emergency services. The aim of the focus group was to gauge service providers' views regarding the adequacy of services for woman abuse, the kinds of services that were most required and used, and barriers faced by women survivors. In addition, the purpose was to collect data regarding community perceptions and responses to woman abuse.

Community Leaders and Residents

Two focus groups of community leaders and residents were held at each of the research sites. The aim was to examine the salience of woman abuse, community actions to combat it, and factors that contributed to it. Focus group participants included: municipal and church councillors, school trustees, representatives from labour unions, hospitals and health boards, as well as various community organizations.

RESEARCH TOOLS

The specific research tools used in this study were obtained from the Department of Justice and were originally developed in partnership with the Community Abuse Program of Rural Ontario (CAPRO) for use in the Ontario Rural Woman Abuse Study (ORWAS). The latter study also focussed on woman abuse in rural settings and hence, the tools were considered to be highly applicable to the present project as they covered the range of variables associated with rural life identified in the literature. Modifications that were made to the ORWAS research questions for survivors and focus groups were minor and included grammatical changes to better incorporate a more informal and cooperative tone in the interview process. A sample of the interview and focus group questions and guides is presented in Appendices B through G.

Three other questions were added to the list of questions for survivors and focus group participants. These focussed on: changes in perceptions of woman abuse over time, questions concerning the impact of legal aid, and questions aimed at uncovering the different facets of isolation experienced by women in rural communities. Two additions were based on the FREDA Centre's involvement in related issues, the first of which was an examination of recent statistics showing a decline in reported rates of violence against women in three metropolitan areas (Kong, 1997); and the second, the Centre's participation in the Women's Access to Legal Services (WALS) Coalition.⁽⁸⁾ The third addition stemmed from an analysis of the literature which suggested that isolation was a multi-faceted construct.

Key informant questions were developed on the basis of the questions asked to survivors and focus group participants, as well as issues that were identified as salient in the literature. While the ORWAS project did not produce a tool to undertake key informant interviews, such interviews were conducted in several of the sites. Questions used for key informants are included in Appendix C.

The finalized set of questions were then sent to individual community-based researchers working in each site for their feedback. Their evaluations were positive and did not include any suggested changes.

ETHICS

Ethics approval for the study was obtained from Simon Fraser University, and the appropriate consent forms and information letters were sent out by researchers to participants in the project.

RESEARCHERS

Two community-based researchers who are familiar with the issue of woman abuse and who have worked in the area were selected to conduct the interviews and focus groups. Their familiarity with the issue and connections in the research-specified community enabled them to conduct the research in a way that may not have been possible had the research been conducted by outsiders. Drawing on their connections with service providers and women in the community, the researchers were able to contact and interview women survivors residing in the community. In one of the research-specified communities, the researcher was approached by numerous women survivors who were eager to share their stories. However, time limitations did not permit additional interviews.

Interviewees would refer other women to the interviewer, and hence through the technique of "snowballing", interviewers were able to contact and interview 10 survivors in each of the research specified sites.

DATA ANALYSIS

The analysis involved several stages of categorizing and filtering the data in order to identify and extract dominant themes, i.e., themes that reappeared throughout the interviews with women survivors and the key informant interviews. In addition, focus group transcripts were also analyzed in terms of identifying themes which resonated with or provided additional perspectives on the issue of woman abuse in rural communities. The method of analysis was based on an informal discourse analysis (van Dijk, 1985).

FIRST LEVEL

For each group (survivors, key informants, focus groups), the resulting data were collated and then further categorized around dominant themes as identified in both the questions asked and the responses provided. For example, in the question to survivors regarding their recognition of abuse, answers were collated under the general category of "recognition of abuse." However, under the question of isolation, responses were grouped not only under the general category of "isolation" but under specific aspects referencing the different facets of isolation, for example, cultural isolation, geographic isolation, self-imposed and other-imposed isolation. Thus, there was an interplay between categories implicit/explicit in the questions asked by interviewers, and the categories/themes afforded by the richness of data provided by the interviewees and participants.

While the community-based researchers working in each of the sites were provided with the same set of questions for each specific group (i.e., survivors, key informants, and focus groups), the answers offered did not always correspond to the questions being asked. In part, this is a function of the open-ended, informal method of interviewing that was used in this project. However, the advantages of this method far outweigh its costs. Given the nature of the topic, it was critical for the participants to feel comfortable and to relay their experiences. Nevertheless, in terms of analyzing the resulting data, often no or minimal responses were given to some questions, and then subsequently more extensive answers to the same question would emerge in the latter part of the interview. This was especially so for the focus group data which, because of the nature of focus group methodology, did not lend itself that easily to a linear categorization based on the order of the questions asked.

Redundancies

Many of the questions asked of survivors, key informants and focus groups participants had built-in redundancies. In part, these redundancies were designed to obtain answers within the context of the specific questions being asked. For example, several questions dealt with the barriers that women survivors face when leaving abusive relationship. Another question asked interviewees to identify factors that impede women from leaving abusive relationships. The two questions are inter-related and, thus, many of the answers provided were similar. Therefore, in the context of the thematic analysis, the same themes appeared within each section or question. In the same vein, while survivors, focus group participants, and interviewees were asked differently-worded questions, the foci of the questions often overlapped, and hence similar themes were identified in the data pertaining to each group.

SECOND LEVEL

The results of the thematic analysis were re-examined for redundancies and, where possible, these were eliminated and the data reorganized and condensed around specific themes: the experience of living with abuse and factors that influenced the decision to remain in the relationship; impact of rurality on abuse; responses from the community; responses from different services and institutions; and recommendations for change. The results of this analysis are presented in Section III of this report.

THIRD LEVEL

These condensed results were then re-analyzed to highlight dominant themes and the impact of rurality on woman abuse. These were then re-grouped in the following order: living with or leaving abuse; reaching out; accessing services; and enabling agents or factors. Attention was paid to the links between themes arising in this study and those reported in the literature. The results are discussed in Section IV of this report.

SUMMARY

The data yielded through the use of multiple methodologies proved to be enormously rich. However, the process of analysis significantly reduced the ethnographic quality of the data, while at the same time, identifying the complex and intersecting variables that impact on and inform rural woman abuse.

^8. The Coalition consists of a broad range of groups that are concerned about the impact of cuts to legal aid services for women in BC.