Author: Jamie Bird

Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Jamie Bird is an art therapist working within the University of Derby’s Therapeutic Arts subject area. He is concerned with the ways in which art therapy can be synthesised with other areas of enquiry, including visual and sensory research methodologies and community development. Recent collaboration with community projects and other academics has led to working alongside asylum seekers, refugees and women who have experienced domestic violence to produce art works that explore shared and personal experiences. Jamie is currently engaged in PhD research that aims to evaluate the arts as an aid to documenting and representing women’s experiences of domestic violence in the East Midlands. This project is being supervised by Dr Rebecca Barnes and Linda Wheildon.

Abstract

This paper is concerned with some of the dilemmas encountered as a male PhD student researching women’s experiences of domestic violence. The research aims to develop and evaluate a methodology that employs the arts as a means to collecting, documenting and representing women’s experiences of domestic violence: when the majority of research on domestic violence is based on text and speech what does the making of art contribute to the understanding of domestic violence?           

At this stage of the process there appear two problems: the first is the challenge of accommodating, within the traditional text-based practice of social science, non-linear and physical forms of data and knowledge; the second is that of being a male researcher researching women’s experiences of domestic violence. The focus here is the latter problem. There is though a dilemma in explicitly addressing my gender. Doing so brings this element of my identity towards the centre of the research in the service of researcher reflexivity but runs the risk of shifting the focus of attention away from the main focus of the research; which is the experience of participants and the evaluation of a methodology.

This dilemma would seem to have some links with the choice faced by men who support the cause of feminism and the political and linguistic subtleties involved in the choice of labelling oneself feminist, pro-feminist with a hyphen, or profeminist without one. Harry Brod (1998) argues that the label feminist, when adopted by men individually, communicates best the strength of their support and engagement with feminism, more so than a hyphenated or de-hyphenated profeminism, even though it runs the risk of ‘men co-opting women’s identities and struggles’ (p.207). Brod further argues that the hyphen potentially distances men from a complete political engagement with the aims of feminism, by suggesting the adoption of a supportive position, rather than a fuller emotional and intellectual willingness to contribute to conversations about gender and power and to take action accordingly. For the reasons outlined by Brod I am adopting the profeminist label to identify my own research position.

Other male researchers have also had to address the role their gender plays.  Jeff Hearn (1998), for example, identifies a number of issues facing the male researcher and makes clear the gravity of the problems faced when he states that ‘men’s knowledge as researchers and/or researched remains severely limited by virtue of men’s power locations as members of an oppressor class (or classes), relative to women’s knowledge of the effects of men.’ (1998, p.42). Whilst the problems he identifies are not easily resolvable, they can be addressed by ensuring that research is not planned and conducted in isolation from feminism, as to do so is likely to ‘reproduce some of the ‘knowledge’ of anti-feminism’. (1998, p.43). Similar issues have been addressed by David Beecham (2009) who argues that there is a danger of over-simplifying the relationship between gender and power by creating a polarised view of the oppressors and the oppressed. He acknowledges the need to question the ability of male researchers to speak for women and that the male researcher must accept the influence of his gender and adopt methodological practices that are conscious of and minimise the positions of privilege and power that may be inherent within his practice. Beecham also states that ‘one should not view accounts as being right or wrong, instead researchers should acknowledge that all knowledge is situated and that there is value to ‘insider’ and ‘outsider’ perspectives.’ (2009, p.6).

As well as assisting in the task of reflexivity, the employment of a feminist position will help to contextualise participant’s experiences. The developments that have taken place over the last four decades within law enforcement, support services and social attitudes towards domestic violence are as a result of activists and researchers who have aligned themselves with feminist principles (Dobash & Dobash, 1992; Hague & Malos, 2005; Kirkwood, 1993). To not acknowledge and engage with feminism when researching domestic violence would be to work in a very limited way; though it is worth remembering that feminism is not a homogenous body of knowledge. Sandra Harding provides a critique of a number of feminist epistemologies with the understanding that ‘different epistemologies offer possibilities for different distributions of political power’ (Harding, 1998, p.175) in terms of the way they legitimise different kinds of knowledge. In particular, socialist feminism is responsible for the development of feminist standpoint theory, which positions women’s lived experience at the centre of the generation of knowledge and action. This later point, Harding suggests, means that ‘men can begin their thought in women’s lives, with the assistance that feminist theories have provided, to produce equally powerful analyses of how the gender system works.’ (1998, p.184).  This last point adds legitimacy to the role of the male researcher within the study of domestic violence - when they are guided by existing feminist knowledge that is in turn founded upon women’s experience of domestic violence.

Having put forward an argument for conducting research upon women’s experience as a male researcher I want to address the practical implications for women participants. It is easy to imagine that for many women, who have experienced domestic violence, working with a male researcher will be problematic and a good number will legitimately decline an invitation to participate in the project. Likewise I can envision that the same will be true for those organizations that support women. David Beecham (2009) writes about his own response to these issues stating that such decisions should be respected and, that when conducting research with women, as a male researcher certain practices need to be adopted to diminish power differences between participants and the researcher.  These include providing choices to participants (location of meetings, interview via telephone rather than face-to-face etc.), being aware of the gendered use of language – including body language - and giving space for women to respond to questions. To this I would add that the research practices advocated by participatory methods are naturally sensitive to power within research relationships (O’Neill, 2009). Likewise, it could be argued that arts-based data collection allows the emergence of forms of knowledge that do not privilege male centred notions of rationality (MacDougall, 2006; Pink, 2009). However, in all research there is an ethical responsibility upon researchers to be mindful of the special position they have as the interpreters of data.

To conclude then: engaging in profeminist research requires that I be reflexive about my own relationship to gender violence and to my own place within the construction of gendered knowledge. Feminist epistemologies and feminist practices can help to create a structure within which to think about and act upon these themes. The practicalities of this project demand sensitivity towards participants at all stages of the research process. Arts-based methodologies, through allowing access to different kinds of knowledge can complement more traditional forms of data; and aligning that method with a participatory method can contribute to the restructuring of power that being a male researcher researching women’s experience of domestic violence implies.