Academics working with vulnerable groups should rethink “extractive” methods of results-gathering in favour of more collaborative partnerships that allow communities to set the research agenda, the head of a new project offering research training to domestic abuse survivors has argued.
In a pioneering study into coercive control led by King’s College London, victims of abusive relationships have been given specialised training to carry out qualitative research themselves, including how to design surveys, conduct interviews and undertake analysis.
Survivors will examine how mobile phones and technology can facilitate coercive control within relationships and how this kind of abuse affects women who are older, are pregnant or have small children. It will also consider how datasets held by police and the Office for National Statistics could be enhanced to enable detection of such offences.
The project is also aiming to establish a new paradigm for how researchers consult with patient or subject groups to ensure research is genuinely collaborative, explained study lead Sharli Anne Paphitis, research fellow at King’s and co-director of the Violence, Abuse and Mental Health Network.
“Traditionally, academics set the agenda when they apply for research funding, and those with lived experience of the issues are brought in at a much later stage – they don’t get to say where the focus should be,” Dr Paphitis told Times Higher Education.
When consultation does occur, it is often not sustained given the complexities of maintaining relationships with vulnerable individuals who may have been “traumatised, or have mental health challenges, or have been victims”, she continued.
In this project, domestic abuse survivors have been involved in an advisory group as the project was being planned and will now help to carry out the research itself, explained Dr Paphitis.
“This is partly about unlocking their research skills so they are driving the research – if we really want to do survivor-led research well, survivors need to be involved at every stage and be trained in how to do it themselves,” she said.
Other disciplines could embrace this approach to involving those with lived experience of social problems, Dr Paphitis believed. “We should go beyond the traditional research dynamic of simply trying to extract information from hard-to-reach groups – higher education and research organisations should aim for a relationship which is truly collaborative, involving these people as research partners to address the challenges they have faced.”
This collaborative approach was likely to lead to richer data and improve question-setting but could also be transformative for those traumatised by domestic abuse because it helped them reassess their own experiences, said Dr Paphitis. “It’s been a very empowering experience because it allows them to reshape how they engage with their trauma and abuse,” she said.
In some cases, the project had encouraged participants to seek more formal academic recognition for their research efforts. “One of the group has applied to do a PhD, and another has published a journal paper about this,” said Dr Paphitis, adding that these researchers were also keen to play an active role in publicising the research outside traditional academic outlets.
“Academics might be keen to publish their work in journals, but survivors will not be reading these scholarly papers, so it’s useful if we can disseminate this knowledge in different ways.”
