Researching Domestic Abuse: Risk of Vicarious Traumatization

Domestic violence is defined as any event of controlling or threatening actions, regarding those aged 16 or older who are or have been intimate partners or family members. This can include but is not restricted to; psychological, sexual, financial, or emotional. Controlling behavior includes behaviors constructed to make a person subordinate and dependent by separating them from sources of support (such as family) and depriving them of the means needed for independence, resistance, and escape for example, money and education.

There are several problems with researching domestic abuse. Some include researcher distress, limited homosexual couple research, and participant safety. Nikischer (2018) suggests that vicarious traumatization and secondary traumatic stress may occur in researchers due to repeated exposure to domestic violence experiences. McClennen (2005) argues that such research still oppresses and ignores the idea that there is domestic violence in couples outside of the heterosexual norm, despite a more open society to such couples. Finally, researchers such as McGarry and Ali (2016) suggest that there is not enough protection for participants outside of the study, and new forms of consent should be explored alongside practices such as counseling during and after the study.

One issue with researching domestic violence is that it may cause harm to professionals working with domestic violence victims. Baird and Kracen (2006) described vicarious traumatization as any harmful changes that happen in a specialist's view of themselves and the world resulting from experiences with traumatic material of their clients. Nikischer (2018) suggests that much of the research conducted into vicarious traumatization is focused within counseling and other such healthcare fields. Maguire and Byrne (2017) gave an example outside of the healthcare field with criminal lawyers also being exposed to trauma in their line of work, and therefore, they two are at risk of vicarious traumatization. In places such as crisis centers, protections are pit in place to support their workers, however, professionals were unable to avoid compassion fatigue, stress, and vicarious traumatization from the stories they heard.

On the same hand, professionals researching domestic violence may experience vicarious traumatization. Nikischer (2018) argues that researchers can feel alone in their line of work as others avoided the research. Additionally, researchers may feel researcher guilt and discomfort, this means that researchers can feel guilty about how they cannot support participants, while the researchers benefit from the data that is provided by the participants. From the information provided by participants, Nikischer suggests that researchers can feel a sense of helplessness as participants offer their time and personal stories while receiving nothing in return. When writing the report on the stories heard, researchers may experience further vicarious traumatization as they must listen to the stories again.

Another main issue with domestic violence research is that its primary focus is on heterosexual couples, with limited research into domestic violence and LGBTQ. Hester and Donovan (2009) suggested that abuse in heterosexual couples became noticeable in the late 1960s, during the 1980s lesbian couples and domestic violence were discussed, but male relationships were still mostly ignored. It is suggested that this was due to a largely homophobic community, so people were trying to limit and deny the existence of gay male relationships. McClennen (2005) suggested that within the last 20 years research into homosexual couples and domestic violence has been largely non-existent.

Hester (2004) argued that there is a lack in research in homosexual couples because domestic violence was produced as a social construct for masculinity and a man's power and domination over a woman. Many of the studies conducted into homosexual relationships and domestic violence argue that it is not the same as abuse in heterosexual relationships. In lesbian relationships, domestic abuse was a gender and power scenario, but the definitions needed to be altered to account for different experiences and meanings related to domestic violence (Renzetti, 1993). There has been little to no research into homosexual domestic violence and very little recognition that it exists. Henderson (2003) conducted research between April and September 2000 and found that 22% of lesbian and bisexual women and 29% of gay and bisexual men have experienced domestic violence within a same-sex relationship. McClennen (2005) argued that research is limited with a homosexual sample because domestic abuse is a very sensitive subject to discuss and its relation to same-sex couples has still daunted researchers. Due to differences between homosexual and heterosexual couples and domestic abuse in areas such as help-seeking behavior, research needs to be individual and unique to homosexual couples instead of being mixed with heterosexual couples and assuming they have the same attitudes and behaviour towards domestic abuse.

The final issue with researching domestic abuse is the welfare and safety of the participants in such a study. One issue that can affect a study is a participant's self-worth, i.e., they may feel that they have nothing of value to contribute to a study (Kitzinger, 1995). A way to fix this is by using focus groups, this eliminates the fear of a one-to-one environment which could cause additional stress to a participant, and it allows the needs a of the participants to come before the researcher's agenda (Wilkinson, 1998). Allow self-worth can be increased by individual interviews as they feel useless and incapable of providing a helpful insight for the study, their welfare may be protected by using focus groups as it allows them to have group support from people in a similar situation.

McGarry and Ali (2016) argue that there is an increased risk to participants with regard to consent forms and copies of information sheets. Participants may not feel safe keeping these, especially if the abuserperpetrator is still in contact. This is due to the perpetrator possibly finding the consent forms ‘ therefore, knowing that the participant is in a domestic abuse study ’ which could cause more harm to the participant, if the perpetrator becomes violent, putting them at more risk than if the researchers took verbal consent or did not provide copies of the forms. Davis et al (2001) also suggested that due to the nature of the study, it has the potential to mentally harm the participants as they are survivors of domestic abuse and therefore, it may bring up painful and emotionally traumatic memories for them.

The cognitive approach suggests using clinical supervision because it is a coping strategy that helps improve the personal psychological state of the professional (Nikischer, 2018). Clinical supervision helps to reduce the impact of vicarious traumatization and secondary traumatic stress. The improvement in the psychological state of professionals and researchers consequently improves their performance as well. Furthermore, it should be implanted that researchers require higher levels of preparation and self-care in maintaining an acceptable emotional response to the research and minimizing their emotional involvement (Rager, 2005; Woodby et al, 2011). However, funding applications are very detailed and cover every aspect of the methodology, but there is nothing regarding the safety of the researchers.

There are different ways to protect the participants in a study from harm caused by their abusers. The researchers should consider asking the participants if they wish to keep copies of the forms, to relieve them of stress that could be caused by having such documents. Other forms of consent could also be used, such as a group consent form, or verbal consent, that will avoid having any physical evidence that could be used against a participant (Bacchus et at, 2003). Studies into domestic violence can also cause trauma to reoccur for some participants, it would be ideal to have specialist available during and after the study that can help the participants with any emotional pain that could occur.