Issue

Vol. 26 No. 1 (2022): African Sociological Review

2 - Autoethnography, Reflexivity, and Insider Researcher Dynamics: Reflections on Investigating Violence against Men in Intimate Relationships

https://doi.org/10.57054/asr.v6i2.3976
Emmanuel Rowlands
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5775-3826

Corresponding Author(s) : Emmanuel Rowlands

201707708@student.uj.ac.za

African Sociological Review, Vol. 26 No. 1 (2022): African Sociological Review

Abstract

Autoethnography is a qualitative research method for relating lived-through personal experiences to a range of existing social representations. It is regarded as self-representation in examining and critiquing dominant representations. While the researcher’s subjectivities are restricted within the ethnographic qualitative framework, autoethnography emphasises this
foundation as essential to data collection, interpretation, and analysis in the research process. In this paper, I discuss how my lived-through personal experience of abuse influenced how/why I conceptualised, investigated, and represented the lived experiences of several abused male victims of intimate partner violence in Johannesburg, which are typically ignored in gender- based violence literature. The paper comments on tactics used to negotiate ethical dilemmas as part of a conceptual examination of the benefits of reflexivity and insider positionality to reinforce the self-reflective autoenthgrapahy as a valuable qualitative method.

Keywords

Reflexivity Autoethnography Violence Intimate Relationships
Emmanuel Rowlands. (2022). 2 - Autoethnography, Reflexivity, and Insider Researcher Dynamics: Reflections on Investigating Violence against Men in Intimate Relationships. African Sociological Review, 26(1). https://doi.org/10.57054/asr.v6i2.3976
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
References
  1. Adams T, Holman Jones, S and Ellis C. 2015. Autoethnography. Oxford University Press. Oxford, UK.
  2. Anderson L. 2006. Analytic autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4): 373-395.
  3. Anderson KL. 2005. Theorizing gender in intimate partner violence research, Sex Roles, 52: 11- 12.
  4. Adebayo A. 2014. Domestic violence against men: balancing the gender issues in Nigeria. American Journal of Sociological Research, 4(1): 14-19.
  5. Babbie E and Mouton J. 2011. The practice of social research. Oxford University Press, Cape Town.
  6. Berger R. 2013. Now I see it. Now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 15(2): 219-234.
  7. Bochner AP and Ellis CS. 2016. Evacuative autoethnography: Writing lives and telling stories.Routledge, New York.
  8. Brown VM, Strauss JL, Labar K, Gold AL, McCarthy G and Morey RA. 2014. Acute effects of trauma-focused research procedure on participants’ safety and distress. Psychiatry Research, 215(1): 154-158.
  9. Barkhuizen M. 2015. Police reaction to the male victim of domestic violence in South Africa: case study analysis. Police Practice and Research, 16(4): 291-302.
  10. Braun V and Clarke V .2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2): 77-101.
  11. Braun V and Clarke V. 2013. Successful qualitative research: a practical guide for beginners. Sage, London.
  12. Buiten, D and Naidoo, K. 2020. Laying claim to a name: towards a sociology of “Gender Based Violence”, South African Review of Sociology, (10): 1080-2152.
  13. Campbell R and Adams EA. 2009. Why do rape survivors volunteer for face-to- face interviews?
  14. Amenta-study of victims reasons for concern about research participation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(3): 395-405.
  15. Chatham-Carpenter A. 2010. “Do Thyself No Harm”: Protecting ourselves as autoethnographers. Journal of Research Practice, 6(1): 13.
  16. Costa D, Soares J, Lindert J, Hatzidimitriadou E, Sundin O, Toth O and Barros H. 2015. Intimate partner violence: a study in men and women from six European countries. International Journal of Public Health, 60(4): 467-78.
  17. Creswell JW. 2009. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach (Third Edition), Sage Publication, Thousand Oaks, CA.
  18. Creswell JW. 2013. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing five approaches), Sage Publication, Thousand Oaks, CA.
  19. Donalek, J.G. and Solwish, S. 2004. An introduction to qualitative research methods. Urologic Nursing and Midwifery, 10(1): 22-34.
  20. Dienye PO and Gbeneol KP. 2009. Domestic violence against men in primary care in Nigeria. American Journal of Men’s Health, 3(4): 333-339.
  21. Dobash RE and Dobash RP. 1979. Violence against wives. A case against patriarchy. New York Press. New York.
  22. Dragiewiez M. 2008. Patriarchy reasserted: fathers’ rights and anti-vawa activism. Feminist Criminology, 3(2): 173-174.
  23. Ellis C. 2004. The ethnographic I: a methodological novel about autoethnography. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.
  24. Ellingson L and Ellis C. 2008. Autoethnography as a constructionist project. In Holstein JA and Gubrium JF (Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 445-465). Guilford Press, New York.
  25. Entilli L and Cipolletta S .2016. When the woman gets violent: the construction of domestic abuse experience from heterosexual men’s perspective. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 26(15-16): 2328-2341.
  26. Elemesky, R. 2005. Rethinking qualitative research: Research participants as central researchers and enacting ethical practices as habitus. Qualitative Social Research, 6(3): 36.
  27. Gabriel Y. 2015. Reflexivity and beyond — a plea for imagination in qualitative research methodology. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 10(4): 332-336.
  28. George J.1994. Riding the donkey backward: men as the unacceptable victims of marital violence. Journal of Men’s Studies, 3: 137-159.
  29. Gobo G and Molle A. 2017. Doing ethnography, 2nd edn, Saga Publishers, London. Gray DE. 2014. Doing research in the real world. Sage Publishers London.
  30. Griffin MG, Resick PA, Waldrop AE and Mechanic MB. 2003. Participant in trauma research: is there evidence of harm? Journal of Traumatic Stress, 16: 221-227. Heise L. 2011. What works to prevent partner violence? An evidence overview.
  31. Department for International Development. London, England.Hines DA and Douglas EM. 2010. A closer look at men who sustain intimate terrorism by women.Partner Abuse, (1): 286-313.
  32. Koopman WJ, Watling CJ and LaDonna KA. 2020. Autoethnography as a strategy for engaging in reflexivity. Global Qualitative Nursing Research, 7: 1-9.
  33. Lawson J. 2012. Sociological theories of intimate partner violence. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 22(5): 572-590.
  34. Leedy PD and Ormrod JE. 2001. Practical research: planning and design, (Seventh Edition), Merrill Prentice Hall, Ohio.
  35. Mason-Bish H. 2019. The elite delusion: reflexivity, identity, and positionality in arch. Qualitative Research, 19(3): 263-276.
  36. World Health Organization. 2010. Preventing intimate partner and sexual violence against women:taking action and generating evidence. Geneva: World Health Organization. World Health Organization. 2013. Global and regional estimates of violence against women: prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. Geneva: World Health Organisation.
  37. Yin RK. 2009. Case study research: design and methods, (fourth Edition), Sage, and Oaks, CA.
Read More

Author Biography

Emmanuel Rowlands

SARChI Welfare & Social Development Centre for Social Development University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa.

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 210 Download : 153

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.