Methods for Assessing and Addressing Participant Protection Concerns in Intimate Partner Violence Research

Abstract

Research on intimate partner violence (IPV) is highly sensitive and may put some participants at increased psychological, emotional, and physical risk. Still, we know little about the risks posed by most social science methods and have minimal guidance regarding appropriate practices for carrying out various forms of research. This study collected data from 59 IPV researchers regarding the most commonly used participant protection methods, the efficacy of those methods, number and nature of adverse events (AE) experienced, and experiences with institutional review boards (IRBs). Participants were invited via e-mail to complete an anonymous online survey. Findings indicate an overall low incidence of AEs as well as a minimal relationship between AEs and IPV inquiry. These findings may provide researchers with preliminary data on the effectiveness of various participant protection methods. Results may also facilitate more innovative and effective participant protections measures, help researchers prevent and cope with AE, and create more mutually beneficial relationships with IRBs.

First, Do No Harm: From Diversity and Inclusion to Equity and Anti-racism in Interpersonal Violence Research and Scholarship

“…Cross-sectional designs in which data are collected from survivors at one point in time without follow-up are safer and less risky. In a survey of intimate partner/domestic violence researchers to explore their use of various human subject protections, Hellmuth and Leonard (2013) reported that the most commonly utilized participant protections were anonymity; in person or telephone interviews; preventing participants' partners from being aware of their participation or of their answers; certificates of confidentiality; using same-sex interviewers; training research staff in safety planning; and providing referral lists of community resources (Hellmuth & Leonard, 2013, p. 492). Because of the potential risks to participant safety and well-being in gender-based violence research, qualitative methods such as in-depth interviews are apt research designs which give voice to individuals with lived experience, enable participants to share from the perspective of their intersectional social identity, with skilled interviewers trained to engage participants to collect thick data and support a positive interview experience.…”