Harnessing the Power of Advocacy–Research Collaborations: Lessons From the Field

Harnessing the Power of Advocacy–Research Collaborations:Lessons From the Field

Mary Haviland,CONNECT, New York City

Victoria Frye, andHunter College, City University of New York

Valli RajahJohn Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York

AbstractThe advocacy–research partnership has been identified as a key method of conducting the feministand activist research that is important to domestic violence. However, these partnerships are oftenfraught with challenges that may jeopardize their development, sustainability, and potential impacton policy. Previous commentators have identified key challenges to engaging in advocate–researchercollaborations. This article takes particular care to set forth an advocate perspective through theauthors’ experience of planning and executing a collaborative study on the effects of mandatoryarrest. The authors use a study that was specifically designed to affect policy to offer insight into thechallenges faced and to make recommendations for successfully incorporating social action inadvocacy–researcher collaborations.

Keywordsdomestic violence; advocate research collaborations

Those with direct contact with the daily struggles of women facing violence are acutely awareof the lack of resources, and the prevalence of prejudice and policies that disadvantage victimsof violence. The potential of the research model to document the experiences of women andchildren and to craft policy solutions that address domestic violence make an alliance betweenresearchers and advocates a natural fit. That was the first author’s thinking when, in 1997, NewYork State was 2 years into the implementation of a mandatory arrest law, and domesticviolence advocates were already reporting an increase in the number of victims arrested bypolice officers. This provided the impetus for the authors of this article to join together in acollaborative research project designed to understand the impact of the new law on the livesof women affected by it.

In this article, we (the authors of this article) reflect on our collaboration, which began in 1998and resulted in a study and a report entitled, “The Family Protection and Domestic Violence

Authors’ Note: Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mary Haviland, 518 10th Street, Brooklyn, NY 11215;[email protected] note that, due to publisher error, the affiliations for two of the authors were incorrect: Victoria Frye was identified as affiliatedwith New York University, but it should have been Hunter College, City University of New York, and Valli Rajah was identified asaffiliated with Hunter College, City University of New York, but it should have been John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City Universityof New York, as was originally published in the online and print version of this article (DOI = 10.1177/1557085108323365).

NIH Public AccessAuthor ManuscriptFem Criminol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 November 3.

Published in final edited form as:Fem Criminol. 2008 October 1; 3(4): 247–275. doi:10.1177/1557085108323365.

NIH

-PA Author Manuscript

NIH


NIH


Intervention Act of 1995: Examining the Effects of Mandatory Arrest in New YorkCity” (Haviland, Frye, Rajah, Thukral, & Trinity, 2001). Although much of the previousliterature on advocate–researcher collaboration is written from the point of view of a researcherincorporating the domestic violence service community into their work, we write from theperspective of advocate-initiated research. Our goal is to use our collaboration as a case studythat both illustrates and contributes new principles and lessons for those workingcollaboratively on domestic violence issues. This article has three parts. It begins with adescription of the principles and approaches that formed the foundation of our collaboration.Part II briefly describes the design of study that was the focus of the collaboration and how weidentified the elements and conditions that contributed to the success of the collaboration. PartIII examines some of the particulars of our collaboration and relates these experiences to theexisting work on collaborative research; in addition, it identifies important conditions forcollaboration and makes recommendations based on our experience.

Principles and Approaches That Guided Our CollaborationLike many proponents of advocacy–research collaboration, our research embraced variousprinciples drawn from a range of “liberating” research methodologies, including feministresearch, reflexive sociology, and participatory action research, underpinned by theemancipatory theory of Paulo Friere (Bowes, 1996; Israel, Schultz, Parker, & Becker, 1998;Minkler, 2000; Pence & Shepard, 1988; Reinharz, 1992; Williams, 2004). These perspectivesdiffer somewhat in their approach and terminology. Without entering the details of this debate,we can better understand the principles of collaborative domestic violence research byexamining the common themes present in this broader body of work.

Feminist research principles were an important influence on our collaboration. One consistenttheme within feminist research is the goal of understanding women’s experience in depth, thecontext of their experiences and, in particular, the gendered ways in which power expressesitself (Reinharz, 1992). In addition, many feminists incorporate diverse disciplines in an effortto be thorough, to explore paths to data previously unexplored and to link the knowledge foundto action steps (Reinharz, 1992; Riger, 1999). This search for a deeper understanding relatesto a desire for insight into the role of class, race, sexual orientation, and ethnicity in theparticipant’s experience, elements that are necessary if one is to develop effective action steps.As we embarked on our collaborative research, we were aware of the feminist criticism oftraditional positivist methodologies, which argues for acknowledging one’s attitudes andprejudices, understanding their influence on methods and interpretation of the data(Ramazanoglu & Holland, 2002; Renzetti, 1997), and pursuing accurate knowledge of thephenomenon studied (Mies cited by McDonald, 2003).

Both reflexive and interpretive sociology strongly informed the qualitative research methodswe applied. These perspectives address the interrelated concerns of how to attain a bettercomprehension of people’s lived realities and how to assess the ways in which researchersshape their study findings. Both principles have a long history in sociological thought.Achieving “verstehen” or understanding, traceable to the work of Max Weber, is a centralconcern of interpretive sociology. Some have argued that understanding is achieved througha process of sympathetic introspection whereby a researcher puts him or herself into intimatecontact with those under study. These interactions awake in the researcher experiences that aresimilar to those of the people being studied, which the researcher then attempts to recall anddescribe (Cooley, 1907). Reflexive sociology specifically examines how researchers areimplicated in constructing particular representations of those they research (Wadsworth,2005). Scholars initially embraced interpretive and reflexive research perspectives tounderstand an increasingly complex and diverse social world, which includes the greaterpresence of women in the public sphere and a growing diversity and number of minorities in

Haviland et al.

Fem Criminol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 November 3.

NIH


NIH


NIH


American cities (Wadsworth). In our research, working on and in these conditions of changefacilitated the breakdown of previously taken-for-granted boundaries between researcher andresearched, theory and practice, and even self and other (Wadsworth), all underlying principlesof interpretive and reflexive research.

Finally, participatory action research (PAR) principles played a smaller yet substantive role inour methodological choices. Such research encourages a leveling of hierarchical boundariesbetween the researcher and the researched and active involvement of participants as a meansof ensuring that the goals of the research will be relevant, respectful, and useful to thecommunity represented in the participant sample (Israel et al., 1998; Minkler, 2000; Reinharz,1992). As do many feminist researchers, proponents of PAR underscore the importance ofsocial change as a major goal of advocate researcher collaborations and, therefore, integratean element of activism into the research design (Reinharz, 1992; Small & Uttal, 2005). PARmethodology often draws from multiple sources of information and cycles through an iterativeand democratic process of research, action, and reflection to come to its conclusions (Boser,2006).

If these principles set the stage for collaborative research projects, the domestic violence servicecommunity provided fertile ground for such experimentation. First, principles drawn fromthese traditions have been familiar and important to the efforts to build a network of sheltersand services for victims of domestic violence (Schechter, 1982). Understanding women’sexperience of violence, the dynamics of gendered power, issues of race, class, and sexualorientation, all have been part of domestic violence work. Flattening hierarchy, incorporatingsocial change as a fundamental goal, and understanding one’s values and prejudices have alsobeen important (and much-debated) concepts in building the domestic violence servicecommunity. Furthermore, the principle of collaboration has been central to the domesticviolence movement. For example, the concept of coordinated community response is premisedon the building of collaborative relationships in communities in an effort to address violenceagainst women from multiple perspectives. Collaborative endeavors are seen as fundamentalto combating a social problem that stems from multiple institutional supports for intimatepartner violence.1

Yet historic tensions between advocates and researchers have affected the practice of suchcollaborations. The quantitative population-based studies that find an equal prevalence ofviolence perpetrated by men and women in intimate relationships2 may have hamperedattempts at collaboration (Edelson & Bible 1999;Gondolf, Yllo, & Campbell, 1997;Schechter,1988). In addition, some advocates and service providers have experienced what Williams(2004) calls drive-by research projects whereby researchers swoop in, collect data, and arenever heard from again. Despite these tensions, advocates continue to engage researchers incollaboration, both in recognition of the power of research to bring about social change and tounderstand the multiple social forces that contribute to violence against women.

Mindful of these fundamental principles and the historical tensions often inherent in advocacy–research collaborations, the effects of mandatory arrest team (hereafter “the team”) cametogether to conduct a mixed methods study of an important domestic violence policy. In SectionII, we briefly describe our collaboration and the research methodology it produced. In addition,we describe our process for reflecting on the benefits and challenges of collaborative researchand on the principles and practices that detracted from or promoted the collaboration.

1Although the coordinated community response approach to domestic violence may have become less prevalent as the movement hasinstitutionalized, it is still a very important concept in the field of domestic violence. Another example would be the collaborativerelationships required to receive Violence Against Women Act funds.2This research, conducted by traditional methods, has been criticized for a failure to conduct the phenomenological research necessaryto understand the sociohistorical and other relevant contexts of women’s experience of intimate partner violence.

Haviland et al.


NIH


NIH


NIH


What We DidThe Context and Methods of the Research

In 1994, the New York State legislature passed the Family Protection and Domestic ViolenceIntervention Act, which contained a provision requiring the police to arrest in certain domesticviolence crimes.3 The state legislature built into the law a sunset provision, which providedthat the mandatory arrest provision would expire in the year 2001. And although the law seemedto be working (domestic violence arrests in New York City rose by 140% between 1993 and1998), it also had some unintended consequences, such as increased victim arrest. Victimswere being arrested at the scene of a domestic violence incident as one party to a “dualarrest” (when both parties claim a crime has been committed against them and both are arrested)or as the only party arrested as a result of a complaint by the abuser. General awareness of thisproblem led the New York State legislature to add “Primary Physical Aggressor” language tothe mandatory arrest statute in 1997, which directed law enforcement to seek to identifysomeone as the primary perpetrator of violence when both parties are alleging to be victims.This was accomplished by requiring responding officers to examine certain factors that helpthem to determine whether they are responding to a situation where one party has historicallyabused another, regardless of the claims at the scene.4 Foreseeing victim arrest and otherpotential challenges associated with the mandatory arrest law, Haviland’s New York Citydomestic violence program decided to create a telephone helpline that would assist victims ofdomestic violence with some of the fallout from the new law.5

Helpline advocates reported receiving dozens of calls per month from victims with problemsstemming from the law. The sunset provision motivated advocates and others to study theimplementation and effects of the new law.6 Because there was no local, systematic evaluationthat could inform strategies to redress the problems associated the law, advocates possessedlittle information on which to base a judgment as to whether the law should be reenacted orallowed to lapse. In light of this, Haviland, the advocate author, approached the New York CityDepartment of Health (NYCDOH).7 At the time, there was almost no literature on the effectsof mandatory arrest and none from the perspective of victims themselves.8 The NYC-DOHdecided that the questions raised by the mandatory arrest policy were worthy of study and anew, young researcher, Frye, this article’s second author, was assigned to work on the project.A preliminary analysis of the helpline data revealed that victim arrest was a major problem, aswas the occurrence of a phenomenon that we termed retaliatory arrest (where a complaint isfiled by an abuser after the victim had taken steps to protect herself or her children). In contrastto dual arrest, there were no policies or law in place that would assist police officers inidentifying false or exaggerated complaints that accused the primary victim of a crime.

Understanding the goals of the research and the limitations of the helpline data, Frye concludedthat using blended methods and triangulating the data would be useful and that incorporating

3N.Y. Criminal Procedure Law Section 140.10 was amended to mandate arrest when a crime is committed against a member of the samefamily or household. The law applies to the following crimes: felonies, violations of a stay-away provision of a civil or criminal orderof protection, family offenses committed in violation of an order of protection, and misdemeanor offense unless the victim requests thatno arrest be made. N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law Section 140.10 (McKinney Supp. 2001)4See N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law Section 140.10 (4)(c) (McKinney Supp. 2001) for details of the Primary Physical Aggressor statute.5This program was the Family Violence Project of the Urban Justice Center. In 2003, the Family Violence Project spun off to becomea new domestic violence organization called CONNECT.6See Family Protection and Domestic Violence Intervention Act of 1994: Evaluation of the Mandatory Arrest Provisions, Final Reportto the Governor and Legislature, January 2001. This was the last of four reports prepared by the NYS Division of Criminal Justice Servicesand the Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence for the NYS legislature.7Dr. Susan Wilt, an assistant commissioner at the NYDOH, was engaged in significant research on domestic violence. Wilt was a frequentparticipant in policy discussions and knew the specific conditions facing survivors of domestic violence in New York City.8A search of the literature at the time revealed only one article that examined police records on 157 domestic violence calls, out of which19 women were arrested. The author looked at several variables and their ability to predict the arrest of a woman. Andrea D. Lyon, 5Mich. J. Gender & Law 253 (1999).

Haviland et al.


NIH


NIH


NIH


a rigorous qualitative component would be important. Rajah, a sociologist and this article’sthird author, was invited to join the team.9 In addition, two other domestic violence advocatesand a graduate student interviewer took part in the study.10 The Open Society Institute fundedthe research; Haviland wrote the majority of the grant, and Frye contributed the researchmethods section.11 The entire team participated in some aspect of the conduct of the study, theinterpretation of the data, and the formulation of the conclusions and recommendations. Thestudy ultimately comprised four distinct parts: (a) research describing the context at the timeof mandatory arrest at the state and federal levels and what information was available fromother jurisdictions on victim arrest; (b) an academic literature review as well as a review of the“grey” literature, such as major reports, fact sheets, and Web-posted information on mandatoryand victim arrest to a provide theoretical context and empirical guidance; (c) quantitative,qualitative, and legal analyses and interpretation; and (d) an advocacy/action program to pushfor changes in policy and law suggested by the research.12 The results of the study were self-published and disseminated widely in New York State in a report entitled “The FamilyProtection and Domestic Violence Intervention Act of 1995: Examining the Effects ofMandatory Arrest in New York City.”13 Each component of the study generated specificrecommendations regarding policies and training that might improve police response tovictims.

What was envisioned from the outset was a small, quick study designed to be responsive tothe legislative agenda in New York State at the time. Specifically, the lack of access to policedata and the sense of urgency felt by the advocates to respond to the problems associated withmandatory arrest set the agenda for the study. However, over time, our research evolved intoa unique interdisciplinary endeavor combining social science and public health research, legalanalytic skills, and policy analysis. Initially intended to be a straightforward quantitativeanalysis of police-related helpline calls, the study that emerged from the collaboration was ameld of the theoretical and the practical, which employed a multiplicity of research methods(Reinharz, 1992) to deepen and broaden our understanding of the effects of the law on survivorsof domestic violence.

The study had clear limitations (spelled out in both the report and published articles), some ofwhich might be associated with any research endeavor, and others that stemmed from the actiongoals of the research. The small numbers in the quantitative analysis and the nature of thesample (a convenience sample of callers) limited the findings to potential relationships thatrequired further study. The results could not be generalized to the larger population of womenwho experience domestic violence or call the police, and the research was unable to shed lighton the universe of problems experienced under mandatory arrest, the frequency of thoseproblems, or the distribution of their occurrence. The nature of the research also prevented theteam from uncovering good practice in the implementation of the law. The problem-basedfocus was driven by two factors; the inaccessibility of police data to either the advocate or theresearchers at the time and the exigent policy concerns that were deemed crucial to the goalsof the research. If the inquiry had been uniquely researcher driven, a different approach mighthave been used that resulted in a larger and representative sample of victims who had interactedwith the police. However, the team made the strategic decision that the urgency of the problems

9Valli Rajah was a doctoral student at the time.10They were the attorney who supervised the helpline, Juhu Thukral, Mary Trinity, former executive director of the Rhode IslandCoalition Against Domestic Violence and consultant, and Jo Kim, a graduate student interviewer.11The Open Society Institute funded the study over a period of 2 years. The study had a very modest of budget under US$100,000 total.12In the original proposal, the Advocacy Program would form a committee of experts from New York City to discuss the results of theresearch, create linkages with appropriate state actors, forge areas of agreement, write legislation, and advocate for necessary changesin law and policy.13The report can be obtained at www.connectnyc.org or from Mary Haviland at [email protected]. The findings were also describedin two publications by the effects of mandatory arrest research team (Frye et al., 2007; Rajah et al., 2006).

Haviland et al.


NIH


NIH


NIH


associated with mandatory arrest overshadowed these traditional research goals (Gondolf etal., 1997; Williams, 2004).

The conversations reflecting on our collaboration over the years, which often focused on thedevelopment of new studies or the evaluation of new programs, evolved into the conclusionsand recommendations outlined in this article. The impetus to concretize our analysis of ourcollaboration was the special call for articles on collaboration in domestic violence research.Our analysis was therefore not a self-conscious process during the conduct of the mandatoryarrest study, but it was the subject of many discussions amongst the authors, although notalways altogether. During these conversations, we referenced the existing literature oncollaborations and discussed how and why our collaboration seemed to work and what we likedabout it. We also discussed the structural and other barriers to more collaborative work. Ourconversations often occurred during formal meetings to discuss the research, but also morphedinto more personal conversations centered on careers in the academy, professional research,and advocacy. Thus, when we turned to the task of describing and analyzing our experiencesas collaborators, colleagues, and ultimately friends, we returned to these conversations anddebates, which had taken place over many years, and culled from them the lessons learned anddeveloped our recommendations to others attempting this work.

In Section III, we discuss the benefits and challenges to our collaboration and some of thelessons we learned that contribute to current thinking on collaborative research projects indomestic violence as well as other areas of inquiry.

Reflections on Domestic Violence Advocacy Research Collaborations:Contributions From a Case Example

In light of the importance of advocate–researcher collaboration, various writers have begun toexplore and make recommendations for how to improve them in the context of domesticviolence (Edelson & Bible, 1999; Gondolf et al., 1997; Hart cited in Edelson & Bible, 1999;Sullivan, Bhuyan, Senturia, Shiu-Thornton, & Ciske, 2005; Sullivan et al., 2001; Williams,2004). A consistent theme in the domestic violence collaboration literature is equalizing andbroadening the advocate and researcher roles, echoing a repeated theme of the feminist andPAR literature (Edelson & Bible, 1999; Gondolf et al., 1997; Schechter, 1988). It advances thethought in this area by describing several methods for accomplishing these goals. Block, Engel,Naureckas, and Riordan (1999) argued for “permeable roles,” that allow for participation acrosstraditional boundaries (Block et al., 1999). Gilfus and colleagues (1999) described theformation of a multidisciplinary discussion group that serves to support and think-tank newideas for research on violence against women (Gilfus et al., 1999). Gondolf et al. (1997)counseled that the researcher take on a complex role that includes translating academicrequirements and culture to other participants, mediating differing views and interestsexpressed by participants, and finally, helping to resolve the conflicting demands of“systematic investigation and political action.” Still others suggest that the ideas for researchshould come from the advocate/participant community (Bowes, 1996; Pence & Shepard,1988; Schechter, 1988) or from a process that involves a dynamic give and take betweensurvivor/advocate and researcher (MacDonald, 2003).

Second, multiple authors point to the need for thoughtful planning when researchers andadvocates are collaborating on domestic violence (Block et al., 1999; Edelson & Bible, 1999;Gondolf et al., 1997). They advise that time is needed to understand the demands of each other’swork and to view each other as equal partners who bring their own area of expertise to thetable. For example, Block and colleagues (1999) discussed the process of creating a“collaborative culture” by taking the time to learn about each other’s area of expertise. Manyrecommend discussions of milestone events in the study and coming to agreement on its

Haviland et al.


NIH


NIH


NIH


components as important to successful collaborations. Ideally, discussing the goals and theexpected outcomes of the study and their impact on all partners helps each participantunderstand the possible effects and risks of the research project. Gondolf and colleagues(1997) pointed out that researchers are likely to see the outcomes in terms of previous theoryand research, whereas advocates/survivors are more likely to see their implication for serviceor for changing the social response to violence (Gondolf et al., 1997).

A third, much-debated principle raised in this literature, is who represents survivor thought aswell as how and when this input should be incorporated in researcher–advocate partnerships.Some encourage direct participation of survivors in the research process (Gondolf et al.,1997; Pence & Shepard, 1988), whereas others view advocate or service provider participationas a surrogate for survivor input (Block et al., 1999; Gilfus et al., 1999; Sullivan et al., 2005).Some argue that it is best to incorporate survivor participation from the early stages of theresearch design (Bowes, 1996; Edelson & Bible, 1999; Gondolf et al., 1997; MacDonald,2003; Pence & Shepard, 1988; Sullivan et al., 2005) or primarily during the execution of aproject (Block et al., 1999; Sullivan & Cain, 2004). At this time, these questions remaininteresting, unresolved issues.

Last, enhanced safety for survivors/participants is an oft-cited advantage of collaborativerelationships. Advocates bring a concrete understanding of the lives of women who experienceviolence and their children that is crucial to safety (Block et al., 1999). Researchers contributevaluable experience with managing the ethical conduct of a research study, such as obtaininginformed consent and protecting the rights of research participants (Boser, 2006). This lastaspect of domestic violence–research collaborations been written about in some detail (seeBlock et al., 1999; Sullivan & Cain, 2004), and therefore, is not a subject treated in this article.

In this next section, we describe how these established principles, which have been discussedin the literature to date, played out in our advocacy research collaboration and propose severalpreviously unidentified factors that, in our experience, contributed to the success of ourcollaboration.

Locating Good PartnershipsAn important foundation to productive advocacy–research partnerships in domestic violence,is finding a good match of philosophies and institutional missions. Gondolf et al. (1997)suggested that the researcher serve as a guide to various methodologies and philosophicalorientations of the academic world for advocates (Gondolf et al., 1997). Some recognition ofthe complexity of orientation and philosophies in the domestic violence service communitycould help potential collaborators find a productive match. More than 25 years ago, SusanSchechter described the main ideological and philosophical orientations of those working inthe battered women’s movement (Schechter, 1982). Personal experiences and politicalideology led activists to differences in opinion regarding the importance of the power dynamicsbetween men and women, the economic position of women, and finally, how intersectionalforms of oppression such as race class, gender, and sexuality together affect intimate partnerviolence. This debate continued with Kimberly Crenshaw’s (1994) work on intersectionalityand violence against women. As the work of responding to domestic violence has become moremainstream and widespread, adherence to these philosophies by domestic violence advocateshas grown more attenuated. Furthermore, a major trend toward professionalism of thoseworking in domestic violence in the past 10 years has introduced even more diversity ofphilosophical orientation to the advocate community.

The literature on advocate researcher collaboration does not squarely address these issues ofideological difference. However, some difference is captured by the terms used and theimportance given to the participation of certain segments of the advocate/practitioner

Haviland et al.


NIH


NIH


NIH


community. For example, some refer to people in the community as practitioners (Block et al.,1999; Gilfus et al., 1999), others as advocates (Edelson & Bible, 1999; Gondolf et al., 1997),and still others stress the importance of incorporating survivor experience in preference to thosewho work in the field (Pence & Shepard, 1988). These terms describe the clinician or expertat handling the direct service needs of battered women and/or their children (practitioner), theperson committed to feminist principles and/or principles of nonracism and/or economicempowerment in understanding domestic violence (advocate), and the woman who hasexperienced violence in her own life (survivor). Each term denotes different ideologicalorientations, skills sets, and individual experience. Yet a person working in the domesticviolence advocacy community increasingly can and often does participate in more than one ofthese identities. The result is a rich, diverse community with many complex, if sometimeconflicting, relationships and allegiances.

As the advocate community has grown and diversified, so have the institutions with which itis affiliated. For example, the domestic violence criminal justice community could be describedas law enforcement, prosecutors, domestic violence services, domestic violence policyorganizations, law school clinics, and professors and others. At this point, depending ongeographic location, most of these institutions have personnel who identify as advocates. Yetmany of these institutions have missions that limit their employee’s ability to engage infeminist, nonracist, antipoverty, or activist principles. An agency’s mission may also limit itswillingness to engage in research activities that embrace these principles (e.g., the effects ofmandatory arrest research team could not get support for interviewing the responding officersin our case examples). This diversification of both ideological orientation and institutionsinvolved in the advocate community makes the task of finding a good partner for a researchproject more complex.

Our collaboration developed out of an existing working relationship between Haviland theNYCDOH. Preliminary conversations concerning the problems faced by women seekingprotection from intimate partner violence from law enforcement and criminal courts had takenplace in task force settings that included a senior researcher from the Department of Healthand Haviland. In exploring the idea of a collaborative study, initial discussions took placebetween Haviland and Frye during which the issues affecting callers to the helpline wereextensively explored. Haviland, as an attorney and practitioner, provided Frye with detaileddescriptions of the range of problems emerging from battered women during their encounterswith the police and criminal justice system. She provided background on the history andevolution of the legal and institutional changes that had taken place in the criminal justicesystem and thoughts about how these systems might better address intimate partner violence.Frye provided background on current research in the area, on designing scientific methods ofresearch and data collection. She provided insight from her previous research on drug-addictedand HIV-affected women and had direct experience with the challenges associated with usingadministrative and agency records for research purposes.

These discussions served several purposes. Frye and Haviland developed and deepened acommon understanding of the problems experienced by battered women with criminal justicesystems. Second, each gained insight into the other’s understanding of the role played by raceand class in the experiences of survivors of domestic violence. Haviland and Frye also beganto understand the boundaries of the roles of researcher and advocate, and observed that eachcould maintain them. Finally, the team developed a good understanding of each other’sinstitution and its mission, enabling them to be realistic about the size of the study, the themesthat would be explored, and the scope of the action steps that might come from the study.

Haviland et al.


NIH


NIH


NIH


Recommendations for Locating Good PartnershipsThe current literature refers to several principles that assist with finding good partners. First isrecognition that “knowledge is contingent on its conditions of production” and that in theresearch realm, power relationships affect which questions are asked, how data are collected,and then how that data are interpreted (Ramazanoglu & Holland, 2002). Feminist scholars pointout that lack of objectivity is not synonymous with inaccuracy. The search for methods thatreveal accurate depictions of women’s experience continues (see Slote et al. [2005] for a humanrights methodology applied to participatory research). This quest for understanding theconditions of women’s lives dovetails with many advocates’/practitioners’ views thatunderstanding domestic violence begins with a deep comprehension of and appreciation forthe effects of violence on women and the context in which they live with that violence(Williams, 2004). In this collaboration, the team’s goal of understanding women’s experiencewith the police underpinned the study. The team wanted to understand women’s needs at thatspecific point in time and if, when, and how the outcomes of the police interaction divergedfrom their needs. The team agreed that the race and class of the victims of violence and of thepolice officers responding to the scene would play a role that had to be understood in the study.These foundational concepts developed in discussions between Frye and Haviland anddeepened when Rajah joined the team to add a qualitative element to the study. This matchingof philosophical orientation and methodological approach was crucial to the collaboration.

Second, writers suggest that the researcher approach the advocacy community as ananthropologist might, spending time involved in the community (Edleson & Bible, 1999) andobserving the experience of advocates and battered women (Gondolf et al., 1997). Ourexperience supports this suggestion. Frye had worked with sexual assault survivors, and Rajahbrought significant experience conducting ethnographic research and a sincere respect for thework of advocates that led her to inquire carefully about the problems faced by battered womenwith the criminal justice system and about advocate work on their behalf. As the discussionabove suggests, clarity and intentionality about what skills, experience, and philosophicalorientation would make a good match is important to successful collaborations. Advocates andresearchers alike must understand the philosophical orientation of those they choose ascollaborators and the extent to which conflicts or tensions are likely to arise from divergentphilosophies. Some suggest that researchers serve as guides for advocates who are consideringapproaching the research community (Gondolf et al., 1997). We suggest that seasonedadvocates might too serve as guides to researchers, identifying the philosophical orientationof parts of the community and its key players.

We also suggest a similar inquiry for assessing the missions of the institutions involved in theresearch. It might be obvious that institutions with extremely disparate missions should notteam up; yet one would not recommend that nonmatching missions be eliminated as potentialpartners without examination of possible commonalities. For example, our collaboration hopedfrom the beginning of the research to interview the responding officers in the cases analyzedby the team to get their perceptions of the intervention. The team discussed the ramificationsof including the NYC Police Department as a partner in our goal of understanding what happenswhen police enter a home where an adult is requesting protection from another family member.Our team decided that police interviews would help us better understand this interaction andwould probably not affect the qualitative and quantitative parts of study with victims ofviolence. The team recognized that the biggest impact was likely to be on the finalrecommendations made regarding mandatory arrest. It was decided that the recommendationscould be negotiated successfully based on the fact that Haviland had a strong relationship withthe head of the Domestic Violence Unit of the Police Department, who as a survivor of intimatepartner violence, understood its dynamics deeply, and as a woman of color, held the samecommitment to understanding race and class in domestic violence situations. Therefore, the

Haviland et al.


NIH


NIH


NIH


team’s conclusion was that having the police department join our study would strengthen ourstudy. Ironically, the police department rejected the team as partners. We suspect that thedepartment was reluctant to team up with an advocacy organization that might want to criticizeits interventions in domestic violence (a mission and philosophical orientation mismatch). Thisexample demonstrates the kind of inquiry that might take place, that missions cannot alwaysbe successfully matched, and that even though this match was not successful, the diversificationand expansion of the advocacy community can increase the chances of finding good researchpartners across diverse institutions (e.g., an advocate in the police department).

Power Dynamics Between Researcher and AdvocateThe collaboration literature focuses intensively on leveling the power differential betweenresearcher and collaborator as a means of “empowering the community” researched (Edelson& Bible, 1999; Gondolf et al., 1997; Renzetti, 1997). Block et al. (1999) argued that equalizingthe power of researchers, advocates, and others involved in the study (even interviewers)improved their research in the following ways: interviewing, data collection, and safety of theparticipants. Sullivan and colleagues (2005) reported shared decision making as important tothe development of relationships with community members, to fostering more diverseparticipation, and to developing more culturally competent research methods in theirmultipartnered PAR. Our collaboration benefited in similar ways from the partnershiprelationships. The team developed a richer methodology (discussed below), which reflectedthe quantitative, qualitative, and legal expertise of the partners. The questionnaire for thequalitative interviews was designed by Rajah primarily in collaboration with Frye and thenthoroughly vetted by Haviland and the attorney/supervisor of the helpline (Juhu Thukral, oneof the authors of the study). In addition, a more diverse study participant group was recruitedas a result of the relationship forged with an advocate organization. The helpline was wellknown as a helpful resource in diverse communities in New York City. The helpline serviceswere based on an empowerment model whereby an attorney and several trained advocatesassisted by providing support and the legal information needed for a caller to pursue a plan forsafety.14 The almost 200 cases analyzed represented Latina (31%), African American (35%),White (18%), and Asian (4%) women. The trust possessed by Thukral with her previous clientsfrom the helpline was very important in setting the tone for safe and candid qualitativeinterviews with the survivors.15 Our competency in working with women of diversebackgrounds was enhanced by the women of color on the team (three out of six) and significantexperience by advocates and researchers alike in working in communities of color.

In our case, the equal power relationship between advocate and researcher developed from theinitial partnership created by Frye and Haviland, which set the tone for the team. Two factorsled to a partnership of equals rather than a hierarchical relationship. First, Frye was at thebeginning of her career as a researcher so that the dynamic of the academic wielding morepower, as often cited in the collaborative literature (Sullivan et al., 2005), was not presentwithin this team. When the team expanded, Frye recruited a similarly situated researchcolleague, and as a result, the dynamic of equal status between researcher and advocate wasnot disrupted. Frye, and later Rajah, did assume the role of teacher or translator (Gondolf etal., 1997) of research methods, ethics, and analysis. Both researchers expressed that theyviewed themselves as investing in the advocate community by contributing research tools tothe goal of decreasing violence against women. From the advocates’ perspective, severalfactors reinforced equal power dynamics between researcher and advocates. First, the advocateparticipants were eager to learn the elements of scientific inquiry.16 Haviland, as an attorney

14See Fugate et al. (2006) for an evaluation of the City of Chicago Domestic Violence Help Line.15See Edelson and Bible (1999), who described Dr. Cris Sullivan’s multiyear, longitudinal study of interventions with battered womenas maintaining high participant retention rates as a result of a close research partnership with a sheltering program.

Haviland et al.


NIH


NIH


NIH


and experienced advocate, was looked to as the expert on the issue of domestic violence andthe law that we were studying, and thus was the translator of the domestic violence world forthe researchers. The partnership began as an attempt to answer questions that Haviland initiallyposed, and thus, she framed the legal analysis and also proposed much of the plan for policyreform. The other advocates on the team also had an impact on the design of the study,interviewing process, analysis of the data, and the mechanism used for policy reform (seediscussion below). Exemplifying the equality in the collaboration, there was no discussion ofwho would serve as the principal investigator and no one assumed that role.

Although this dynamic emerged in part due to Haviland’s greater experience and expertise onthe issue, it was also a conscious strategy on the part of all three collaborators. Both researcherswere conversant with the principles of feminist research, which promotes equality amongcollaborators. In addition, Frye and Rajah had previously worked together on several appliedresearch studies that aimed to generate practice and policy recommendations to address specificsocial problems. Haviland, as an advocate, was trained to work in partnership with batteredwomen and possessed little of the oft-cited suspicion of researchers and the research processheld by some advocates.

The second important factor in leveling the power dynamic between research and advocate inour study was that each partner possessed skills and expertise in areas where the others did not.Haviland, as a lawyer, was expert in legal analysis; and Frye, as an epidemiologist, waspracticed in quantitative analysis; and Rajah, as a sociologist, was knowledgeable in socialtheory and qualitative inquiry. In discussions of the role of researcher and advocate, the authorsand Thukral agreed that the fact that each participant possessed a unique area of expertise andthat each recognized this contribution was crucial to the success of the collaboration (Riger,1999).

The issue of hierarchy often arises in the context of discussions of resources (funding, salaries,etc.) and structure (titles). As our collaboration matured, we discussed other researchopportunities and designed a more expansive study that would follow-up on some the questionsraised by effects of mandatory arrest. In preparing a federal proposal, we understood that wewould have to name a principal investigator. Frye and Rajah were not candidates because oftheir level of experience. We discussed approaching a much more senior researcher who couldlend credibility and enhance the chances of receiving funding. After frank conversations aboutthe effect of this on our work, we approached instead a researcher who was known for workingcollaboratively, but was not located in New York City. We named this researcher as a partnerin the grant, named Haviland as principal investigator, and did not receive funding. Thus,working in equal partnerships can be challenging. To the extent that such relationships areperceived as nontraditional, they may be less likely to be recognized by the power structuresthat hold resources.

Recommendations Regarding Power Dynamics Between Researcher and AdvocateTo enhance the likelihood that a nonhierarchical dynamic will emerge, advocates should vetresearchers and their approaches carefully prior to agreeing to collaborate. At each level withinthe academy and other institutions, there are likely to be researchers who will desire and seethe benefits of equitable collaborations. Among senior and junior academics and healthdepartment personnel alike, there is likely to be considerable variability in terms of theoreticalinclination, experience, and willingness to devote the time and energy necessary to achieve

16In preparing this article, Haviland interviewed one of the team members, Juhu Thukral, about her impressions of the benefits andchallenges of the collaboration. Now director of Urban Justice Center’s Sex Worker Project, Thukral has the additional experience ofcollaborating with a researcher in the preparation of two subsequent reports on sex workers (www.sexworkersproject.org). She concurredthat learning about scientific methods was interesting to her after being trained as an attorney to advocate for a particular position.

Haviland et al.


NIH


NIH


NIH


partner-equitable partnerships (see above discussion, Locating Good Partnerships). Novice andexperienced researchers alike should be willing to be taught about domestic violence and itsadvocate community from the perspective of the advocate partner. Rather than assuming thatjunior researchers may be more inclined toward equitable partnerships, advocates shouldexplicitly discuss their desire for a partnership of equals, and examine how the researcher hasdemonstrated in past work a commitment to this principle. These conversations should be frankand honest if an equitable partnership is a serious goal of the collaborative research. Conversely,researchers should engage advocates who possess a demonstrated knowledge of the issue andskills to participate in collaborations. The advocates should also be situated in an organizationthat supports research and welcomes open inquiry (Block et al., 1999; Gondolf et al., 1997).To maintain these more egalitarian relationships, our collaboration revisited these questionsfrom time to time, especially at important junctures in the work such as the preparation of aproposal, the addition of a new partner, or when embarking on a new collaborative project.

Structural Supports That Encourage and Sustain CollaborationsAn underrecognized element of successful collaborations that profoundly affects thesustainability of advocacy–research collaboration is the institutional structure that supports theparticipants (Nyden, 2003). We speak of formal supports such as, recognition of the importanceof and resources for, engaging in research on the advocacy side, and such supports for engagingthe advocate in research on the academic side. Institutions and public agencies may not onlyfail to encourage advocacy–research collaborations by neglect, they can also erect barriers toit. Previous authors have described several methods of encouragement as well as commonbarriers. Several authors mention the helpfulness of funding initiatives from the Centers forDisease Control, the National Institute for Justice and more recently, the Violence AgainstWomen Act as important to the sustenance of advocacy–research collaborations (Gondolf etal., 1997; Williams, 2004). Nyden (2003) described several barriers to participatory researchand/or collaborations, including parochialism, perceptions of collaborative research as“political,” and the relative lack of importance collaborative research plays in the tenure andpromotion process. Sullivan and colleagues described the need for “community infrastructureand capacity” to support continuous inquiry at the community or advocacy level (Sullivan etal., 2005).

In this project, the fact that Frye was backed by the mission of her program at the NYCDOH,which provides technical assistance to the community in conceiving and executing researchprojects, was key to the success of this collaboration. On the advocacy side, Haviland, ascodirector of Family Violence Project, had the support of her organization to pursue such aresearch project. In addition, her organization identified both system reform and respondingto the needs of survivors as core to its mission (see above discussion Locating GoodPartnerships), and this research was seen to advance those goals.

Raising the necessary funds to conduct the research was a challenge that required creativeapproaches. At the outset, Frye and Haviland wrote a proposal to a private foundation, whichprovided the initial, crucial support for start-up. However, this grant proved too small for theultimate financial demands of the study. As the research funds ran out, the study could becompleted only with the use of lower cost, graduate student support, and “free labor”contributed by institutions and individuals. In Rajah’s case, a sizable amount of “free labor”was contributed. As a graduate student at the end stage of writing her dissertation, Rajah wasfinancially supported by a small stipend from her university and by money earned hourly ona large-scale, federally funded research project. As a result, any time spent on the researchcollaboration came out of her personal time, which could have been devoted to work for pay.

Rajah’s position was hardly unique. It mirrored the situation of many graduate students andnontenure track faculty who constitute the lower end of the two-tiered academic workforce

Haviland et al.


NIH


NIH


NIH


(Moser, 2001). Arguably, in this system, it is risky for a fledging researcher to work on projectsthat may not advance her career and, accordingly, may hamper her efforts to secure a moreprivileged, tenured position. Even given this institutionally based risk, there are several reasonswhy researchers, like Rajah, might volunteer their time on collaborative projects. For instance,they might do so for purposive reasons—that is, because they support the goals of the work.In addition, working on a collaborative research project offers personal rewards associatedwith working with valued colleagues and friends. Nyden (2003) also noted that one of thedraws of collaborative research is that it is interdisciplinary, interactive, and collegial.However, he further observed that traditional academic culture typically does not encouragejunior faculty to pursue collaborative research by offering course releases or other supportcrucial to early career success.

When we attempted to extend the research via a federal application (mentioned above in PowerDynamics Between Researcher and Advocate) that would have provided adequate funding toall team members, we were turned down, perhaps in part due to the lack of experience andtrack records of the junior researchers, and the relative absence of academic credentials ofHaviland, the proposed principal investigator for the study. Ironically, working with juniorresearchers, an element that had strengthened the collaboration initially, may have undercutthe probability of obtaining larger amounts of funding from major federal sources later on inthe collaboration.

As the research proceeded, we faced a second irony. Just as the project evolved, each teammember matured in her career, with increased opportunities and institutional status, which,ironically, began to erode the support offered by the organizations and institutions with whicheach team member was associated. So, for example, Frye moved to a more traditional academicinstitution that favored conventional NIH funding applications that were likely to yield large,population-based or representative samples, as opposed to smaller, clinical samples that aretypically the result of such advocate–researcher partnerships. Still, she was not senior enoughto be competitive as a principal investigator on a submitted application. Haviland’sorganization grew and spun off from its parent organization so that more competing demandswere placed on the resources of the organization, pushing research to a lower level ofimportance. Rajah, having attained a faculty position at a teaching college, faced enormousteaching loads and struggled, as did Frye, to make the results of the initial study attractive tojournal editors, who tend to favor results emanating from larger samples. Thus, thecollaboration lay somewhat dormant for 2 years, until both junior academics received careersupport grants, which have allowed them to reconvene with an eye toward the future.

Recommendations Regarding Structural Supports That Encourage and SustainCollaborations

There are lessons to be drawn from our experience as to how advocacy and academicinstitutions might enhance collaborative research. With regard to academic institutions, wesuggest they include in their mission the goal of conducting, supporting, and rewarding thetype of small-scale, collaborative research described here. This would likely result in creatinga favorable and enabling environment for faculty who engage in such collaborative research.For example, academic institutions can provide financial support to junior faculty who partnerwith local advocacy organizations. They can actively reward and recognize researchers whocollaborate with advocates by not privileging a certain type of grant mechanism,17 but byvaluing smaller government or foundation grants (which admittedly do not provide thelucrative indirect costs that support the university or institutional infrastructure). Second,

17The Research Project Grant (R01), often favored by large academic institutions, is the original and historically oldest grant mechanismused by National Institutes of Health (NIH). The R01 supports studies ranging from 1 to 5 years in length and with direct costs for eachbudget period of up to US$500,000 per year. The NIH has acknowledged that it is difficult for new investigators to receive such support.

Haviland et al.


NIH


NIH


NIH


academic departments could give credit for advocacy–research studies, reports or evaluationsand publications in practitioner journals in their hiring, and promotion and tenure decisions.This would have the result of slowly diversifying academic departments so that a subset of thefaculty is oriented toward community research collaborations. Similarly, engaging incommunity collaborations should no longer represent a “high-risk approach for achievingtenure” (Israel et al., 1998;Nyden, 2003). At least some academic institutions grant tenure basedon the number of publications accepted in top-tier, peer-reviewed journals and grant fundsraised by the researcher. Peer-reviewed journals tend to favor results of traditional researchstudies with large and representative samples and sophisticated analytic techniques. Time-consuming collaborations, the small and nonrepresentative data that they often yield, and thelimited venue for publication of collaborative research results erode a researcher’s ability toproduce the necessary work products for tenure or career advancement. Reflective, change-oriented discussions need to take place in academic setting so that career-advancingopportunities can be put in place for collaborative research efforts.

Additional academic support can take the form of sponsoring conferences or working groupsthat bridge the gap between academia and the advocate community (examples include anational conference entitled “Towards a National Research Agenda on Violence AgainstWomen” sponsored by University of Kentucky, 2003 (Williams, 2004) or Mary Gilfus’sDomestic Violence Research Group (DVRG) sponsored by Simmons College Graduate Schoolof Social Work (Gilfus et al., 1999). Last, academic institutions can assist with printing anddissemination of reports from the field, decreasing the time between writing and publicationas well as allowing for broader dissemination of such materials.

Public agencies and funding institutions can also play a role in promoting advocacy–researchcollaboration. Departments of Health could contribute by creating programs that providetechnical assistance to community groups in starting research projects. This was a crucialresource in our collaboration and other writers mention similar initiatives. For example,Sullivan described a center at the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health called theSeattle Partners for Health Communities (SPHC) that engages in community–researchcollaborations (Sullivan et al., 2001). Public agencies and charitable organizations can alsoassist with the dissemination of relevant academic reports and likewise may play a role inmaking those reports more accessible to the larger community. Despite the tremendous valueof recent efforts to fund large-scale violence against women research, writing and obtainingsuch large grants is often out of reach for the research partners that we propose make such goodcollaborators for advocates. Public agencies and foundations should consider supporting earlycareer researchers in collaborations as well as encouraging applications for smaller grants orpilot advocacy–research grants. These measures would help to make more resources availableto advocacy–research collaborations.

On the advocate side, domestic violence organizations frequently adopt dual missions ofproviding safe interventions for women and children as well as improving the systemicresponses to domestic violence. We suggest that more domestic violence organizations focuson how their mission might be advanced through research. For example, research or evaluationcan help a domestic violence organization improve their safety planning with victims ofdomestic violence and their children by examining case outcomes. More generally, advocacyorganizations can demonstrate their effectiveness by integrating evaluation components intosome of their important initiatives (Fugate, George, Haber, & Stawiski, 2006). Attention topatterns of need that affect participants of their programs might serve as the impetus for aresearch project as was the case in our collaboration. In short, research collaboration requiresadvocates to be open to using research methods to explore the complexity of violence, itscontext, and its aftermath.

Haviland et al.


NIH


NIH


NIH


We suggest advocates seek ways of developing on-going relationships with researchers orresearch institutions that might incubate ideas for collaboration. Some possibilities mightinclude; joint policy projects, evaluations, local task forces, or task-oriented workgroups.Researchers might profit from these relationships in several ways. Many domestic violenceorganizations have survivors in positions of leadership and recently; some organizations haveformed which promote survivor leadership through leadership development.18 Survivors insuch positions on research projects could provide an important perspective to collaborativeprojects. Also, some leaders in the domestic violence advocacy community oversee sizableorganizations with significant fundraising ability. The advocacy community is accustomed toraising funds from foundations, individual donations, and events. These organizations mightpartner with academic institutions to raise research funds (see the Gondolf-Fisher collaborationdescribed in Edelson & Bible, 1999) or to build programs with an integrated evaluation orresearch component.19 Yet another structural mechanism might be to hire research consultantsthat bridge the gap between service organizations and academia. Along those same lines,collaborative endeavors might seek assistance from graduate interns or law school clinics tosupplement meager budgets, to cultivate advocate–academic relationships as well as to createlearning and leadership opportunities for young people interested in violence against women.

In sum, there are many different creative paths to fostering more advocacy–researchcollaborations. However, the researcher or advocate can rarely leverage these resources alone.Often leadership from the academic, public agency, foundation, and advocacy sectors is neededto create institutionally sanctioned resources for such collaborations—a process to which weaspire to contribute.

Collaboration in Study DesignThe team held many lengthy discussions of the study methodology. We began by analyzingthe information contained in the helpline’s intake database to evaluate associations betweenselected survivor, perpetrator, and situational characteristics on one hand, and identified arrestoutcomes on the other. This systematic analysis of the issues presented on the helpline intakeled to discussions of how we could understand more deeply the interaction between victim andpolice officers when they respond to calls for help. This led Frye to suggest a qualitativecomponent. Our original idea was to interview all sides of the police–survivor interaction tounderstand what happened to result in such an adverse outcome for the survivor, such as beingarrested or the police failing to make an arrest when they should have. When we were unableto gain the cooperation of the police, we decided to conduct focus groups in part to make upfor this loss. Two focus groups; one of law enforcement representatives and assistant districtattorneys, and one consisting of domestic violence advocates, were added to the methodology.The law enforcement focus group helped us understand the police–victim interaction morefully. Finally, we conducted a legal analysis of a subset of cases that allowed us to more closelyexamine the specifics of each case and draw more fine-grained conclusions as to thejustification for the outcome experienced by the survivor. The team identified these multiplemethods as a way to triangulate data because each source individually was limited in one wayor another. Such triangulation is also consistent with a holistic approach to understanding socialproblems from multiple perspectives and angles, each with their own unique viewpoint.

Each method for data collection contributed uniquely to the results of the study and therecommendations developed. The quantitative data identified some associations that needed

18Voices of Women (VOW) is a New York City–based group that started in 1999 with the goal of creating leadership roles for survivorsin the policy arena. Sisters Overcoming Abusive Relationships (SOAR), a group with similar aspirations, is affiliated with the RhodeIsland Coalition Against Domestic Violence.19The Family Violence Project created a community-based prevention program, shortly after the completion of this report thatincorporated a research component on which it collaborated with Frye.

Haviland et al.


NIH


NIH


NIH


further exploration and highlighted the need for the analysis of a sample that was not self-selected as problem cases to better understand the scope and nature of adverse arrest outcomes(Frye, Haviland, & Rajah, 2007). For example, in our quantitative analysis we found that dualarrest cases tended to be of a higher socioeconomic status than the other types of cases. Thequalitative analysis lent rich texture to the impact of experiencing adverse arrest outcomesamong survivors. These ranged from the effect of having their identities as mainstream orconventional women challenged (Rajah, Frye, & Haviland, 2006) to the drain on personalresources that dealing with the adverse arrest outcome became (Haviland, Frye, Rajah, Thukral,& Trinity, 2001). Finally, the legal analysis, including following-up with district attorney’soffices to ascertain the outcomes of the cases, informed some of the most practicalrecommendations made. Understanding the patterns present in victim arrest cases, we wereable to name and describe retaliatory arrests and make policy recommendations for handlingvictim arrest such as increased police investigation on certain arrest cases and the moreconsistent application of the primary physical aggressor factors to arrest situations. Althoughour research was based on a variety of methods, as stated earlier, by necessity we addressedour research questions as well with the limited data sources available to us.

The triangulation of the data became increasingly compelling as the research progressed. Eachfelt they were learning from the process of gathering the data as well as the substance of whatwas being gathered. The team observed the richness of the qualitative interviews as they werecollected and came to understand the effects of arrest on victim in a way that would not havebeen possible without this component. Even the advocates, who had listened to the experiencesof hundreds of women during their career, understood the interaction between respondingofficers and victims of domestic violence in much more depth than previously. Andsurprisingly, the advocates had not understood that nonarrest (police failing to make an arresteven though required by law) was as significant a problem amongst helpline callers as it wasuntil the quantitative analysis was done. The focus groups, the legal analysis, and the contextualinformation from other jurisdictions impacted heavily on the policy recommendations. Suchtriangulation would simply not have been possible had there not been an advocacy–researchpartnership and had each team member not brought a unique and respected set of skills to thetable. Thus, the collaboration directly translated into better, more rigorous, and influentialresearch.

Recommendations for Study DesignBowes suggests that there is a cyclical, democratic process to PAR, which involves research,action, and reflection to come to it is conclusions (Bowes, 1996). The team found this to betrue as the methodology of this research was designed. The collaboration designed the approachstep by step with all partners engaged in the discussions; using the quantitative data to writethe qualitative interviews, and then, the results of the interviews to plan the focus group format.The concern is that this process can significantly slow the research or even shut down theprocess in conflict. Several factors prevented this. First and foremost, it was small study team.Second, each was forced to be careful with their time due to their other significantresponsibilities. Third, as mentioned above, each respected the other’s expertise, and the goalof collaboration. Last, the group understood and adhered to the overarching goals of theresearch, to understand a particular effect of mandatory arrest in depth from the perspective ofsurvivors, and to make policy recommendations that based on this understanding. Thisconsciousness was kept front and center in the discussion and design of the research (Block etal., 1999).

Survivor Involvement in the ResearchSeveral commentators have discussed the need for greater involvement in research of domesticviolence advocates, and also of survivors themselves (Gondolf et al., 1997; MacDonald,

Haviland et al.


NIH


NIH


NIH


2003; Pence & Shepard, 1988). Writers point to multiple ways in which survivor involvementenhances collaborative research. These include a greater likelihood of the research relating tothe needs of domestic violence survivors; a greater likelihood that the research will be trustedand, therefore, used by the domestic violence advocacy community (Edleson & Bible, 1999);methodological improvements in data collection and interpretation; and lastly, enhancedresponse rates and increased safety for study participants (Gondolf et al., 1997).

This advocacy–research collaboration attempted to include a survivor viewpoint via thequalitative component of the study, but we did not have any self-identified domestic violencesurvivors on the immediate research team. More direct survivor input could have been, andperhaps should have been, incorporated into our research method. However, the research teamadvocates collectively possessed many years of experience working directly with survivors incrisis intervention situations as well as legal settings. Similarly, the researchers hadconsiderable experience investigating victims’ experience of violence with diverse samples ofwomen. Still, this lack of direct survivor input as an equal research team member reflects that,despite our conscious efforts to draw on the principles discussed by prior commentators onsuccessful researcher–advocate collaborations, this principle tends to get overlooked even bythose dedicated to documenting survivor perspective.

Our collaboration found it useful to discuss, with considerable honesty, personal experienceswith gendered expressions of power and control. We found that a range of experiences wasrepresented on the team. Although no team member openly self-identified as a victim of adultintimate partner violence, each team member had personal and often significant experienceswith expressions of the unequal power relationship between men and women. In addition, theracial/ethnic diversity of the research team informed our understanding of these genderinequities. These conversations helped the team understand the respective attitudes of eachteam member toward the historical asymmetry of power between the genders and assess theaffect of these attitudes on our methods and interpretation of the data. Specifically theseconversations allowed the team to deconstruct victim blaming and understand more profoundlythe effects of having one’s actions controlled by gendered stereotyping and control. Teamdiscussions also enhanced our mutual appreciation for the fact that responses to gendered powerdynamics are multiply constrained by the intersection of race/ethnicity and class background.

Recommendations for Survivor Involvement in the ResearchWe support other writers in the field in their belief that survivor input is a crucial facet ofdomestic violence research and recommend that advocacy–research collaboration provide bothstructured and less structured mechanisms for survivor participation. Structure mechanismscould take the form of designated positions on the research team, a funded staff position onthe research staff (Sullivan et al., 2005), or an advisory board to the study that reviews researchprotocols when certain milestones are reached (see Note 20). As pointed out above, manydomestic violence organizations count talented and dedicated survivors as their staff, apotential benefit of collaborating with advocacy organizations. Care must be taken in thinkingabout these structures so as not to assign an isolated or marginal role to survivors that willresult in disempowering the perspective. To avoid this, it would be important to allow forparticipation of survivors at multiple skill levels and to provide opportunities for skillsacquisition as the study progresses. Less structured methods might be to allow for conversationsthat explore the ideological underpinnings of domestic violence and personal understandingof the issues of gendered control. These types of conversations can create safe space for thediscussion of personal links to the issue and foster a deeper understanding of the complexityof intimate partner violence. It may also allow for an unstructured expression of survivor inputthat might not otherwise be recognized by a study team. Care must be taken to respectfullyallow for difference of experience and responses to the force of gendered control as well as to

Haviland et al.


NIH


NIH


NIH


observe interpersonal boundaries that are comfortable to the team (e.g., confidentiality whendesired and completely voluntary disclosure).

Ensuring Good ResultsDefining what the end results of the research endeavor should be is crucial to a successfulcollaboration. The team agreed at the outset that the goal of the study was to hear directly fromsurvivors about their experience of the law intend to develop policy and programmaticrecommendations. Thus, the goal of influencing policy and practice was paramount,particularly in our initial formulation. In addition to publishing the report and draftinglegislation that would concretize our eventual recommendations, we agreed that anotherimportant goal would be to present the research to the academic and research communities. Toachieve this goal, Frye presented the results of the study at a major conference on familyviolence. Rajah presented the results at the Annual Meeting of the American SociologicalAssociation. In addition, Frye and Rajah each took the lead on writing manuscripts suitablefor publication in the academic literature. Finally, Haviland, who was first author of the self-published report that described the entire study, took the lead on writing this article, whichdraws out the benefits and challenges of collaborative research. At each stage, the teamdiscussed and agreed on each outcome before undertaking it, ensuring that each team memberwould be satisfied with the result of their contribution and would feel that their professionalgoals for involvement were realized (Gondolf et al., 1997).

Recommendations for Ensuring Good ResultsCollaborations between advocates and researchers can go wrong when neither takes the timeto agree on what the finished product of the collaboration should look like. Researchers likelyvalue peer-reviewed journal articles over self-produced Web site reports; however, sucharticles take months to produce and many months, and even years, to be reviewed and finallyaccepted for publication. Many advocates may find such a timeline unacceptable, given theirneed for an immediate result and may prefer presenting the results in self-published reports ornewsletters. Survivors might see another set of outcomes as important. It is critical thatparticipants discuss and agree on the end products of the collaboration and recognize that eachfaces institutional and/or structural constraints that shape their need for a certain type of finishedproduct. Sensitivity to these external demands allows such collaborations to flourish and growas has this team’s collaboration.

Integrating Action Into the Research PlanPerhaps the most important benefit of advocate researcher collaboration is the promise thatresearch results will be directly and immediately translated into action. Crucial to this promiseis that both parties are genuinely open to the full range of results that may emerge, particularlyones not consistent with notions held prior to conducting the research. There was a deepambivalence about the mandatory arrest law during the time we were conducting the research,with many in the advocacy community having serious doubts about it, and yet appreciating itshard-won status as a change from the previous police practice of mediation or separation. Thus,had any one of our party been steadfastly opposed to an ultimate recommendation of lettingthe statute sunset, we could not have proceeded with a free and open inquiry into the issue. Inaddition to approaching the project openly, the team was committed both to applying standardand accepted research methods and principles throughout the conduct of the study, fromassembling the samples to drawing inferences from the data. Thus, when we ultimately madeour recommendations, we were confident in the results obtained, limited though they were.

Gondolf et al. (1997) suggested that advocacy–research teams might create a “social impactstatement,” much as is required to test the environmental impact of a construction project, whenthey discuss the action plan. This is an approach the team adopted, as we predicted that the

Haviland et al.


NIH


NIH


NIH


results could significantly influence the debate of the mandatory arrest law and whether itshould be allowed to sunset or not. We were careful to take a measured and thoughtful approachto the recommendations we made. Our honest attempts to understand the adverse effects of thelaw on survivors, particularly women of color and immigrant women, and present them in aclear yet nuanced way set the tone for discussion of the issue for several years in New YorkCity. For example, the authors were invited to assist in planning a conference joiningresearchers and criminal justice professionals in a debate on mandatory arrest, which took placein 2005.20 The research had more immediate practice effects as well. The advocates in thebroader domestic violence advocacy community found the defining of retaliatory arrest to bea helpful tool for assisting victims who were arrested in this way. Advocates reported that moreawareness of victim arrest gave them leverage in advocating for their clients with police andprosecutor’s offices and facilitated addressing the negative consequences of their experience.

Despite these positive actions, the focus of the research may have hampered the policy reformefforts, as institutional actors might have more readily responded to recommendations thatwere not so problem focused. In the report, we called for the release of domestic violence reportand arrest data by local and state agencies that one would need to examine the issue. We alsocalled for a larger statewide study of this data to assess more fully the effects of mandatoryarrest. Neither of these has happened. And yet, the New York State Legislature has beenunwilling to let the mandatory arrest statute sunset and has reauthorized it twice since 2001.

Recommendations for Integrating Action Into the Research PlanThis article has addressed requisite structures and relationships that underlie a commitment toincorporating action into a research plan. In our case, we concluded that to be more effectivein achieving some of the recommendations of the report, the team needed greater resourcesand staff time dedicated to the achievement of the action goals.21 Raising funds to pursuepolicy changes is a challenge. Many federal grants do not allow expenditures for lobbying andmany private sources frown on allocating resources for such purposes. In addition, not-for-profits can jeopardize their tax-exempt status by lobbying. We suggest a loosening of some ofthese proscriptions as well as increased awareness of the importance of dedicating resourcesto these activities. In addition, other means of motivating change can be used such asdissemination of information, education, and networking with policymakers. Our teamcreatively employed some of these techniques. However, without additional resources, thework fell to staff of the advocacy organization, already overburdened with other tasks.

A second factor that impeded execution of the action plan was the attack on the World TradeCenters on September 11, 2001.22 The collaborating advocacy organization was drawn intoresponding to this crisis, and all effort that had been dedicated to working on the outcomes ofthe report was diverted to the aftermath of 9/11. Though obviously an aberrant event, it is notuncommon that advocacy organizations are put in the position of responding to policy“emergencies,” such as the discontinuation of housing subsidies or a spate of domestic violencehomicides. An understanding of the role played by advocacy organizations can facilitate thereworking of an action plan to accommodate such events. In addition, we recognized that theresearch report had the countervailing effect of fortifying Haviland’s continuing role in thecommunity as mandatory arrest expert and that this role was not subject to policy vagaries.Thus, collaborative research should be seen as an investment in the advocacy community thatemanates continuous effects; further, this investment can be channeled into action, even if theplan has to be altered.

20This conference entitled, “Mandatory Arrest: Original Intentions, Outcomes in Our Communities and Future Directions” took placein June 2005.21A funding proposal was prepared for the implementation of an advocacy plan with dedicated staff but the funds were not approved.22The results of the study were published in August, 2001.

Haviland et al.


NIH


NIH


NIH


Third, we found that the policy work constituted another area of expertise that had to be bridgedbetween researcher and advocate. The effects of mandatory arrest researchers had to first acceptthat action was a central goal of the research and then come to understand the policy issues insome detail to design methodology and think through the ultimate goals of the research. Wefound this to be another teaching aspect to the advocate role. Because the advocate had manyrelationships with key players in the policy arena, the interfacing of the research and theserelationships had to be considered as well. Discussion of the possible recommendations andtheir feasibility became a joint task of the team, which contributed to the thoughtfulness of therecommendations.

ConclusionDomestic violence advocates and researchers are drawing on feminist research methods, PAR,and related principles to craft methodologies that empower the community throughcollaboration. The collaborative approach can infuse survivor perspective, enrich researchmethodologies, and enhance the impact of the research on policies and practices thatdisadvantage survivors of domestic violence. This multi-disciplinary team of public health andsocial science researchers and advocates engaged in a collaboration that yielded importantinformation regarding survivor experience with a newly implemented mandatory arrest statute.Although limited in some respects, the results of the study were important, as was the processof collaboration, a process reflected on in the present article.

In this article, we describe our advocate researcher collaboration in part to emphasize the valueof small, action-oriented, collaborative research projects. We reflect on advocate researchercollaborations and flesh out some of the components of successful collaboration cited in theliterature from the advocate perspective. Our experience suggests a few general principles thatmay apply across similar collaborations both within domestic violence and more generally.When each member of the research team possesses a unique area of expertise, and where thegroup recognizes each member’s contribution, the relationship between advocate andresearcher will be more equal. Institutional structures on both sides must be modified to supportcollaborative ventures. Understanding philosophical orientations and approaches tocollaboration in both communities can make better partnerships. It has been suggested thatresearchers serve as translators and negotiators of the culture and science of research foradvocates who are considering collaboration with a research institutions (Gondolf et al.,1997). We suggest that experienced advocates too have a role to play in helping to navigatethe complex set of relationships and philosophies of the domestic violence advocacycommunity for researchers. Adhering to a process of team decision making on major milestonesand devising methodologies that account for different disciplines and perspectives achievedeeper understanding of the problems studied. Finally and importantly, survivor voice is crucialto the relevance, practical application, and credibility of domestic violence research.Advocacy–research collaborations enhance the opportunities for this voice to be heard inresearch endeavors.

In addition to these suggestions for promoting successful advocacy–research collaborations,we conclude that both academia and the domestic violence advocacy community have muchto gain from collaborative research. On the academic side, collaborative research provides justthe opportunity for social and public health research to develop the imaginative capacity tomove between personal and public or institutionalized perspectives, to understand the historicaland social conditions that shape each (Mills, 1970). In collaborative research, researchers cancheck their observations through conversation with those who experience or work to addresssocial problems (Bowes, 1996). Dialogue among all of the partners in the research processforces the researcher to recognize that along with the authority and means to disseminate theirfindings to wider audiences of other researchers, professionals, and policymakers comes a

Haviland et al.


NIH


NIH


NIH


responsibility to try to “get it right” from the multiple perspective of those involved.Collaborative research, moreover, helps researchers to recognize, articulate, and evenchallenge why they draw particular conclusions and provide the explanations that they do.

With regard to the domestic violence advocacy community, research can help advocates betterunderstand the complex and interrelated causes and consequences of violence against women.The researchers in our study imparted important research concepts and logical thinking to theiradvocate partners that helped them understand in a nuanced and deeper fashion what they wereobserving in their work with victims of domestic violence. They facilitated a report and severalpublications that multiplied the impact of the research. This “investment” in the advocacycommunity has lasted many years. In addition, many advocates pursue systemic changes thatthey hope will eventually eliminate or greatly reduce the incidence of intimate partner violence.Investigation, understanding, and documentation through research methodologies, of thecomplex web of social and institutional factors that encourage violence against women,stigmatize victims, and ultimately perpetuate intimate violence, can help to identify strategiesthat challenge these systems, and thereby decrease the use of violence in the home. In sum, weconclude that collaborative approaches are fertile ground for achieving a richer understandingof domestic violence as well as generating action and activism that promotes social change.

ReferencesBlock CR, Engel B, Naureckas SM, Riordan KA. The Chicago women’s health risk study: Lessons in

collaboration. Violence Against Women 1999;5:1158–1177.Boser S. Ethics and power in community–campus partnerships for research. Action Research 2006;4(1):

9–21.Bowes, AM. Evaluating an empowering research strategy: Reflections on action-research with South

Asian women. Sociological Research Online. 1996. Retrieved July 31, 2008, fromhttp://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/1/1/1.html

Cooley CH. Social consciousness. Proceedings of the American Sociological Society 1907;1:97–109.Crenshaw, K. Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, identity politics and violence against women of

color. In: Mykitiuk, R.; Fineman, M., editors. The public nature of private violence: The discover ofdomestic abuse. New York: Routledge; 1994. p. 93-120.

Edelson, JL.; Bible, AL. National Institute of Justice, viewing crime and justice from a collaborationperspective: Plenary papers of the 1998 Conference on Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation.Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice; 1999. Force bonding or community collaboration?Partnerships between science and practice in research on women battering; p. 25-38.

Final Report to the Governor and Legislature, New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services andOffice for the Prevention of Domestic Violence and the University at Albany. School of CriminalJustice: Albany, New York; 2001 Jan. Family Protection and Domestic Violence Intervention Act of1994: Evaluation of the Mandatory Arrest Provisions.

Frye V, Haviland M, Rajah V. Unintended consequences of and factors associated with mandatory arrestin New York City. Journal of Family Violence 2007;22:397–405.

Fugate, M.; George, C.; Haber, N.; Stawiski, S. From the perspective of diverse users: An evaluation ofthe city of Chicago domestic violence help line. Chicago Mayor’s Office on Domestic Violence &Loyola University Chicago, Center for Urban Research and Learning; Chicago, Illinois: 2006 Mar.

Gilfus M, Fineran S, Cohan D, Jensen S, Hartwick L, Spath R. Research on violence against women:Creating survivor-informed collaborations. Violence Against Women 1999;5:1194–1212.

Gondolf, EW.; Yllo, K.; Campbell, J. Collaboration between researchers and advocates. In: Kantor, GK.;Jasinski, JL., editors. Out of the darkness: Contemporary perspectives on family violence. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage; 1997. p. 255-267.

Haviland, M.; Frye, V.; Rajah, V.; Thukral, J.; Trinity, M. The Family Protection and Domestic ViolenceIntervention Act of 1995: Examining the effects of mandatory arrest in New York City. New York:Urban Justice Center; 2001 May.

Haviland et al.


NIH


NIH


NIH


http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/1/1/1.html

Israel BA, Schultz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB. Review of the community-based research: Assessingpartnership approaches to improve public health. Annual Review of Public Health 1998;19:173–202.

MacDonald S. Answering questions and asking more: Reflections on feminist participatory research.Resources for Feminist Research 2003;30(12):77–95.

Mills, CW. The sociological imagination. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin; 1970.Minkler M. Using participatory action research to build healthy communities. Public Health Reports

2000;115:119–197.Moser, R. The new academic labor systems. 2001 Jun 12. Retrieved June, 2001, from

http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/issues/contingent/moserlabor.htmNyden P. Academic incentives for faculty participation in community-based participatory research.

Journal of General Internal Medicine 2003;18:576–585. [PubMed: 12848841]Pence, E.; Shepard, M. Integrating feminist theory and practice: The challenge of the battered women’s

movement. In: Yllo, K.; Bograd, M., editors. Feminist perspectives on wife abuse. Newbury Park,CA: Sage; 1988. p. 282-298.

Rajah V, Frye V, Haviland M. “Aren’t I a Victim?”: Notes on identity challenges relating to police actionin a mandatory arrest jurisdiction. Violence Against Women 2006;12:897–916. [PubMed: 16957172]

Ramazanoglu, C.; Holland, J. Feminist methodology: Challenges and choices. London: Sage; 2002.Renzetti, C. Confessions of a reformed positivist: Feminist participatory research as good social science.

In: Schwartz, MD., editor. Researching sexual violence against women: Methodological and personalperspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1997. p. 131-143.

Reinharz, S. Feminist methods in social research. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1992.Riger S. Working together: Challenges in collaborative research on violence against women. Violence

Against Women 1999;5:1099–1117.Schechter, S. Women and male violence: The visions and struggles of the battered women’s movement.

Boston: South End Press; 1982.Schechter, S. Building bridges between activists, professionals, and researchers. In: Yllo, K.; Bograd,

M., editors. Feminist perspectives on wife abuse. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1988. p. 299-312.Slote KY, Cuthbert C, Mesh CJ, Driggers MG, Bancroft L, Silverman JG. Battered mothers speak out:

Participatory human rights documentation as a model for research and activism in the United States.Violence Against Women 2005;11:1367–1395. [PubMed: 16204730]

Small SA, Uttal L. Action-oriented research: Strategies for engaged scholarship. Journal of Marriage andFamily 2005;67:936–948.

Sullivan CM, Cain D. Ethical and safety considerations when obtaining information from or aboutbattered women for research purposes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2004;19:603–618.[PubMed: 15104864]

Sullivan M, Bhuyan R, Senturia K, Shiu-Thornton S, Ciske S. Participatory action research: A case studyin addressing domestic violence in nine cultural communities. Journal of Interpersonal Violence2005;20:977–994. [PubMed: 15983134]

Sullivan M, Kone A, Senturia KD, Chrisman NJ, Ciske SJ, Krieger JW. Researcher and researched-community perspectives: Toward bridging the gap. Health Education & Behavior 2001;28:130–149.[PubMed: 11265825]

Wadsworth Y. Gouldner’s child: Some reflections on sociology and participatory action research. Journalof Sociology 2005;41:267–284.

Williams LM. Researcher–advocate collaborations to end violence against women: Toward liberatingmethodologies for action research. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2004;19:1350–1357. [PubMed:15534337]

BiographiesMary Haviland is currently Director of Grants and Public Policy at the Greater NYC Affiliateof Susan G. Komen for the Cure, a breast cancer advocacy organization. She is also a consultanton issues related to domestic violence and not-for-profit management. She was a founder andcoexecutive director of CONNECT, a New York City domestic violence organization, until

Haviland et al.


NIH


NIH


NIH


http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/issues/contingent/moserlabor.htm

June 2006. She has worked with victims of domestic violence since 1978 in areas of crisisservices and legal assistance. Since graduating from New York University Law School in 1994,she has specialized in the interface between domestic violence and criminal justice. Sheinitiated a study of the effects of mandatory arrest on victims of domestic violence in 1995,and other published works have appeared in Violence Against Women and Journal of FamilyViolence.

Victoria Frye is an associate professor of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at Hunter College,City University of New York. At the time of this work, she was a research investigator at theCenter for Urban Epidemiologic Studies of the New York Academy of Medicine. Her researchcombines epidemiological and social science theories and methods to study the distributionand determinants of intimate partner violence against women and the roles of sociostructuralfactors in promoting and/or maintaining intimate partner violence at the neighborhood and/orcommunity level. In addition, she studies the role of intimate partner violence and genderinequity in sexual HIV-risk behaviors. Her work has been published in Violence AgainstWomen, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, JAMA, Journal of Urban Health, and the AmericanJournal of Public Health.

Valli Rajah is an assistant professor of sociology at John Jay College, City University of NewYork. Her research interests include women’s experience of intimate partner violence, therelationship between substance use and interpersonal violence, and social stratification. Herwork has appeared in such journals as the British Journal of Criminology, Violence AgainstWomen, and Addictive Behaviors.

Haviland et al.


NIH


NIH


NIH


Harnessing the Power of Advocacy–Research Collaborations: Lessons From the Field

Documents

Transcript of Harnessing the Power of Advocacy–Research Collaborations: Lessons From the Field