Analytical Response on Research Methods

Analytical Response on Research Methods

Introduction & Research Methods

This paper briefly analyses two different methodological researches, qualitative and quantitative, on the topic of violence against women in Indonesia and domestic violence in the United States, from one source online journal; Violence against Women. The qualitative one is a report research that explores male perceptions and attitudes towards the topic. It analyses interview data from Indonesian men collected as part of a large multi-method Australian government–funded project on masculinities and violence in two Asian countries; a mix method research (Nilan, et al. 2014) while the second one employs quantitative research based on sub sample primary respondents of the first National Survey of Families and Households. The general aims at the exploration of the relationship between religious involvement and intimate partner violence (IPV) (Ellison, et al. 2007). As for this specific assignment, the writer uses qualitative by means of literature review; based on online report article and journal articles.  

Theories or Assumptions

The former article explains research under the assumption of how deep cultural aspect of the society influence perception of men’s rights to lead and discipline women resulting the need for continuation of women empowerment and men re-education. As for the later research, based on literature review, there is a tendency of higher level of religiosity especially among women and African Americans (Taylor, Chatters, & Levin, 2004) in contrast to previous findings that domestic violence is more common for African Americans and Hispanics (Lockhart, 1987). Thus, the research aims at addressing this contradiction by presenting assumption whether race/ethnicity, especially religious involvement (attendance frequency at religious services) inversely associated with domestic violence.

Method Adequateness and Appropriateness, Tools, Techniques and Limitation

The report uses a qualitative methodology by means of literature review method emphasising on interview data through desk research technique. In my opinion, the report is fairly adequate as it is meant to describe the findings of research, utilising primary source supported by secondary sources mainly journal articles. However, in the literature review, the researchers have not referenced any similarly previous researches finding with on the subject. By doing so, readers of this report may have to assume that this research is probably the first of its kind which is doubtful in nature.

The research itself employs two different methodologies; a qualitative in the form of semi structured interview, on the other hand, a quantitative in the form surveys. The later were composed of 1,004 men and while the former were performed by interviewing 86 men in addition to 18 nongovernmental organization (NGO) workers in Indonesia. The examination itself is based on masculinity and violence against women. The possible link between this research and the report lays on the discourse of culture, specifically patriarchy notion, thus, this reflects sociological nature of both research and the report. Masculinity means the relation between the perpetrator of violence and justification toward women is strong. Using both methodologies seem important in this research for function purpose; one as means to supplement each other weakness. However, the report mainly focuses on the semi-structured interview solely due to magnitude set of outcome of using both methods.

There has been no clarification on the basis of cities chosen in the research. Conversely, the number of interviewee seems does not representing the cities as well, thus, it is unlikely categorised for generalisation. This condition could be understood when probability sample is impossible or not feasible. Moreover, the saturation process is not clearly stated on the sample size. The use of snowballing technique may simply indicates access to possible interviewees based on networking or social link means resulting  86 men who initially accepted to be interviewed as a result of subsequent 1004 survey respondents. This small numbers seems a worldwide phenomenon and in line with research finding in The United States that talking about violence against women is considered ‘taboo topic’ among men (see Neighbours and colleagues, 2010, Ambrosetti, et. al. 2013).

Considered as a powerful tool that produces in depth information and understanding, the strength of semi structured interview bases on its structure and flexibility. Probing technique is very likely used for extracting a deeper meaning through an informal interviewing style. However, the limitation of the report is mainly due to inaccessibility to actual research findings article which prohibits readers to further seek a deeper insight on the research findings. Conversely, the report is merely a repetition of research finding, thus there is no significant implication on practical basis. However, different analysis approach may implicate to a more enrich academic and theoretical discussion. In policy and practice perspective, the report suggests the important of continuous role of government stakeholders to generate significant dialogue and public awareness.

The second research has a strong theoretical frameworks on the issues discourse through heading title consisting religion and domestic violence, race/ethnicity and domestic violence and race/ethnicity and religion to come up with 3 hypotheses questions (Ellison, et. al., 2007, p. 1095-1100). The selection criteria seems to be appropriate resulting to 3.134 men and 3.666 women from 13.017 men and women who were married to, cohabiting with, a person of the opposite sex at the time of National Survey Interview. This type source of data is reliable and rich in information quantitatively and qualitatively, respectively.
Although the questionnaires were self-administered and for both partners to reduce biases, a follow up interview would at least ascertain quantitative findings in addition to enriching information from respondents, especially on the religion involvement as dependent variables. In addition, there are several disadvantages of self-completion compared to structured review namely, inability to prompt when respondent having difficulties to answer the question, no opportunity to probe for an elaborate answer, cannot ask many questions that are not salient to respondent, unable to ask many open questions as respondent frequently do not want to write a lot, difficult to determine who actually answer the questions, greater risk to lose data, etc. (Bryman, 2012).

Furthermore, this article mentions the use of mean, standard deviation, and logistic regression (odds ratios) as a tool and technique to describe and analyse data. For example, findings through the above techniques suggest that African Americans indicates having greater levels of domestic violence and are more likely both to perpetrate and be victimized by this sort of violence in comparison to other ethnics. On the other hand, religious involvement, in terms of church attendance, is found protective against domestic violence for three ethnics with African American is higher. As the researcher mentioned, the limitation of this research is the result of the finding itself where the involvement of religious is still considered as an indicator or a proxy means and frequent attendance is not a key aspect of religious involvement in affecting pattern of domestic violence, thus, they seek for further research based on potential roles of multiple dimensions of religion and spirituality in this subject. The research’s results may not be considered as generalisation or solid causality argument but rather as basis of for extra research.

Conclusion

To sum up, in my opinion, it is very difficult to analyse any researches as a whole or their methodologies in particular. Any research articles seem to run smoothly and it is difficult to sense ‘abnormality’ in the process of research. As Bryman (2012) states that researchers tend to focus on specific findings then back them up with a soundly standard methodological terminologies to emphasise principal process. This does not mean there is a perfect research since every means is possible to challenge research report. The most crucial thing is that principles of performing research should maximally be applied while at the same time bearing in mind the nature of flexibility of social research is ever-present (Bryman, 2012). Neither qualitative nor quantitative is perfect, as any research process has its own nature of progressing.

References

Primary

Nilan, P., Demartoto, A., Broom, A., & Germov, J. (2014). Indonesian men's perceptions of violence against women. Violence Against Women, 20(7), 869-888. doi:10.1177/1077801214543383

Ellison, C., Trinitapoli, J., Anderson, K., & Johnson, B. (2007). Race/Ethnicity, religious involvement, and domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 13(11), 1094-1112. doi:10.1177/1078012073082591

Secondary

Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lockhart, L. L. (1987). A reexamination of the effects of race and social class on the incidence of marital violence: A search for reliable differences. Journal of Marriage and Family, 49(3), 603-610.

Neighbors, C., Walker, D. D., Mbilinyi, L. F., O'Rourke, A., Edleson, J. L., Zegree, J., & Roffman, R. A. (2010). Normative misperceptions of abuse among perpetrators of intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 16(4), 370-386. doi:10.1177/1077801210363608

Taylor, R. J., Chatters, L. M., & Levin, J. (2003). Religion in the lives of african americans: Social, psychological, and health perspectives doi:10.4135/9781452229782