The Advantages of Qualitative Research into Femicide

Shalva Weil

doi:10.18778/1733-8077.13.3.08

Authors

Shalva Weil Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel; UNISA, University of South Africa

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/1733-8077.13.3.08

Keywords:

Femicide, Survivors, Qualitative Research, Non-Generalizability, Narratives, Interviews, Perpetrator, Victim, Policy, Mixed-Methods

Abstract

This article reviews the state of the art of qualitative research on femicide, which, until the publication of this Special Issue, has been extremely sparse. The paper mentions some of the limitations of the qualitative approach, such as time consumption, ethical liabilities, and non-generalizability. However, it advocates qualitative research because of its advantages in capturing the context, describing the experience, identifying the motives, highlighting the relationship between perpetrator and victim, identifying the risk factors, and suggesting apt policies. The article concludes by cautiously recommending a mixed-/merged-methods approach, which, in turn, depends upon the research question and has its own inherent disadvantages.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Shalva Weil, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel; UNISA, University of South Africa

Shalva Weil is a Senior Researcher at the Research Institute for Innovation in Education at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel, and Research Fellow in the Department of Biblical and Ancient Studies at UNISA, University of South Africa. She specializes in migration, ethnicity, ritual, gender, and violence.

Shalva Weil is the Chair of COST Action IS1206 “Femicide across Europe.” She has published articles on femicide in the ACUNS volumes Femicide 3, 4 +6, and an article on femicide among girls in India in Ex Aequo (2016). She is a co-editor of the Special Issue 2016 on “Femicide: A Social Challenge” in Current Sociology. She is a board member of the European Sociological Association (ESA) Research Network No. 20 on Qualitative Methods; from 2005-2007, she served as its Chair.

References

Adams, David. 2009. “Predisposing Childhood Factors for Men Who Kill Their Intimate Partners.” Victims & Offenders 4(3):215- 229.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15564880903048479

Adinkrah, Mensah. 2008. “Husbands Who Kill Their Wives: An Analysis of Uxoricides in Contemporary Ghana.” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 52(3):296-310.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X07307119

Calderón Gómez, Carlos. 2009. “Assessing the Quality of Qualitative Health Research: Criteria, Process and Writing.” Forum: Qualitative Social Research 10(2). Retrieved June 24, 2017: http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1294
Google Scholar

Campbell, Jacquelyn C. et al. 2003. “Risk Factors for Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results from a Multisite Case Control Study.” American Journal of Public Health 93(7):1089-1097.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.93.7.1089

Dobash, Emerson R et al. 2004. “Not an Ordinary Killer — Just an Ordinary Guy. When Men Murder an Intimate Woman Partner.” Violence against Women 10:577-605.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801204265015

Ercikan, Kadriya and Wolff-Michael Roth. 2006. “What Good Is Polarizing Research into Qualitative and Quantitative?” Educational Researcher 35(5):14-23.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035005014

Ercikan, Kadriya and Wolff-Michael Roth. 2009. Generalizing from Educational Research: Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Polarization. New York, London: Routledge.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203885376

Gill, Paul W. et al. 2008. “Methods of Data Collection in Qualitative Research: Interviews and Focus Groups.” British Dental Journal 204:291-295.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/bdj.2008.192

Gobo, Giampietro. 2015. “The Next Challenge: From Mixed to Merged Methods.” Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management 10(4):329-331.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/QROM-07-2015-1309

Kapardis, Andreas, Anna Costanza Baldry, and Maria Konstantinou. 2017. “A Qualitative Study of Intimate Partner Femicide and Orphans in Cyprus.” Qualitative Sociology Review 13(3):80-100.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.18778/1733-8077.13.3.06

McNamara, Patricia. 2008. “Changed Forever: Friends Reflect on the Impact of a Woman’s Death through Intimate Partner Homicide.” Journal of Family Studies 14:198-216.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.5172/jfs.327.14.2-3.198

McFarlane, Judith et al. 1999. “Stalking and Intimate Partner Femicide.” Homicide Studies 3:300-316.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767999003004003

Nicolaidis, Christina et al. 2003. “Could We Have Known? A Qualitative Analysis of Data from Women Who Survived an Attempted Homicide by an Intimate Partner.” Journal of General Internal Medicine 18:788-794.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.21202.x

Sheehan, Brynn E. et al. 2015. “Intimate Partner Homicide: New Insights for Understanding Lethality and Risks.” Violence against Women 21(2):269-288.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801214564687

Weil, Shalva. 2016a. “Making Femicide Visible.” Current Sociology 64(7):1124-1137.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392115623602

Weil, Shalva. 2016b. “Failed Femicides among Migrant Survivors.” Qualitative Sociology Review 12(4):6-21.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.18778/1733-8077.12.4.01

WHO. 2012. Understanding and Addressing Violence against Women. Geneva: World Health Organization. Retrieved July 26, 2016: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/77421/1/WHO_RHR_12.38_eng.pdf
Google Scholar