This chapter describes how an interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) study generated perceived risk for stakeholders and for participants. Here, perceived risk was interpreted through discourses and practices specific to intimate partner violence contexts that influenced intimate partner violence professionals' subjective experiences. These risk-responses were a fundamental threat to the purpose of the research: to contribute to meaningful change for the participants in their contexts. The clash between the research aim and the risk-responses opened a theoretical space for reflection about power and knowledge relationships in lived experience and meaning-making in IPA research. Specifically, this chapter addresses the question of whether the current epistemological stance grounding IPA research leads to meaning-making that reproduces knowledge in a form that overlooks the omnipresent influence of power and knowledge dynamics. Butler's philosophies of power, knowledge, subjectivity, and performativity are explored as means of expanding the epistemological foundation of IPA.
TopBackground
The aim of my doctoral research was to explore the phenomenon of WSS among IPV social workers—both because IPV social workers are at elevated risk of developing work-related post-traumatic stress and because WSS is a promising factor in moderating that risk of post-traumatic stress (Bride, Jones, & MacMaster, 2007; Regehr, Hemsworth, Leslie, Howe, & Chau, 2004; Slattery & Goodman, 2009). However, the meaning of WSS for IPV social workers had yet to be inductively described. My study therefore aimed to clarify the phenomenon of IPV social worker WSS in order to support future efforts to engage this promising protective factor. The method I used—IPA—necessitates in-depth interviews with a small homogenous sample of participants. However, despite a vigorous recruitment effort, only few IPV social workers came forward to be interviewed. Throughout the process of recruitment, it also became clear that this research was considered threatening both to the potential participants and to the administrators of IPV services. This issue was particularly important since these administrators served as gatekeepers through which I needed to pass to gain access to participants. The participants I interviewed, expressed fear that they could damage their professional relationships, lose their jobs, or put their workplaces in jeopardy by sharing their experiences. However, it was less clear what the administrators feared, though one shared the concern that operational funding could be lost if staff shared information that cast a negative light on the organization. In the following section, I review the literature demonstrating the importance of this research project in the field of IPV social work practice. This literature also helps make clear the inherently risky nature of IPV practice and the imperative to protect IPV professionals.