In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Shuki J. Cohen Domestic Violence Methodologies Closing Comments Thus far, the modus operandi of this book has been to present the reader with individual studies and generalize their findings to better understand the phenomenon of intimate partner violence. To take a larger perspective, the commentaries following each chapter contrasted studies that touched on the same phenomenon using different methods. This last chapter takes the perspective angle a notch wider, to rigorously examine the methodological and publication trends, preferences, and biases as they manifest in the “real world” of available data to researchers. This bibliometric approach to intimate partner violence research is uniquely capable of tapping hidden biases that cannot be gleaned from individual studies. For example, one hidden bias that can be tapped using bibliometric analysis is the phenomenon known in cognitive science as “experimenter bias,” or searching-for-the-penny-under-the-lamppost bias. Thus, Markus and others find a tendency for qualitative studies to preferentially study minority populations , whereas quantitative studies included both groups. One reason for this is perhaps because quantitative studies assume that we share core universal values and properties and any difference between groups can be explained by variations in these universals. However, qualitative research seeks to understand why this is the case and what it means to the stakeholder. If two bodies of research have such different research and foci, can we ever adequately align or reconcile this qualitative body of literature with the findings of quantitative studies, even if the research questions are similar? Can the two bodies of literature ever cohabit our understanding of intimate partner violence? Contrary to adversarial views that see the quantitative and qualitative approaches to intimate partner violence as opposing each other, Markus and others advocate embracing the use of contradictory data as the strategy of choice 254 Closing Comments | 255 for building a richer understanding of intimate partner violence—rather than privileging one or the other. In supporting this position, Markus and others provide both empirical and theoretical rationales. Empirically, they show that independent coding of the methodology as used in a large representative sample of published studies reveals that most of them use both qualitative and quantitative methods implicitly but mostly report results that conform to one approach. Philosophically, Markus and others point out that postmodern approaches to knowledge no longer accept observations independently of their observers—on their stance and assumptions. In this sense, postmodern approaches to scientific data seem to have rediscovered the moral of the ancient Indian allegory of six blind men who mistake their particular experience of different parts of an elephant for the definitive representation of an elephant. Markus and others remind us that this state of affairs is hardly confined to intimate partner violence research. Rather, studies across the social sciences, and especially those that use ethnomethodology and linguistics to tap the dual implicit and explicit aspects of cognition and experience, usually report low to no correlations between their measures (Bosson et al., 2000; Gawronski and De Houwer, in press)—with few exceptions (e.g., Cohen, 2011, 2012). Markus and others’ findings can further demonstrate the utility of the perspective afforded by bibliometric analysis in pointing to a potential rift between the circles of readerships that may be accessing quantitative and qualitative data. Thus, they show that even though many studies use de facto mixed methods , quantitative studies are not likely to publish qualitative data in their report, and qualitative studies are not likely to publish quantitative data—not even on a descriptive statistics level. This makes for a state of affairs in which the two approaches may be publishing for different readerships and hence would likely appear in different journals. In doing so, this publication pattern may inadvertently contribute to the exacerbation of the metaphorical blindness of the six men in the ancient Indian allegory mentioned above. Consequently, even the enlightened researcher who wishes to integrate findings from various sources would be hard-pressed to find a common denominator between them to do so. How might future research shrink this chasm? One possibility would be for authors to present both quantitative and qualitative data, however potentially contradictory, in their manuscripts. Another complementary possibility would be for scientific journals to become more inclusive and inter- or transdisciplinary in their publication pattern and err on the side of educating their readership and “nudging” them to branch outside their disciplinary comfort zone rather than cater to said readership’s niche bubble. [3.142.197.212] Project MUSE (2024-04-25 18:01...

Share