 |
Hypothesis testing and data analysis
|
|
|
|
HYPOTHESIS TESTING AND DATA ANALYSIS
Where a research study is set up such that hypotheses are tested, the data analysis may take a rather different form, especially where the data collected involves a large sample. An example of data analysis where two hypotheses are being tested is provided in Box 12. 8.
BOX 12. 8 TWO HYPOTHESES BEING TESTED IN DATA ANALYSIS –AN EXAMPLE
Ullman, S. E. and Filipas, H. H. (2005) ‘Gender differences in social reactions to abuse disclosures, post-abuse coping and PTSD of child sexual abuse survivors’, Child Abuse & Neglect, 29: 767–82.
Hypothesis:
1. Females would have greater abuse prevalence, more severe abuse, greater self- blame, more use of all coping strategies (both positive and negative), greater PTSD symptom severity, and be more likely to disclose abuse and receive more negative and positive reactions.
2. That negative social reactions would contribute to PTSD symptoms controlling for gender, abuse characteristics, coping and attributions.
Method:
Data were collected on a cross-sectional convenience sample of 733 college stu- dents completing a confidential survey about their demographic characteristics, sexual abuse experiences, disclosure characteristics, post-abuse coping and social reactions from others.
Data analytic plan:
To test hypothesis 1, cross-tabs and t tests were performed for each study vari- able, depending on level of measurement.
To test hypothesis 2, multiple regression was conducted.
Factors related to the number of positive and negative social reactions victims received when disclosing CSA were explored with multiple regressions.
Gender was the only demographic variable included (age was restricted due to the college student sample and race was not significantly related to the dependent variable). Abuse characteristics examined were sexual abuse severity, abuse dura- tion, victim–offender relationship familiarity, timing of disclosure, extent of disclosure, post-abuse victim self-blame, and coping.
Source: Adapted from Ullman and Filipas (2005: 773–4)
CRITICAL REFLECTION
My approach to doing qualitative analysis was a creative endeavour stimulated by my own victimological imagination and epistemological standpoint. Here, I briefly explain what I mean by this and why it is important to be self-consciously reflexive
and transparent about these positionings when doing analysis of qualitative crimi- nological research. My own interests in gender, crime and victimization and my background in teaching and research as a criminologist-cum-victimologist undoubt- edly informed how the analysis unfolded. The analysis was clearly shaped by my interest in the experiences of those suffering both criminal and non-criminal vic- timization, and, in these respects, a victimological as well as a harms-based perspective is evident. A feminist-informed approach sits alongside this. As Scott has explained in Chapter 6, as a theoretical perspective abolitionism is informed by an ethical and political critique of the violence and harm of the prison. As a strat- egy, it calls for the end of the use of imprisonment and the building of communities and societies shaped by the principles of social justice. As a social movement, abo- litionism is a collective organization working directly through research, policy interventions and direct action for progressive social change. As a theoretical per- spective, feminism is a slippery and amorphous perspective to define. Rather, several ‘feminisms’ or feminist perspectives are apparent, rather than a single uni- fied feminist theory, strategy and social movement (see below). Thus, feminist analysis of the same topic can lead to very different conclusions and feminist analysis of a topic can differ from analysis that is conducted from other perspec- tives. We touch on this in Chapter 1 (also see the further reading you are guided towards at the end of this chapter).
|
|
|
Feminist ideologies
Various strands of feminism have impacted differently on both victimology and criminology (Walklate, 2004: 94). In many respects, feminism challenges the very heart of the conventional victimological agenda. Feminist research practice has been explored by various writers (Gelsthorpe and Morris, 1994; Maynard and Purvis, 1994; Naffine, 1997; Stanley and Wise, 1993) and many others have brought their own feminist perspective to bear on their fieldwork and analysis of different areas of sociology. This work demonstrates that there is no single feminist viewpoint or per- spective. Nevertheless, as Naffine (1997: 51) has argued:
Many feminists are of the view that the angle from which the dominant class views the world, is one which provides a poor field of vision. Subjugation, and reflection upon that status, makes for a better appreciation of the world.
A variety of feminist positions and feminisms are now evident, including liberal feminism, radical feminism, socialist feminism, cultural feminism, women-of-colour feminism/womanism and post-modern feminisms. There are some common features across feminist positions. They all tend to have the so-called ‘woman question’ in common and, in terms of doing feminist research, this means doing research, for example, for rather than on women (Smith and Wincup, 2000).
Thus, we can see that several feminist approaches to the study of crime and vic- tims, rather than a unified ‘sisterhood’, can now be identified. For liberal feminists, the woman question might include the investigation of sexism; to radical feminists, it includes analysis of men’s power over women; to socialist feminists, the com- pounding of social class and patriarchy are crucial to understanding social justice and victimization; whilst post-modern feminists problematize the notion of ‘the other’ and celebrate difference (Walklate, 2003, 2004), acknowledging that different women have different needs. Different feminist ideologies offer different preferences in terms of political and policy strategies. Thus, we find that it is generally the case that in the context of policy issues gender neutrality is wedded to the equality-based feminist positions whilst gender-specific policy advocates are wedded to difference- based perspectives (Daly, 1994). Philosophically, feminists have warned that gender neutrality simply equates to the male standard where masculinity and maleness are the yardsticks against which judgements of others are made (MacKinnon, 1987). Daly pointed out many years ago: ‘The equality-difference debate has haunted women activists for more than a century’ (Daly, 1994: 9), and when it comes to gender-wise policy, transcending such dichotomies remains problematic.
|
|
|
For the most part, the examples and illustrations drawn on throughout this chapter have been taken from those engaged in psychological research including cognitive and therapeutic approaches and research on trauma. My use of a feminist-influenced and theory-sensitive approach to the analysis of those affected by CSA leads me to agree with Whittier’s assessment that a focus on the child in sexual violence and abuse is virtually non-existent in social science disciplines.
|
|
|
