Feminist participatory action research with men to prevent intimate partner violence

Abstract

Employing Reid and Frisby’s feminist participatory action research model (FPAR) as a guide, men from diverse ethno-cultural backgrounds worked with women leaders to take action on the issue of intimate partner violence. Engaging with four interconnected phases, the research team adopted shared roles of leadership which led to 29 collective actions. Through trust-building dialogues, we interrogated issues related to masculinity, gender equity, anti-racism, and decolonization. A “collective cultures approach” to men’s violence prevention work was articulated and a grassroots movement emerged. As white women situated in both academic and community spaces, we discuss knowledges, actions, and learnings from this FPAR process, underscoring the tensions and contradictions of employing FPAR in real-life contexts. The importance and limitations of inter-relational reflexivity and power accountability are emphasized as a core tenet of FPAR.

Keywords

feminist participatory action research men’s roles in violence prevention intersectionality anti-racism decolonization

We need to ask ourselves: What are the principles of where we stand?

If we are going to be a men’s group against violence, what position do we take?

How are our communities going to see us and what are the risks? (Abbas¹)

While men’s violence prevention initiatives are increasing globally, advocates and researchers identify the need for studies to advance community-centered and transformative approaches to addressing gender injustice (Carlson et al., 2015; Flood, 2010). Feminist participatory action research (FPAR) was chosen to invite an under-researched group, men from diverse ethno-cultural backgrounds (n = 20) who, together with women violence prevention leaders (n = 5), co-convened for period of one year as knowledge creators and action-researchers. Through relational trust-building and a co-reflexive (Flores-Carmona & Luschen, 2012) process, we developed and acted on a plan to inform theory, practice, and policy related to violence prevention.

This study emerged from our local context as an example of community-based participatory research (CBPR). CBPR provides a critical orientation to research (Cornwall & Jewkes, 1995) that realizes the exploitative nature of traditional inquiry, particularly when done to oppressed communities; it focuses on issues and concerns identified by communities, and values collaboration and lived experiences as foundational to both research and the work of social change (Jacobson & Rugeley, 2007).

In a mid-Western Canadian province, a cross-cultural network of grassroots community leaders, organizers and activist-scholars gathered to address a community priority: involving men in preventing intimate partner violence. FPAR (Reid & Frisby, 2008) emerging from participatory action research (PAR) and feminist research (FR) methods was employed and adapted to fit our community context. Fals-Borda (1987) first defined PAR as “a complex process which includes adult education, situation analysis, critical analysis, and practice as sources of knowledge for understanding new problems, necessities and dimension of reality” (p. 85). FPAR “incorporates PAR’s focus on class/poverty and emancipation, and relevance to non-Eurocentric cultures, and also includes FR’s gynocentric lens …heightened focus on intersectionality … and focus on self-empowerment” (Lorenzetti & Walsh, 2014, p. 52). Within FPAR, participants adopt the role of co-researchers, or “joint contributors and investigators to the findings” (Boylorn, 2008, p. 600) in order to collectively identify and act on issues of community interest (Bargal, 2008; Park, 2001).

Guiding our research was Reid and Frisby’s (2008) six-dimension framework: “reflexivity; centering gender and women’s diverse experiences while challenging forms of patriarchy; accounting for intersectionality; honouring voice and difference; exploring new forms of representation; and honouring many forms of action” (pp. 100–101). We chose this critical and participatory research method as a vehicle to address violence, patriarchy and oppression (Dupont, 2008; Varcoe, 2006) and to center both women's the experiences and peoples’ experiences of intersectionality, a tension that was woven throughout the project.

In this article, we centralize our critically reflexive discussions as activist-scholars on the community context, positionality, process, and forms of actions in this study. We intend to illustrate the benefits and tensions of FPAR as transformative action research by attending to gender inequity (DeKeseredy & Dragiewicz, 2009; Jewkes, 2002), colonization (Bopp et al., 2003; Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015), and racism (James et al., 2010) in the Canadian context. Integral to our FPAR process were actions designed to further men’s violence prevention roles; these included formal knowledge exchange activities (i.e., presentations to community, agency, and academic stakeholders), and numerous gatherings where actions were planned, implemented, and evaluated. Furthermore, a grassroots organization arose from an evolving praxis that centralized shared leadership within the group. We aligned with Reid and Frisby’s (2008) framework, which underscores the need to practice inter-group reflexivity, amplify women’s diverse experiences, account for intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989), and collectively determine and act on the knowledges generated in the research. We highlight the tensions and contradictions of employing FPAR in “real life contexts” by presenting our reflections and community actions.

The community context

They are selling masculinity in a bottle. Expectations and acceptance is like a male and female socket—they go together. Because what is expected is acceptable and what is unexpected is difficult to accept. (Vic)

As home to multi-generational settlers and an immigrant population of 7.5 million people (Statistics Canada, 2016), in an era of increasing global migration, Canada’s ongoing role as a migrant receiving country is largely undisputed.Calgary, where the project emerged, has a population over 1.3 million, is home to people from 240 identified cultures and is the third largest population of racialized Canadians (Statistics Canada, 2016). A positive social climate within Calgary for the involvement of men in violence prevention was characterized by a number of conductive factors, including relevant conversations, community work, and research projects emerging from culturally diverse neighborhoods. These initiatives established an ongoing conversation about domestic violence in the local community, and, over time, violence prevention was eventually identified as a community priority; this bolstered the community interest in participatory research with men. While various groups were interested in this idea, there were two mainstream community frameworks at the time when the men’s violence prevention work was initiated: feminist and primarily women-led work on violence prevention that mostly did not include men, or a persistent men’s rights movement, which was viewed as misogynist and antagonist to the work. Our research group, as it emerged, was proactive in establishing itself as a trustworthy “third option,” feminist and pro-feminist community work which grew to be positively recognized over time.

Relationships among activist-scholars, non-governmental organizations (NGO), and community leaders from diverse ethno-cultural backgrounds facilitated the development of a community/academic partnership. Liza (lead author) had built trust within various communities as a counsellor and activist; she was also interested in furthering this work through her doctoral research. A local NGO, the Ethno-Cultural Council of Calgary (now called Action Dignity), whose mission was to “facilitate the collective voice of [city’s] ethno-cultural communities towards full civic participation and integration through collaborative action” (n.d., para 1) offered to be the organizational partner for the project. Vic, a Filipino-trained physician and leader with Action Dignity, encouraged a number of Filipino-Canadian men to first join the study. Liza and Vic extended the invitation to a broad network framed with two key questions “Are you concerned about domestic violence in your community?” [and] “Are you interested in gender equality?” We used social media, personal conversations, and community events as fora to make the invitations.

Trust was a key asset in recruitment, with most participants joining the study as a result of a conversation or relationship with someone who was either involved with or knew about the project. Invitations to join were often positively received because both Liza and key organizational convener,Vic were recognized as having contributed to equity-seeking community initiatives. While Liza was involved in equity and anti-racism initiatives and an advocate for and with immigrants and refugees, Vic’s many years of practice as a physician dedicated to health promotion and violence prevention in the Philippines was a rallying force for the men who joined. As CBPR is collaborative, community-situated, and action-oriented (Etmanski et al., 2014), the initial co-researchers began inviting others to participate through existing relationships, community events, and informal gatherings. Men who expressed interest in the project were often surprised to be asked to join an ally group of men; some were also concerned that the group would be looked upon as an intervention program for abusers or part of the Men’s Rights Movement. These concerns were quickly allayed, as we discussed the importance of men’s roles in stepping up to improve family life and taking action against violence in the community and “making a difference.”

Identifying ourselves

Critical self-inquiry and reflexivity is foundational to FPAR, as articulated by Reid and Frisby (2008), who, in dimension 1, interrogate: “how are the researchers accounting for their own social location and insider/outsider status?” (p 101). Liza is a white woman from Italian heritage, born in Québec, Kanien’kehá:ka [Mohawk] territory and now living in Alberta Canada, traditional territory of the Blackfoot Confederacy and people Treaty 7, and Métis Region 3. The study was conducted in Calgary with a socio-political climate which has seen the election of conservative governments in the province for most of its recent history. My decades of fieldwork in the women’s shelter movement, and with immigrant and refugee survivors of interpersonal and state violence in particular engendered the question which became this study: where are the men in the work of violence prevention—which is primarily perpetrated by men? As a survivor of violence, my activism and social work practice were and are always personal. My experience and positionality are reflected in my teaching and research focus on interconnected issues of gender-based violence, wealth inequality, peace-building, and anti-racism. The second author, Christine, a queer, activist woman, born on the unceded territory of the Maliseet (New Brunswick, Canada), educated on the traditional territory of the Haudenosaunee and Anishinaabe (Ontario, Canada), is a professor of social work working on gender justice issues. I work on the ancestral territories and current home of the Blackfoot People of Treaty 7 and the Métis People Region 3. My interest in research in gender justice and ally work is founded on my own personal history as a survivor of interpersonal violence and my professional social work practice intervening in child maltreatment.

By explicitly discussing intentionality, power and identity within the context of the co-researcher team, we acknowledge/d various forms of privilege and our participation in mainstream feminist knowledge production. We also implicated our oppression by patriarchy and violence and our whiteness/white privilege as contested roles that we brought to the study. As elucidated by Black feminist educator Notisha Massaquoi (2007):
… the nature of the present moment is one in which our existence as Black women in Canada calls into question the legitimacy of Canadian feminist knowledge production and the legitimacy of the spaces from which Canadian feminist think, write and act. (p. 5)
Addressing legitimacy within and outside the research process requires a firm commitment to inter-relational reflexivity (Gilbert & Sliep, 2009), the process of making ourselves visible and accountable to how our social location, power, experiences, and knowledge shapes our understanding of the world (Carter & Little, 2007; Gilbert & Sliep, 2009). Practiced within a group setting through both words and actions, inter-relational reflexivity “occurs dialogically including a concern for moral agency and the negotiation of accountability and responsibility for action” (Gilbert & Sliep, 2009, p. 468). This commitment does not ensure legitimacy, it merely surfaces the issue, as was apparent in the group, where it took time to establish trust, as discussed in the section “Context of the Collective.”

As academics and organizers working for the prevention of interpersonal violence, our experiences were highly relevant and implicated in the lenses, and biases that framed the study. We foregrounded our assumption that men need to address other men’s violence and they are not doing this work, as documented in Liza journal:
When I decided to return to school to complete a PhD, I planned to focus on the lives of women, as I had done with my Master thesis. One month into my program, I realized that if I was ever going to make the impact that I had hoped for in 25 years of working in the field, I would have to set my sights on working with men. I met my supervisor in a coffee shop in Kensington to share my idea. Dave looked at me, not quite convinced, and said: “But can you get the men?”

Through the relational process described in this paper, our doubts about “getting the men” were transformed as men from diverse backgrounds expressed a willingness to enter and then contribute to a space focused on violence prevention. Co-researchers were primarily immigrant men (n = 14) and racialized² (n = 16). Canadian-born men were white (n = 4) or Indigenous (n = 2).³ Participants ranged in age from early twenties to late fifties; the mean participant age was 42. Most co-researchers identified as heterosexual and two co-researchers were members of the disability self-advocate community. The men were predominantly married or living with female partners (n = 15) and the majority (n = 12) were fathers. Most of the men struggled with financial well-being, attributed, in part, to a lack of recognition for credentials and experiences, and their primary of role as family provider. While co-researchers resided in the four major quadrants of the city, a greater number lived in neighbourhoods with higher migrant and Indigenous populations.

The community study process: Context of the collective

The research occurred in four overlapping and interconnected phases: community development prior to the research; cohesion and trust-building among the co-researcher team; leadership and praxis of the co-researcher team; and post-study sustainability of the work. During the initial phases, reflective group practice and discussions on power and intersectionality (Reid & Frisby, 2008, dimension 3) opened space for trust-building dialogue among the co-researcher team. We used a circle process to repudiate the role of academic expert within the research and facilitate frank and creative sharing on the intended and unintended ramifications of the study. As the key community convenor, Vic led this process so it would not be a demonstration of academic coercion. The lead author shared her own experiences and aspirations as part of the circle. This space resonated with co-researchers, exemplified by the sharing of intentions at the initial meetings:
When I attend this group, I want to change myself. I hope to bring the change to others in the community. I am dedicated and passionate about this work. Excited about the potential of this group. (Madan)

When I was approached about the project, I took two days to think of it. First of all, it is only in Canada that I heard these words domestic violence … Before coming here, I thought domestic violence was just a normal thing. We didn’t even have a word to say domestic violence. (Herbert)

I have been here from the start to establish a movement—a cause of men. To engage other men to prevent gender-based violence. (Abbas)
The initial group of men co-researchers, from the Philippines, El Salvador, Nepal, Zimbabwe, Iran, and Guyana, discussed their identities as immigrants, racialized persons, and settlers on Indigenous land, and recognized the importance of “inviting our Indigenous brothers to the table” (Vic). Invitations, made through personal meetings, resulted in the participation of two Indigenous men. Also, as initially, Liza was the only white person on the research team, the male co-researchers raised the issue of inviting white men to the group. The realities of intersectionality and white privilege elucidated a possible shift in power dynamics if white men were to be included, as Percy summarized, “we need to be comfortable among ourselves first prior to inviting white men to the group.” After some deliberation, co-researchers reached a consensus to extend invitations to white men who were known to be committed to anti-racism. Percy reflected the decision that “expanding our circle would deepen the dialogue and perspectives that could be shared.” This process of determining group membership was elemental to the participatory nature of the study and the group’s sense of “ownership” of the evolving process (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988). The group identified a handful of white men who were committed to antiracism and who would not “take over” the group. Following which, both Liza and another co-researcher, Joe, extended the invitation to men who were informed that they had been identified “for their anti-racist work”; all responded positively and expressed appreciation at being identified. There was excitement among this small number of “white male allies” that racialized and Indigenous men had already solidified and established directions for moving forward—quite unique from a tokenistic colonial model. They then worked alongside the growing group of racialized and Indigenous men to assist in developing what was later termed a “collective-cultures and Indigenous lens.” The lens was a foundation for men’s violence prevention work in the group and led to a number of protocols and presentations developed by the co-researchers and shared within the broader community. These included food sharing, a consensus model of decision-making—Consensus Protocol—family involvement, honoring our cultures, and Indigenous teachings within and on behalf of the group to the broader community, often led by Adrian. On one occasion, when NGO workers praised our team for our diversity and cohesion, a white co-researcher Grant, responded: “This group is working so well because it is not led by white men.” While this comment may appear to highlight tensions with white men, it was an articulation of solidarity with the racialized and Indigenous men leading the work. This comment was received with acceptance and humor by group members in attendance and attested to the level of safety and comfort within the group. Our collective-cultures foundation was further demonstrated in personal relationships, wherein some co-researchers from various backgrounds began to develop relationships outside of the project, referring to each other as “brother.” This term, used frequently among some co-researchers, was generally perceived as a sign of solidarity and cultural safety. In fact, one of the Filipino co-researchers commented “I never thought that I would have an Indigenous brother.”

The concept of multiple masculinities was a pervasive theme woven through our process, both in meetings and informal coffee-shop conversations. In dimension 3, Reid and Frisby (2008) emphasize the importance of understanding “What forms of patriarchy exist and how do they shape/challenge researcher/participant worldviews?” and “How is experience tied to gendered, classed and racialized power relations?” (p. 97). Masculinity and patriarchy were viewed from the structural context of colonization and racism, as underscored by Charlotte, an Indigenous woman co-researcher:
Aboriginal men are right at the bottom of privilege. I have spent my career wanting to support men. The women and children get all this help, and there is nothing for the men. If we exclude the men, there will not be change. I want a healthy future for all children. I want healthy Aboriginal men to reclaim their traditional place. I want to support them to get what they need so they can be healthy again.
In the intersectional foundation of FPAR work, Reid and Frisby’s (2008) third dimension was used to identify the necessary groundwork in order to engage men in violence prevention. For example, Abbas initiated a meeting to delve into the question of “what it means to be a man” and suggested, “let’s start first, by talking about masculinity and seeing what we understand as masculinity from our various backgrounds … then we can discuss what we view as healthy masculinity.”

Reid and Frisby’s (2008) second dimension, centering gender and women’s diverse experiences while challenging patriarchy, was a cornerstone of the study and facilitated in research meetings. Liza shared her experiences during the first meeting:
I’ve worked at the women’s shelters for a long time. I was starting to lose hope, so I decided that I needed to focus this study on working alongside men who want to make a difference. I have also had my own personal experiences with men’s violence, and I want to see something change.
As an FPAR study, women violence prevention leaders from Eritrean, Ethiopian, Mexican, and Piikani First Nation heritage with diverse experiences and social identities worked alongside men to intentionally amplify the multiple voices of women; this approach parallels with dimension 4, honoring voice and difference (Reid & Frisby, 2008). Lemlem, a woman co-researcher, articulated the tensions of this work:
As the world is struggling our group will struggle. How do we become allies to everyone? We can bring forward our humanity and uniqueness. We need to be so understanding of that. Each one of us is going through different things and has different perceptions.
A Women’s Caucus was created to address some of these tensions, to further trust-building opportunities among women and to build strategies by acknowledging our diverse positionalities. Challenging dominant or white, middle-class women’s experiences, often construed as “universal” (Sokoloff & Dupont, 2005), was fostered as women co-researchers occupied greater roles of leadership within the group, in partnership with the men. The expansion of women’s voices in the study occurred naturally within the community process as partners, children, and extended family members, began to accompany co-researchers to meetings, activities, and events.

In tandem, a Men’s Caucus met to deepen discussions about masculinities and foster understanding across gender diversities. A surprise to most in the group, while the men planned their Caucus to further deconstruct masculinity, they concluded: “there was nothing to discuss about masculinity that we did not feel comfortable talking about in the larger group.” In this case, both groups found the gender-collaborative work and caucus time beneficial for relationship building. Caucusing has been documented as an approach to creating safer spaces and spaces of unlearning for those experiencing oppression and/or privilege, respectively; these spaces are not without problems, however, as identities are intersectional (Hudson & Mountz, 2016), including the notion of gender, which is not binary.

As activist scholars, we were committed to power accountability as a core tenet of FPAR. We practiced inter-relational reflexivity (Gilbert & Sliep, 2009) in the following ways: (1) initiating and supporting group discussions on power and intersectionality; (2) sharing our commitment to anti-racism and decolonization; (3) providing co-researchers with the complete research proposal, so that all intentions were made visible; (4) providing research training, including an FPAR workshop for co-researchers; (5) sharing research articles and other literature with co-researchers in order to demystify research knowledge and perceived expert status; (6) discussing important developments and opening-up research-related opportunities (speaking engagements, etc.) to all members of the research team; and (7) co-contributing in authentic ways to group discussions including personal stories, perspectives, ideas and contentions to enhance transparency. In the latter stages of the research process, power-sharing was processed through (8) the emergence of co-researchers in various leadership roles within the group (strategic planning leads, setting the agendas for action and discussion, public presentations); (9) the acknowledgment of co-researchers as knowledge creators for this research in multiple forums within community and academic settings; and, most importantly, (10) vetting presentation opportunities with the team so that members could participate in knowledge sharing and receive credit for their work.

The diffusion of leadership or what the group called “shared leadership” was concretized over time through two strategic planning sessions, led by non-academic members. These conversations were framed by ongoing questions on “How to make a difference?” on intimate partner violence. Strategic planning sessions led by two different co-researchers, near the beginning and at the end of year one of the project, were foundational in defining issues, developing meanings, and developing a longer-term action plan.

The group’s diverse membership and shared discourse centralized intersectionality throughout the project and created a platform to learn about each other’s cultures, histories, and practices. An opportunity to understand our similarities and differences was uniquely described as positive for everyone involved. Not only did this promote an increased understanding of diversity among members, but a greater appreciation for intersectionality, cultural teachings, and their roles in preventing or enabling domestic violence, exemplified by one co-researcher:
My involvement in [the group] resulted in a realization that working and living in a diverse environment spurred me to appreciate the dynamics of diversity. While we tend to stick to looking at things from our own cultural perspective, I came to realize that the approach to co-existence and working together and getting the best desired results is learning cultural competency and analyze the surroundings using the lens of other cultures.

Many forms of action

As co-researchers coalesced, community action became an increasing priority. Reid and Frisby (2008) highlight this sixth dimension, “many forms of action” as a “dynamic process” (p. 101). We identified this phase of the project “leadership and praxis,” with coffee meet-ups, named the Hopeful Romantics, as the venue for planning and debriefing our activities. An intersectionality analysis included examining forms of action that address a confluence of oppressions and avoiding those which may exacerbate it in unintended ways. For example, would prioritizing men’s work in certain ethno-cultural communities raise stigma or stereotypes? We further questioned: what were the risks and benefits of specific forms of action for members of the research team based on their unique social locations and circumstances? The various complexities unearthed through the contemplation of FPAR’s six dimensions (Reid & Frisby, 2008), led to a collective analysis of these issues by the research team, once assembled. To that end, co-researchers were invited to reflection and trust-building discussions that considered insider/outsider roles for all members of the research team to support a chosen course of action.

Diffuse leadership roles led to an increasing number of collective actions, events, awareness presentations, and ally works with women’s groups. A total of 29 diverse actions corresponded with FPAR’s dimension 5, “exploring new forms of representation” (Reid & Frisby, 2008, p. 101) (see Table 1). Actions included organizing a community and media response to a domestic murder in a neighborhood where the group was active; political advocacy to protect human rights legislation; work with young men in a sports group; and outreach to the public, service providers, and academics.

Table 1.
Many forms of action.

Month 3

• Organized a men’s cooking and discussion group (8 co-researchers) • Attended the annual Take Back the Night rally, outreach to other men and women and serving of chili to over 80 people in attendance, primarily women (14 co-researchers)

Month 4

• Presented a guest lecture on men’s engagement in domestic violence prevention to an undergraduate social work class (3 co-researchers) • Presented at the Annual Research Day at the University of Calgary (8 co-researchers)

Month 5

• Hosted a men’s information booth at the launch of Violence Prevention Month at local mall (4 co-researchers) • Hosted a discussion with the women’s shelters network(10 co-researchers) • Hosted an action-discussion table at a domestic violence event with over 100 people (11 co-researchers) • Attended Breakfast with the Guys: Focus on Fatherhood in Preventing Domestic Violence (8 co-researchers)

Month 6

• Hosted a professional development presentation for service providers in partnership with the University of Calgary (12 co-researchers)

Month 8

• Organized a vigil and community gathering to support a group member and his family (9 co-researchers) • Presented a guest lecture on gender inequality to an undergraduate social work class (4 co-researchers) • Basketball game and discussion with young men—pilot project (2 co-researchers)

Month 9

• Conducted ally work with women for a human rights campaign (4 co-researchers) • Participated in the men and boys engagement meeting with members of the Calgary Domestic Violence Collective (5 co-researchers) • Participated in and contributed to the discussion on potential impact of Federal Bill on “The Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act” on ethno-cultural communities (2 co-researchers) • Participated in the Truth and Reconciliation National Gathering in Edmonton (2 co-researchers) • Met with "Men Edmonton" regarding collaboration with men’s groups (2 co-researchers) • Presentation at the 11th Annual Domestic Violence Conference (4 co-researchers)

Month 10

• Press release and letter to the editor regarding men’s roles in preventing domestic violence (3 co-researchers) • Organized a community response to domestic violence “Speak Out and Act.” Over 70 people in attendance. (15 co-researchers) • Buddhist community domestic violence presentation and event (three co-researchers)

Month 11

• Indigenous-Buddhist community exchange on domestic violence (two co-researchers) • Presentation at a sister university (2 co-researchers) • Presetation to a community-based Indo-Canadian organization (2 co-researchers) • Presentation to an out-of-province social work conference out of province (3 co-researchers) • Speak Out and Act Event in a local neighborhood in collaboration with the Residents’ Initiative and Community Association.

Month 12

• Presentation: at an out of country conference (1 co-researcher) • Community response to sexual violence in India (6 co-researchers) • Alliance building with Father’s Day celebration with Edmonton's Men’s group (14 co-researchers)

The first group action consisted of a men’s chili cooking night at Arya’s home. He led this activity to enhance participants’ cooking skills and also prepare the group to serve chili and conduct outreach at an annual violence prevention rally led primarily by women (Take Back the Night). The positive response that the team received from this action encouraged co-researchers to continue to develop their public presence. Vic summarized the debrief session following this event:
There seems to be a demand for engaging men and boys and reducing domestic violence. We should look for the opportunity to engage men and boys in domestic violence and take the opportunities that we think we can handle. If there is a request for our support—we should identify what we can do. And establish partnerships. We can match some of the men that we have with the requests and then see what kind of capacity building we need as a group. We should see what partners can help with support and coordination.
Thus, “intentional outreach” became a key strategy, by connecting “community men,” families, service providers, and others who expressed interest in men’s violence prevention work. The cross-cultural and multi-faith identities within the research team were unique to men’s violence prevention organizing work in Calgary, as was grassroots leadership by a group of men. As a result, continued dialogue for intentional outreach in various cultural communities was required, as summarized by Madan: “Culture is always challenge. Resistance will be there, but we can try to find ways to work with them. There will always be resistance, but then when you look back, you can see there has been progression.”

Ethno-cultural diversity continued to be a prominent strength of the team. However, members identified certain barriers to our diversity, including the difficulty of accessing communities that may be closed to involvement from “outsiders” when discussing intimate partner violence, which was viewed as sensitive and private. This was elaborated by one co-researcher: “Communities often like to deal with issues on their own, and an ethnically different organization can be seen as a threat.” In response to this challenge, co-researchers diversified their approach by remaining “open to everyone” and supporting specific members who were identified as more likely be welcomed into the work within their own ethno-specific communities, as illustrated:
I think that there are places where we can all go as a group and places where we support others to work within their communities. (Liza)

We are “the seeds” and we can let others know that we are “apolitical” and we are not trying to support one group over another. (Pol)
An example of intentional community-specific outreach occurred in response to multiple attacks on women in India. Binu, a co-researcher with Indian heritage, collaborated with members of the co-researcher team and Canadian-South Asian groups to create a collective response. Binu was surprised at the extend of support he received from non-South Asian group members and members of the South-Asian diaspora. He elaborated:
Being supported by [co-researchers] from diverse cultures while responding to what’s happening back home has been an eye-opener. First, it made me realize that not everyone is individualistic and self-centered in this culture. Indeed, this world is sustained by people who are able to look beyond what is happening in their own backyard. Secondly, it provided a sense of interconnectedness and a sense of belonging. Not all immigrants leave everything behind, a part of his/her heart will always beat for his homeland and its rewarding to know that people do care about what ails elsewhere.
A local organization, The Alberta Network of Immigrant Women, offered to host a follow-up meeting, leading to further action on the issue of sexual violence through social media, letters to the editor of the local paper, and poetry writing. Although the group had hoped to collaborate with NGO partners in India, in the absence of sustained interest, this was not realized. There was disappointment in the group that we did not receive a hoped-for response to our actions of solidarity. However, Binu and the key organizers contended that they had at minimum raised awareness locally and could return to this initiative if there was a sign of interest from potential partners in India. Vic referred to our work as “planting seeds,” underscoring to slow nature of social transformation.

The team’s increasing internal leadership capacity and public voice created an organizational structure whereby those with interest in writing, presenting, social media, outreach, etc. adopted specific roles. Constructing an organizational identity, however, required further focus and reflection. The group adopted the name Men's Action Network Calgary and identified as “a movement” with principles and a mandate. Co-researchers articulated organizational planning as a necessary step for the project:
We need to adopt our principles and key messages for ourselves and for the media. We need to be able to speak to our principles in a clear way. (Vic)

When we are confronted with an opposing force, are we able to articulate our stance. We need to spend a bit more time on the principles. Why do we want to focus on engaging men against violence? (Madan)

We need to look at describing positions—what are our positions on different issues? (co-researcher)

Can we create some guidelines or key messages of our own, perhaps through our own activities? (Binu)
This work led to key messages and organizational materials, a process which elucidated differences between individual and collective identities, which the group worked to navigate:
We need to have this discussion: What is “human rights” and what does it mean without adopting prejudice? (Percy)

We need to discuss the difficult issues. And our group needs to be on the same page with statements and beliefs and values. (Adrian)
An example of this tension was apparent when a majority of co-researchers indicated a desire to adopt the vision of creating a “non-violent society,” which led to a critical debate regarding the group’s understanding of non-violence. Binu asked whether eating meat was a contradiction to the group’s aspirations to achieve a non-violent society. Showing an image of a man who had caught a large fish, he stated: “Is this a non-violent society?” While laughter and debate ensued, this question had particular merit for vegetarians and vegans in the group. Through our consensus process, we changed the vision of a “non-violent society” to “non-violent relationships” and the “fish story” became a friendly joke over time.

A considerable time spent in group sessions, research presentations, learning, and deliberation were re-invested in multiple community forums by group members. Group members conducted outreach activities tailored to their communities or cultural contexts. For example, a community response to intimate partner violence, “Speak Out and Act,” led by 15 co-researchers, was designed by the group as an event to engage the community in making a pledge to end violence. An excerpt of a media release developed by two co-researchers, and approved by the group, provides a brief summary the event’s focus: men talking to men and centering men’s accountability for violence prevention.
Speak out and Act will allow for men to explore a variety of ways men can begin making a change in their community. The focus on accountability of men’s behaviors is essential in preventing violence and abuse in our community. Responses that take the responsibility away from men as part of the problem only prevent us from finding effective solutions. If creating healthy families and communities is our ultimate objective, then we need the good majority of men to do more than simply not assaulting or abusing someone. We should firm up men’s commitment and leadership to preventing and ending intimate partner and gender-based violence. (Speak Out and Act Media/Community Release, para 2)
The Pledge Against Violence, while focused on men, was open to everyone and all were encouraged to sign the banner and were provided with a wallet-sized card to take with them. The Indigenous Moose Hide Campaign⁴ (2014) which focuses specifically on ending violence against Indigenous women and girls, introduced to the team by an Indigenous member, was incorporated into the Pledge event, highlighting the group’s decolonizing lens. Almost 100 people attended.

Tensions and opportunities

The primary rationale for our study was to promote personal and social transformation related to men’s roles in preventing violence. Central to the deliberation of relevant and beneficial forms of action in this research was a collective intent to transform structural inequality and the development of solidarity within the research team; these would compel and permit actions to emerge and be undertaken (Bargal, 2008; Frisby et al., 2005). Important considerations within this process were identifying co-researchers’ multiple and intersecting identities of oppressed/oppressor. These complexities became more apparent as relationships developed and personal sharing was deepened. For example, those who had migrated to Canada more recently, and for opportunities, often expressed a different view of their resettlement process than those who were forced to migrate due to war, persecution or state violence. Assumptions and binaries continued to be tested in the field of “real life.”

While the substantive topic of this research was involving men in intimate partner violence prevention, examining other forms of oppression such as racism, colonization, and migration were necessary and relevant to producing a comprehensive understanding of the nature, expressions, and experiences of violence (Carrillo & Tello, 2008). However, at times, diverse views on topics such as sexualities, gender roles and identities, and the direction for group action uncovered differences. As we discovered, tensions and opportunities emerged in the development of collective principles, including some members reflecting/revising cultural and faith-based teachings about sexual identities; this rethinking often occurred through role-modeling and teaching by some members who had adopted a stronger intersectional approach to human rights. Some issues remained unaddressed.

The relational approach to inviting co-researchers into this project was not without limitations. Most co-researchers had some post-secondary education, resulting in the exclusion of knowledge and experiences from those with less formal education and further entrenched the class-based networking that created the research team.

Power accountability

As demonstrated in this article, our interpretation of a transformative FPAR approach with men was grounded in our experiences and identities as white women occupying academic and community spaces, and through ongoing reflexivity within the group context (Gilbert & Sliep, 2009). We valued the roles of academics as non-experts within our FPAR study and attempted to co-create trust-building spaces that were invitations for all of us engage with personal and social transformation. Deep listening and relational knowledge-sharing (Park, 2001; Pyrch, 2016) on experiences of war and migration, the impact of residential schools, surviving patriarchy and childhood or partner violence or economic oppression set the context for our intersectional work. Our shared experiences and positionalities underscored resilience and created healthy tensions. Struggles to achieve consensus catalyzed our development of our Consensus Protocol discussed above and was later used by other groups. Participatory organizing position, which surfaced debates and disagreements, resonated in multiple ways with the intent of Reid and Frisby’s (2008) FPAR dimension 5, which included unearthing new forms of representation.

The profound richness of sharing and learning was articulated in our collective cultures approach, a multi-generational and community-based model, centered with Indigenous knowledges, which is the foundation of holistic organizing, healing, and community. One member referred to our violence prevention group as “The Rainbow Tribe,” which Adrian then described as “a representation of our desire to transform our world into a place of equity, peace, and harmony; the aspiration that our work as people from many cultures and nations would transcend socially constructed boundaries, divisions, and relations of oppression.”

Troubles with power: Critiques of our process

As we could not purport to represent all women nor speak to the multiple intersecting factors that shape intimate partner violence experiences, we drew on Fals-Borda and Anisur Rahman’s (1991) contention that, “unequal relations of knowledge reproduce forms of domination if old forms are eliminated without care and prevision” (p. 31). Lugones and Spelman’s (1983) further articulate the silencing of marginalized women’s voices and experiences within white feminism:
We and you do not talk the same language. When we talk to you we use your language: the language of your experience and your theories. We try to use it to communicate our world of experience. Since your language and your theories are inadequate in expressing our experiences, we only succeed in communicating our experience of exclusion. (p. 575)
While our intention as white academic researchers was to mindfully account for our power, critical self-reflection underscored that we also chose to use this unearned power to amplify marginalized “voices.” Friere’s (1970) notion false generosity speaks to this reality; the internalization/externalization of attributes of goodness and kindness among those with power who bestow opportunities to those with less power, which erases the question of equity in accessing this power.

Indeed, Reid and Frisby’s FPAR notion of “giving voice” is problematized in our study as power inequity and its related dynamics (whose voice is solicited/heard) was deeply embedded into all aspect of our collective work. Inclusivity versus exclusion was a power position inherent to the academic researchers in this study. Due to our privileged positionalities, the interplay of power and domination in the research is likely beyond our ability to recognize. While we acknowledge that good intentions are not an antidote for insidious forms of power misuse, the functioning of the co-researcher team, despite these evident tensions, was positive, collaborative, and rewarding. We do, however, offer a number of critiques of the study process.

Related to Reid and Frisby’s (2008) dimension 4, we did not explicitly seek formalizing opportunities for co-researchers to provide process feedback throughout the research process. Team evaluations of the research focused on effectiveness of the group’s work, outreach, and presentations, rather than the groups’ process. This omission may have limited the leadership potential of specific co-researchers and closed the space for frank critiques of group processes or decisions taken. These were additions to more evident forms of power inequity regarding access to honoraria and other monetary incentives, opportunities provided, and formal relationships with stakeholder agencies. The first several months of the project were characterized by continually clarifying to the outside world that the academics were not in charge of the project. While we were somewhat successful to that end, particularly as the study team emerged as an organization, power inequity, and embodiment of research “expertise” largely remained with the academics.

Another limitation occurred in the narrow conceptualization of intersectionality in this study. For example, the team’s intention to include an “all-abilities” framework in our community work with men was neither prioritized nor realized. Also, as the work progressed, mounting discomfort with the gender binary “man/woman,” transformed our mission from “working as men and women” to “working across the gender spectrum.” This latter notion was only expressed through further learning in the project sustainability phase, once the FPAR study was complete.

Accounting for our personal transformation

Liberatory pedagogy (Friere, 1970) is education that assists learners to “develop consciousness of freedom, recognize authoritarian tendencies, and connect knowledge to power and the ability to take constructive action” (Giroux, 2010, p. 2). This process can produce transformative learning, viewed by Cranton (2006) as the questioning of “previously uncritically assimilated assumptions, beliefs, values, and perspectives” (p. iv). This research was instrumental in transforming fundamental assumptions that we as white feminists, continued to hold despite having intellectualized them as fallacies. First, our limited efforts to integrate our understanding of the relationship between more than 500 years of white European colonial domination and the current climate of structural and gender-based violence. Our absorption of the impacts of colonization, racialization, and the global politics of white supremacy was made possible through our relationships and teachings with co-researchers. Second, our view of the “justice system” as violence prevention mechanism was replaced by imperative dismantle institutions that perpetuate colonialism and racism; addressing state violence is a foundation for the prevention of intimate partner violence. Through the research, it became apparent to us that we elevated gender oppression above other forms of violence. Working closely alongside the co-researchers compelled us to contend with this, at times self-serving myth as an example of white fragility (DiAngelo, 2011).

Concluding reflections

FPAR can be a relevant and potent methodology to work with men to prevent intimate partner violence, but it is not without challenges and contractions. Of vital importance to FPAR is understanding gender as a social construct that privileges men/male-identified at the expense of women/women-identified, and trans, non-binary. While a feminist paradigm is a strength in intimate partner violence research, where men are responsible for the vast majority of perpetration, antiracist, and anticolonial feminism is imperative. Accounting for intersectionality within every aspect of the research process allows for greater authenticity, trust, and relevance in FPAR work.

While we offer a case example for the utility of FPAR as a methodology for research designed to engage men in addressing what is typically understood as “women’s issues,” it is undeniable that FPAR seeks to centralize the voices and experiences of women through the research process. For this reason, some will question or critique the use of an FR methodology in a study where the majority of co-researchers are men. In fact, Reid and Frisby (2008) make no mention of engaging men as co-researchers within their framework and instead emphasize in the importance of women’s participation. Further consideration for FPAR researchers conducting similar work is the importance of prioritizing intersectionality as a core organizing principle, not simply a checkbox or add-on. We also believe that further focus on sexual and gender diversity, class, and other areas of identity would have positively influenced our collective dialogue and opportunities for critical reflection.

There is an urgent need to amplify the diverse voices of women, girls, two-spirit and trans persons, most recently illustrated by the #metoo movement and, in Canada, the 231 Calls for Justice emanating from National Inquiry on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women (2019) trans rights movements and Black Lives Matter. These lived experiences of truth-telling counter hegemonic interpretations of a white androcentric and heterosexist world. In tandem with these social justice movements, we contend that a comprehensive feminist approach to addressing and preventing intimate partner violence is multifaceted. This includes interrogating state and structural violence, and necessarily includes the participation and solidarity of men. Considering the interconnectedness of forms of violence and oppression, the eradication of violence cannot be disconnected from social, economic, and ecological well-being. Community-centered research, suggested through our FPAR experience, promotes the integration and extension of family, community, and systemic wellness as a vision for a non-violent society. Furthermore, participatory and action-focused research with men who are passionate about and committed to ending intimate partner violence can be a healing and transformative journey for co-researchers across the gender spectrum. As true solidarity can appear as a praxis of love (Freire, 1970), modeling the possibilities of collaboration, trust, and relationship-building towards the prevention of intimate partner violence expands the horizons of potential for the transformation of gender identities and even gender as a socially constructed reality.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Men’s Action Network Calgary for their contributions: Abbas Mancey, Adrian Wolfleg, Angelo Dut, Arash Minhas, Arya Boustani, Binu Sebastian, Charlotte McLeod, Dario Ontolan, Dave Este (also dissertation supervisor), Doug Murphy, Emmanuel Dumbi, Fanny Oliphant, Glenn Cubero, Grant Neufeld, Henry Ngo, Herbert Campos, Joe Campbell, Kyle Mack, Lemlem Haile, Madan Nath, Percy Murwisi, Pol Ngeth, Teigist Dessalegn, (late) Thomas Poulsen, Tim Fox, and Vic Lantion. We welcome and invite your comments and reactions at our action research community’s interactive ARJ blog housed at AR+

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by Killam Trusts and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

ORCID iD

Liza Lorenzetti

Notes

Author biographies

Liza Lorenzetti is a settler from Italian heritage, an activist and assistant professor in the Faculty of Social Work, at the University of Calgary on Blackfoot and Treaty Seven territory in Canada. Her interest in research leading to social change is based on almost thirty years of social work practice and activism on interconnected social issues including gender-based violence, forced migration and refugee-support, peace-building, and anti-racism.

Christine A Walsh is a professor of social work at the University of Calgary. As an activist and an educator, Christine employs feminist informed and experiential pedagogical approaches to teach epistemology, research methodology and social justice. In her program of research, she uses action and arts-based methods to promote social justice among disenfranchised populations.

References

Bargal

(2008). Action research: A paradigm for achieving social change. Small Group Research, 39(1), 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496407313407

Bopp

Lane

(2003). Aboriginal domestic violence in Canada. Aboriginal Healing Foundation.

Boylorn

(2008). Participants as co-researchers. In Given

L. M.

(Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 600–602). SAGE. http://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909.n310

Carillo

Tello

(2008). Family violence and men of color: Healing the wounded spirit (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.

Carlson

Casey

E. A.

Edleson

J. L.

Tolman

R. M.

Walsh

T. V.

Kimball

(2015). Strategies to engage men and boys in violence prevention: A global perspective. Violence against Women, 21(11), 406–425. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801215594888

Carter

S. M.

Little

(2007). Justifying knowledge, justifying method, taking action: Epistemologies, methodologies, and methods in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 17(10), 1316–1328. https://doi.org/0.1177/1049732307306927

Commission of Canada. (2015). Truth and reconciliation commission of Canada: Calls to action. http://www.trc.ca/assets/pdf/Honouring_the_Truth_Reconciling_for_the_Future_July_23_2015.pdf

Cornwall

Jewkes

(1995). What is participatory research? Social Science & Medicine, 41(12), 1667–1676.

Cranton

(2006). Understanding and promoting transformative learning. Wiley.

10.

Crenshaw

(1989). Demarginalizing intersections of race and sex: A black feminist critique of anti-discrimination doctrine, feminist theory and anti-racist politics. Chicago Legal Forum, 1(8), 137–169.

11.

DeKeseredy

W. S.

Dragiewicz

(2009). Shifting public policy direction: Gender-focused versus bi-directional intimate partner violence. http://www.domesticviolenceinfo.ca/upload/documents/shifting_pp_direction.pdf

12.

DiAngelo

(2011). White fragility. International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 3(3), 54–70.

13.

Dupont

(2008). Beyond doing no harm: A call for PAR with marginalized populations. Critical Criminology, 16(3), 197–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-008-9055-7

14.

Etmanski

Hall

B. L.

Dawson

(2014). Learning and doing community-based research: Linking pedagogy to practice. University of Toronto Press.

15.

Fals-Borda

(1987). The application of participatory action-research in Latin America. International Sociology, 2(4), 329–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580987002004017 [10.1177/026858098700200401]

16.

Fals-Borda

Anisur Rahman

(1991). Action and knowledge: Breaking the monopoly with participatory action-research. Apex Press.

17.

Flood

(2010). Where men stand: Men’s roles in ending violence against women. White Ribbon Prevention Research Series No. 2. http://www.whiteribbon.org.au/uploads/media/WR-PR-Series-Flood-Report-No-2-Nov-2010-full-report-final.pdf

18.

Flores-Carmona

Luschen

K. V.

(2012). Crafting critical stories: Toward pedagogies and methodologies of collaboration, inclusion, and voice. Counterpoint.

19.

Freire

(1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.

20.

Frisby

Reid

Millar

Hoeber

(2005). Putting “participatory” into participatory forms of action research. Journal of Sport Management, 19(4), 367–386.

21.

Gilbert

Sliep

(2009). Reflexivity in the practice of social action: From self to inter-relational reflexivity. South African Journal of Psychology, 39(4), 468–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/008124630903900408

22.

Giroux

(2010). Lessons from Paulo Freire. Bergin & Garvey Publishers. http://chronicle.com/article/Lessons-From-Paulo-Freire/124910/

23.

Hudson

K. D.

Mountz

S. E.

(2016). Teaching note—Third space caucusing: Borderland praxis in the social work classroom. Journal of Social Work Education, 52(3), 379–384.

24.

Jacobson

Rugeley

(2007). Community-based participatory research: Group work for social justice and community change. Social Work with Groups, 30(4), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1300/J009v30n04_03

25.

James, C., David, E., Wanda, T.B., Akua, B., Bethan, L., & Tana, T. (2010). Race and Well-Being: The Lives, Hopes and Action of African Canadians. Halifax, NS: Fernwood Publishing.

26.

Jewkes

(2002). Intimate partner violence: Causes and prevention. Lancet, 359(9315), 1423–1429.

27.

Kemmis

McTaggart

(1988). The action research planner (3rd ed.). Deakin University Press.

28.

Lorenzetti, L. & Walsh, C. A. (2014). Is there an ‘f’ in your PAR: Understanding, teaching and doing action research. Canadian Journal of Action Research, 15(1), 50–63.

29.

Lugones

M. C.

Spelman

E. V.

(1983). Have we got a theory for you! Feminist theory, cultural imperialism, and the demand for ‘the woman’s voice’. Women’s Studies International Forum, 6(8), 573–581.

30.

Massaquoi

(2007). Introduction: Future imaginings of black feminist thought. In Massquoi

Wane

N. N.

(Eds.), Theorizing empowerment: Canadian perspectives on black feminist thought (pp. 5–26). Inanna.

31.

National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (Canada). (2019). Reclaiming power and place: The final report of the national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. Retrieved from https://www.mmiwg-ffada.ca/final-report/

32.

Park

(2001). Knowledge and participatory research in the US and Canada. In Reason

Bradbury

(Eds), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 83–93). SAGE.

33.

Pyrch

(2016). Strangers no more (working paper cited with permission). https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Timothy_Pyrch/publications

34.

Reid

Frisby

(2008). Continuing the journey: Articulating dimensions of feminist participatory research (FPAR). In Reason

Bradbury

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of action research (pp. 93–105). SAGE.

35.

Skokoloff, A. J., & Dupont, I. (2005). Domestic violence at the intersections of race, class, and gender: Challenges against marginalized women in diverse communities. Violence Against Women, 11(38), 38–64. doi: 10.177/1077801204271476.

36.

Statistics Canada. (2016). Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile. Ottawa, ON: Minister of Industry.

37.

Varcoe

(2006). Doing PAR in a racist world. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 28(5), 525–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945906287706