There is a common assumption that qualitative research is not generalisable and is therefore often considered a limitation of qualitative research. However, Smith (2017) argues against this notion and it is problematic to apply ‘statistical probabilistic
generalisability’ to qualitative research in the same way as quantitative research. Smith
instead considers four types of generalisability which can be applied to qualitative research, these include; naturalistic, transferability, analytical and intersectional.
A focus on generalisability, was not the intention at the outset of this study as it was not a large-scale study, however the final sample was very diverse and provided a range of views with similar themes and experiences. It is crucial to acknowledge that this was a highly sensitive topic with recruitment challenges, however every avenue was explored to ensure the best sampling and recruitment outcomes. Despite this I have reflected upon the four alternative styles of generalisability put forward by Smith (2017). From the similarities and shared experiences across my research findings it is feasible to argue that my research has the potential to produce naturalistic generalisability. Smith (2017, p140) defines naturalistic generalisability when “the research resonates with a readers
personal engagement in life”. Although I have not physically conducted the appropriate
measurements to fully claim this, which would be to produce a report with detail of my participants life experiences and see if readers make connections with their own lives. Smith (2017) argues that this can be done before publishing and that researchers should suggest the potential it has for generalisability, known as hedging (Chenail, 2010 cited in Smith, 2017). Smith (2017, p143) highlights that there is a “danger of leaving oneself
open to critiques about claiming ‘potential’ without providing ‘the evidence’. One could respond to such a critique by arguing that the issue of ‘can a study be generalisable or can’t it’ is a conceptual not an empirical question”.
Another limitation could be seen in the recruitment through Twitter as previously discussed, as this might have attracted people who actively speak out about FGC, have strong anti-FGC opinions or are actively fighting against the practice. Had the recruitment technique of snowball sampling been more effective the study may have represented a wider variety of views such as those who perhaps advocated for the practice to continue. The difficulties in recruitment and sampling also left little control in terms of accounting
for ethnic background, age, migration experiences and FGC experiences, which may have added a unique insight into the way FGC was framed and embodied differently. However, my research had a wide range of voice both in terms of ethnic diversity and the fact that it was open to women with and without FGC, and men from all affected communities in the UK.
Furthermore, due to difficulties in recruitment, some of the interviews needed a translator, which has its own limitations and has been described above, such as time restrictions and cultural interpretations. But overall, the use of semi-structured interviews was a strength that allowed for the participants to highlight what was important to them and steer the interview. Finally, a limitation which was difficult to control was the sensitivity of the topic and the distress that could have been triggered during and after the interview. However, I followed all ethical guidelines and ensured that participants were signposted to support if needed and also gave them the option to request a copy of the transcript and time to withdraw if they changed their mind.
Chapter Six- Controlling women’s bodies and Social
Justifications for FGC
6.1 Introduction
The following four chapters (including this one) will present the findings from the qualitative interviews conducted during this research. This chapter in particular focuses on the justifications given for FGC including those related to the body and wider social justifications. As noted in the literature review (chapter Two), despite affected communities recognising that FGC has negative implications for women (discussed in chapter Seven), the practice is still continued. This has prompted sociological and anthropological scholars to research the complexity of the phenomena and the justifications given to the practice. Participants held numerous beliefs around why FGC is practiced both in the countries of origin and in the UK or Europe. The justifications given were extremely complex and not isolated or homogenous amongst cultural groups.
In regard to the justifications given for FGC, it was often difficult to unpick the participants subjective justifications from wider social justifications. This, I believe, was partly due to my methodological approach and the manner in which the questions were asked, for example I did not specifically ask for their personal views but focused on
general knowledge and opinions. But also, partly due to how embedded the practice of
FGC is and the sensitive nature of the topic. All participants claimed they did not agree with FGC and often spoke in third person when discussing the justifications, which may have served the purpose of distancing themselves from agreeing with the justifications. These complexities of interviews and sensitive research topics were previously discussed in the methodology and reflections chapter (chapter Five).
I have separated this section into two parts; justifications that concern controlling women’s bodies and sexuality directly; and justifications which are concerned with the wider social benefits, which are more broadly related to culture and identity. In chapter Seven, the subheadings Body, Sexuality and Identity will re-emerge and tie together the justifications and implications in these main three areas.