The goal of the present study was to explore why and how communities differing in culture and resources implement procedures that mandate gun confiscation as part of a domestic violence protective order. Specifically, the present study investigated whether the perceived risk of intimate partner homicide and gun violence, benefits to engaging in gun confiscation, barriers to gun confiscation, community norms about guns, and
community readiness to implement gun confiscation, (1) differ in urban and rural communities, (2) are perceived differently by victim service and justice system key professionals within urban and rural communities, and (3) are associated with if a community will consistently implement procedures that mandate gun confiscation of abusers as part of a protective order.
A key informant methodology was used to gain an understanding of community and agency contextual factors that may impact if gun confiscation procedures occur in a community. Interviews were conducted with key professionals who work both in victim services and the justice system from a targeted urban community and four Appalachian (i.e., rural) communities. It is important to note that the present study was not a statewide investigation of IPV gun confiscation procedures. Rather, it was a detailed comparison of community context in an urban county that makes known efforts to confiscate protective order respondents’ guns and a group of counties in rural, Appalachian Kentucky where little is known about any efforts to address intimate partner-related gun violence. A rural, Appalachian sample was chosen to provide a specific contrast to an urban location given the differences in community culture and access to resources. Data from interviews with all key professionals in the selected urban and rural communities were aggregated to
40
provide insight into how communities may or may not implement gun confiscation procedures of abusers.
2.1 Structured Interview
To address the primary goal of the study, the proposed study used a structured interview with both open- and close-ended questions. There are views that quantitative and qualitative data cannot and should not be mixed (i.e., “the incompatibility thesis”;
Howe, 1988) given that quantitative research is grounded in objectivity and confirmation, while qualitative research is thought to be inherently subjective and exploratory (Guba, 1990). However, using both open- and close-ended questions allow for researchers to draw on the strengths of both quantitative and qualitative methodologies (Johnson &
Onwuegbuzie, 2004). In fact, the “fundamental principle of mixed research” (Johnson &
Turner, 2003) posits that researchers should collect data using multiple data forms that complement each other’s strengths while reducing overlapping weaknesses. Thus, quantitative analyses allow for numerical measurement outside of the researcher’s interpretation of a response and statistical analyses; qualitative research allows one to capture the context and complexity (or detail) of an issue that numerical data cannot capture. As a result, qualitative data should support or compliment quantitative data.
There are several ways that using both open- and close-ended measures can be used to strengthen research. Qualitative data can be used to further support quantitative analyses, a process known as triangulation (Webb, Campbell, Schwartz, & Sechrest, 1966). Additionally, using both quantitative and qualitative data can allow a researcher to assess a broader range of research questions that quantitative or qualitative research alone can answer. Relatedly, information can be uncovered from open-ended questions that
41
otherwise would not have been found in the results if only close-ended questions or if ratings scales were used. For example, key professionals were asked both to rate the magnitude of several potential barriers to implementing gun confiscation in their
community and to list potential barrier in their community. This was done to ensure that information is collected about all community barriers and not just the ones that are listed in the close-ended question. Thus in the present study, the research questions were answered using both numerical data (i.e., quantitative) and open-ended responses (i.e., qualitative data) to capture the full context and detail of participants’ responses.
2.2 Research Questions
In many ways the present study is exploratory in nature and the appropriateness of the measures included in the guiding conceptual framework in relation to
implementing gun confiscation procedures is a research question in itself. However, the following research questions were addressed:
1. Are there differences in the perceived risk of intimate partner homicide and gun violence, benefits to engaging in gun confiscation, barriers to gun confiscation, community norms about guns, and community readiness to implement gun confiscation work between urban and rural communities?
Components of the guiding conceptual framework (Figure 1) should differ between urban and rural communities. For example, rural communities should report more community barriers to gun confiscation than the urban community, and the urban community should have a higher perceived ability to enforce gun confiscation than rural communities
42
Is there a community type x agency type interaction for the perceived risk of intimate partner homicide and gun violence, benefits to engaging in gun confiscation, barriers to gun confiscation, community norms about guns, and community readiness to implement gun confiscation?
Main effects of the community type for the components of the conceptual framework (Figure 1) may differ when reported by victim service versus justice system professionals. For example, it is likely that rural justice system professionals will report the lowest perceived risk of intimate partner gun violence/homicide in comparison to urban justice system professionals and all victim service professionals.
2. What is the relationship of the risk-benefit tradeoff components (i.e., perceived risk of intimate partner homicide/gun violence and benefits to engaging in gun confiscation) and community ability components (i.e., barriers to gun
confiscation, community norms about guns, and community readiness to
implement gun confiscation) with the likelihood for a community to consistently implement gun confiscation in the future?
It is expected that higher perceived risk ratings, higher benefits to gun confiscation ratings, fewer reported community barriers, lower estimates of cultural behaviors and attitudes related to gun culture, higher agreement with community approval of gun confiscation, and higher community readiness ratings will be associated with an increased likelihood to consistently implement gun confiscation ratings.
Copyright © Kellie R. Lynch 2016
43
Chapter 3: Method