This research about beliefs and attitudes regarding male
domestic violence in South Kivu used qualitative research. This helped to
depict how a naturalistic and interpretative approach identifies the meanings
that men attach to their attitudes, beliefs, decisions and values in the
province. To Ritchie and Lewis (2003:25), this opens a way towards the
understanding of the mental mapping process that respondents use to make sense
of and interpret social facts. This remains a good way to focus on words and
explanations of men regarding domestic violence in order to convey truth and
endeavour for the illustration of their natural contexts. It is in this
context that in-depth interview, representing an approach,
was chosen as the key method for gathering the information used in this
research. All in all, the researcher organised four interviews (two focus
groups and two in-depth interviews). He expected that there would be some men
who had committed violence in their homes to be among the key group
participants.
To Terre Blanche and Durkheim (1999:25), in-depth interviews
help the researcher to look deeply into theoretical matters at an early phase
when he is elaborating the questionnaire that he will use for the research.
Speculative considerations can consider the answers that the respondents
provide to the questions, which helps to check whether they give a picture of
their real understanding (Punch, 2005:42). In the mind of the researcher, the
application of such an approach aims at examining the different themes that can
be deducted from the various groups' personal right, which process will
obviously offer more facts regarding attitudes and beliefs about domestic
violence in South Kivu. To Ulin et al. (2004:124), the researcher may do this
if he is seeking more understanding of an issue through individual
circumstances, not a quantitative investigation, or to supplement a given
qualitative enquiry that has been conducted in a different place and
environment. The researcher together with the different respondents are able to
profoundly explore a given subject because in-depth interviews require the use
of open-ended questions, often asked by the researcher to a given respondent
during the talks (Monet et al., 2003:79).
The researcher had with him a guide to the topic, but had the
option of putting it aside as the questions were simply worded. The researcher
applied survey methods in cases where he felt the necessity of allowing for
broad responses. This was confirmed by De Vaus (2002:57), who suggested that in
order for the researcher to get individuals' insights regarding meanings or
definitions of a given situation and their way of shaping its reality,
interviews remain the only relevant method to rely on. De Vaus (2001:71) states
that detailed interviews have their primary advantage of offering much more and
specific data on a given topic compared to what other methods of data
collection provide the researcher. Furthermore, comprehensive interviews are
considered because they are believed to provide a more relaxed atmosphere to
the respondents than during their team talks. This means that `in-depth
discussions are a good
tool for the researcher to collect data' since they do favour
the respondents to relate their personal stories and opinions in a natural
conversational way, which environment a survey questionnaire does not foster as
the respondents simply fill out the form.
Despite that in-depth interviews are valued for the above
qualities, they still present some weaknesses. Babbie and Mouton (2001:23)
confirm that these methods are limited since they can consume more time, taking
into account the restricted time period the researcher has to organise the
different interviews, note the respondents' opinions down and analyse the
outcomes. For the above reason, in their conclusion, Ulin et al. (2004:81),
clearly state that during an interview, the respondents' answers may be
subjective because the researcher exercises a certain influence in the
different teams along the process.
