12.07.2015 Views

Violence against children, the voices of Ugandan ... - Raising Voices

Violence against children, the voices of Ugandan ... - Raising Voices

Violence against children, the voices of Ugandan ... - Raising Voices

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

It was recognized during <strong>the</strong> formative research that if <strong>the</strong>definition advanced by WHO was to be adopted for <strong>the</strong>study, much <strong>of</strong> what adults considered ‘punishment’ mustbe understood as violence <strong>against</strong> <strong>children</strong>. For exampleduring <strong>the</strong> formative part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> research, some adultsargued <strong>against</strong> including acts such as shouting, threateningand glaring as examples <strong>of</strong> violence. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, asignificant number <strong>of</strong> adults, in informal conversationsasserted that even acts such as caning and slapping werenot violent, unless administered in excess.IMPLICATIONS FOR THE STUDYHowever it was also recognized during formative researchthat asking adults if <strong>the</strong>y were violent towards <strong>children</strong>would elicit an inau<strong>the</strong>ntic response. Clearly very fewadults are likely to respond honestly to such a contentiousquestion. Thus a practical compromise was necessary toelicit a response that was representative <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> reality.For <strong>the</strong> dialogue with adults, <strong>the</strong> concept <strong>of</strong> ‘punishing<strong>children</strong>’ was used instead <strong>of</strong> ‘violence <strong>against</strong> <strong>children</strong>.’The questions were phrased with <strong>the</strong> intention <strong>of</strong>ascertaining <strong>the</strong> nature, frequency, and <strong>the</strong> motivation for<strong>the</strong> ‘acts’ as opposed to what it meant to <strong>the</strong> perpetrator<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> act. Towards <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> each engagement, <strong>the</strong>boundary as perceived by <strong>the</strong> respondent, betweenpunishment (<strong>the</strong> acceptable behaviour) and mistreatment(<strong>the</strong> excess ‘acts’) was explored.Clearly this strategy has an associated cost. It couldappear to tacitly condone <strong>the</strong> ‘punishment’ and may evenmisdirect <strong>the</strong> respondent to talk only about a limited range<strong>of</strong> interactions with <strong>the</strong> <strong>children</strong> instead <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> deeperfeelings, if <strong>the</strong> act was named as violence. However, thiswas weighed <strong>against</strong> findings from <strong>the</strong> pre-tests <strong>of</strong> researchtools where it was clear that adults were not engaginghonestly in conversations that labelled <strong>the</strong>ir actions asviolence, and that began by threatening <strong>the</strong> very basis<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir relationships with <strong>children</strong>. The language <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>questions posed in <strong>the</strong> adult part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> report has to beunderstood within <strong>the</strong> context <strong>of</strong> this compromise.Part One Research Design 13

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!