3.2.1.1 Documentary approach
This is the method that allowed the researcher to collect
secondary data of beliefs and attitudes towards male domestic violence in South
Kivu regarding domestic abuse. Based on Charles (1994:41) and Cohen (1997:41),
documentary methods help the researcher to read and discover the content of
many written documents like books, journals, newspaper articles, letters,
official reports, administrative records, web pages and diaries about a given
topic. Reading written documents' contents allowed the researcher to draw
particular conclusions related to the societal conditions in which such
writings were done and read. In effect, documentary method does not show a
clear cut way but includes background and supportive details. To Denzin and
Lincoln (2000:52), a written document is usually considered as a work of art
that was recorded like a text despite its format because writing remains a key
societal activity. This explains the reason why documents should be vital
resources to any researcher who wants to investigate social situations. In
addition, written documents are sometimes believed to safeguard researchers
although existing documentary resources are seldom given the consideration that
they ought to have (Sharp, 2002:13).
To Mouton (2001:32), documents are social products that must
be shared among the individuals who live in a given society. Since they are
based on some particular conventions and mirror some detailed discourses,
written documents therefore present some advantages to this research. Any data
that is gathered from books or any other different writings are helpful for
highlighting the conceptualization of men's opinions about the beliefs and
attitudes of male domestic violence in South Kivu and seek ways to reduce it.
Besides, it helps the researcher to justify and understand the topic in
full.
3.2.1.2 Focus group
Focus group is the method that the researcher used in order
to collect primary data. As argued by Parker and Tritter (2006:25), the method
remains a fundamental tool for researchers because it provides enormous
qualitative information in a small period of time. Furthermore it also produces
more data that is original, rich and valid compared to other methods of
research (Kidd and Parshall, 2000:299). During focus group talks, the
researcher moderates the debates between different respondents. This must be
encouraged because discussions are a consistent means of scrutinising
individuals' views on a given topic. This method is a type of interview that
encourages the interviewees to discuss different specific subjects by
discovering underlying themes, attitudes, beliefs and even values that are
familiar to their daily lives (Taylor and Bogdan, 1998:104).
In the case of domestic violence in South Kivu, focus group
methodology reflected what the population thinks about it through a reduced
number of respondents taken from the local population. In this vein, Polit and
Hungler (1999:133) ascertain that the approach promotes the understanding of
the respondents' attitudes and perceptions from their group talks. Focus group
talks seem to be a microcosm of `the thinking society' that remains able to
disclose the progression by which social rules are produced in a joint way via
discussions (Babbie and Mouton, 2001:33). The method discloses how the opinions
of some specific individuals can be adapted or even considered in a developing
team method. And according to Mouton (2001:41), he confirms that such discovery
depicts how the contributions of participants in their unit discussions
interlink and conflict along the dialogue and the arguments that exist between
the different interviewees of the same group. The respondents in every group
will react as team-friends by questioning one another without fear, exchange
narratives and think about some of the comments based on the experience and
opinions of other members of their unit. The researcher needs to access as much
information as possible from each team. This kind of data allows for
transparency as the opinions are known by everyone in the focus group. Sharp
(2002:29) believes that units of interviewees may convene several times and
their focus teams may be conducted in series or in parallel.
As regards the beliefs and attitudes of South Kivu men
regarding violence in the home, the researcher formed two focus team
discussions of seven men participants each.
In addition, as advocated by Mahoney and Goertz (2006:235),
the data collected from focus groups is not enough, so the researcher decided
to organise in-depth interviews. These detailed discussions were composed of
three participants from each group and in each part of the province, to take
part in further exchange. The aim of this was to allow the researcher to
confirm some of the insights collected from the members of the focus groups
(Monett et al., 1998:59). The contact among group members during the
discussions is of paramount importance and the researcher becomes a trigger for
helping the in-depth discussions to be more productive in a logical sequence of
open-ended questions that actually prompt the respondents to be very
participative to the talks that are organised inside their respective teams
(Parker and Tritter, 2006:28). Interaction between group members must be in a
good environment because discussions will emerge without problem between the
researcher and the participants and of course among the interviewees themselves
in their own units.
In the same context, the questions that were developed
focused on individual beliefs and attitudes regarding domestic violence in
South Kivu province. Furthermore the researcher framed questions related to
specific aims of this current study project. The formulated questions
investigated males' beliefs and attitudes towards assault in South Kivu homes.
This research investigated the existence and strength of South Kivu men's
abusive beliefs and attitudes as well regarding violence in the home through
the selected sample of men.
| 
