On sexual abusers : When clinicians and researchers meet.
Frigault, Louis--Robert*,1, Goulet, Michel*,2, Paradis, Yves3, 1 Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, Qc, Canada2 Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, Qc, Canada3 Centre d'intervention en délinquance sexuelle (CIDS), Laval, Qc, Canada
ABSTRACT- Objective: Research into the motivations of sexual abusers are not scarce, but few studies, apart from those coming from clinical research, adopt a qualitative perspective. In this presentation, we will reflect on the advantages and limits of doing qualitative research with sexual abusers. We will also discuss the interrelations between clinical sexologists and sex researchers, emphasising on the richness of this type of collaboration. Method: This study is based on a qualitative discourse analysis of semi-structured interviews conducted with 30 convicted sexual aggressors. The purpose of the interviews was to gather narratives on the contexts, thoughts, and emotions surrounding the aggressions for which the subjects were convicted. Coding of the interviews was done using Atlas/ti, and the researcher and the clinicians conjointly participated in the interpretation of the results. Results: The analysis of the research process suggests that, while it is often said that researchers and clinicians have different agendas, in the end, both benefit from this type of collaborative work. Although clinicians often rely on scientific research, this type of collaboration is only possible when both clinical sexologists and sex researchers seek to better understand behaviour and not to strictly explain it. The research process reveals epistemological considerations that need to be addressed. While clinicians were interested by the research results in terms of how it can yield intervention guidelines, the researcher reflected upon these interests and the biases they implied. The collaborative analysis of the data also produced information to better understand the key elements associated with way the subjects constructed their explanatory narrative. The narrative structure of the interviews is strikingly analogous to that of a clinical interview where the respondents naturally reflected on their infancy, family and conjugal relations, sexual history and hypotheses on why they had committed a sexual aggression. Can we ask to what degree the sexological discourse has been integrated by these respondents? These questions will be further addressed in our presentation. Discussion and conclusions: This paper suggests that we need, as researchers and clinicians, to be aware of the possibilities but also of the professional interests at play when we conduct research conjointly.
Key words: Cognitives justifications, Sex offenders, Non admitter, Clinical reflexions