This article examines how perceptions of interviewing elites influence the decisions made at every stage of the qualitative research process. It also reflects on issues of positionality and power which relate not only to the relationship between researcher and respondent but also to the subject matter of the research itself. As such I suggest that it is important to critically assess assumptions made about elites and to reflect on how the position of the researcher might impact upon the exchange and resultant findings. In essence what is found is that in discussing the construction of policy, a delicate balance is struck between positionality and research topic and that the policy narrative is a joint construction which is very much shaped by the identity and positionality of everyone involved.

Veiled Muslim women are at an increased risk of street harassment in the current political and economic climate. Their visibility, combined with their popular portrayal as culturally dangerous or threatening means that they are vulnerable to receiving verbal and physical threats, which can be misogynistic and Islamophobic in nature. Drawing on 60 individual and 20 focus group interviews with Muslim women in the United Kingdom who wear the niqab (face veil) and had experienced harassment in public, this qualitative study details their lived experiences. It argues that an intersectional analysis is crucial to understanding the nuances of their lived experiences and the impact street harassment has on their lives. The findings demonstrate that street harassment can produce a hostile environment for veiled Muslim women, which can have a terrorizing effect, limiting their full participation in the public sphere.

In 1998, the Labour government introduced legislation broadening British sentencing powers in relation to crimes aggravated by the offender's hostility towards the victim's actual or perceived race, religion, sexual orientation or disability. Gender is a notable omission from this list. Through a survey of eighty-eight stakeholders working in the violence against women (VAW) sector, this paper explores both the potential benefits and possible disadvantages of adding a gender-based category concerned with VAW to British hate crime legislation. The majority of participants believed that a hate crime approach would offer significant benefits, especially in terms of the symbolic power of the law to send a message to society that VAW is unacceptable. However, most also recognised that the addition of a VAW category to current legislation would involve major practical and conceptual difficulties, not least those resulting from problematic assumptions about the nature of hate crimes versus VAW, and a general unwillingness on the part of policy-makers to address the socio-cultural inequalities that underpin VAW. Overall, the fact that the majority of participants favoured inclusion, on the basis that the possible symbolic benefits were likely to outweigh the potential practical disadvantages, is significant: it speaks to the power of hate crime legislation to challenge many forms of inequality and discrimination still endemic in British society.

Extensive debate about the place of gender within the hate-crime policy domain has been fuelled by national victimisation surveys indicating people’s experiences of ‘gender hate crime’ coupled with Nottinghamshire Police’s decision to begin categorising misogynistic street harassment as a form of hate crime. Drawing on the results of an online survey of 85 respondents, this article explores people’s experiences of gender-related victimisation as ‘hate crimes’. The analysis demonstrates how participants relate their experiences to the concept of hate crime, their perceptions on punishment and reporting to the police, and also wider impacts on their recovery processes. This paper provides a timely contribution towards current debates around using the existing hate-crime model for addressing crimes motivated by gender hostility.

No abstract