It took me a while to realise that research isn’t just about crunching numbers and gathering quantitative data. When dealing with issues such as female genital cutting (FGC), human interaction and communication can play a more important role than numbers; to open up and speak about one’s experience of FGC requires a high level of trust and safety. It is important to create a safe and trusting place for those who have survived FGC and are sharing their stories. I think this is why it’s best to let survivors narrate their own stories and navigate conversation at their own pace.
In my short experience as a researcher, I learnt how important it is to have conversations that relay the stories and backgrounds of people. Without understanding the stories of people, it is impossible to collect qualitative data about culture and communities. Interviewing research participants also has an element similar to storytelling because people can share details about their background, an event or even a practice. Consent and comfort are primary indicators of whether or not a person is willing to share their thoughts, and I think it is important to acknowledge these indicators before starting a conversation to ensure that there is an ethicality to storytelling. Any hints of discomfort and hesitation on the part of the survivor should be taken seriously to make sure that re-traumatization does not occur. The well-being and readiness of people should be of utmost priority to researchers, because true storytelling does not come from a place of coercion or reluctance.
Storytelling is an effective way to open dialogue or start a conversation about FGC. Voices to End FGM/C, a collaboration between Sahiyo and StoryCenter, is an example of survivors sharing their experiences to create more awareness, understanding, and public dialogue about the practice, with a prioritized sense of agency in creating their own story. What began with Sahiyo co-founder Mariya Taher sharing her own story and encouraging other women in the United States to come forward with their stories has had a ripple effect, and we continue to see Sahiyo engaging in extensive dialogues. Other Sahiyo programs like Bhaiyo were created to include men in this necessary dialogue, as well as "to provide love, support, and community towards the advocates and survivors working to end FGC.”
Something that started off among women has grown into a larger platform where friends, fathers, brothers and husbands are coming forward to end FGC together. The biggest takeaway from this is how storytelling and conversations created a domino effect and led to more people learning and talking about FGC.
From a research perspective, storytelling and conversations can lead to more data, which helps us understand the practice and its impact. My research focuses on Pakistan, where there is very little data and no public record of FGC, thus creating a huge research gap yet to be explored. I think storytelling and conversations could be the start of creating more awareness and understanding of FGC in Pakistan. Since any topic that deals with female genitalia or sexuality is seen as shameful in Pakistani society, it may take a while for people to engage in open dialogue about FGC. Due to cultural and religious connotations, people are hesitant about discussing such topics because they are considered inappropriate. Patriarchal undertones within Pakistani society frame women’s bodies as non-autonomous and often under the surveillance or submission to the male figure. Honour killings and other gender-based violence crimes take place under the notion that women’s bodies carry the honour of husbands, brothers or fathers. These assumptions about women and their bodies probably adds to the invisibility or lack of dialogue regarding female genital cutting (FGC).
It is not uncommon to find qualitative researchers exploring topics of gender-based violence and women’s rights through stories and narratives. It gives social scientists a deeper insight into how culture, gender, and society work. In such cases, I don’t think quantitative data can capture people’s experiences or the cultural or religious attributes attached to them. Storytelling and conversations give researchers the space to gather data as listeners or bystanders, while allowing the story-teller/interviewee/conversationalist to share details on their own terms.
I will end my thoughts on this note:
“If story is central to human meaning why, in the world, is there not more storytelling?”