Top

Published in:

01-11-2016 | Original Article

Gender Arguments and Paradigmatic Challenges within Intimate Partner Violence Research: A Call for a more Inclusive Paradigm of Understanding Regarding Physical Partner Violence Perpetration

Authors: Melissa Corbally, Judy Hughes, David Delay

Published in: Journal of Family Violence | Issue 8/2016

Abstract

This paper suggests that the epistemology surrounding intimate partner violence (IPV) is flawed due to two areas in particular: 1) an overreliance on quantitative methodologies that lack the detailed and contextual information required for complex understandings of IPV and 2) the minimization of alternative theoretical perspectives on the meaning of gender. Although an ecological perspective to understanding IPV has been advocated by the World Health Organization as a useful theoretical framework from which to understand IPV (Krug et al. 2002), few empirical studies have tested this complex perspective. We suggest that broader research approaches may prove useful in shedding light on non-conventional IPV experiences, potentially broadening our understanding of this complex phenomenon.

Anderson, K.L. (2009). Gendering coercive control. Violence Against Women, 15(12), 1444–1457.CrossRefPubMed

Anderson, K.L., & Umberson, D. (2001). Gendering violence: masculinity and power in men’s accounts of domestic violence. Gender and Society, 15(3), 358–380.CrossRef

Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: a meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 651.CrossRefPubMed

Boonzaier, F. (2008). ‘If the man says you must sit, then you must sit’: the relational construction of woman abuse: gender, subjectivity and violence. Feminism & Psychology, 18(2), 183–206.CrossRef

Butler, J. (2010) Gender trouble. New York: Routledge.

Corbally, M. (2011). Making sense of the unbelievable: a biographical narrative study of men’s stories of female abuse (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). University of Salford, England.

Corbally, M. (2014). Accounting for intimate partner violence; a biographical analysis of narrative strategies used by men experiencing IPV from their female partners. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(7), 3112–3132.PubMed

Durfee, A. (2011). “I’m not a victim, she’s an abuser”: masculinity, victimization, and protection orders. Gender and Society, 25(3), 316–334.CrossRef

Dutton, D.G., & Nicholls, T.L. (2005). The gender paradigm in domestic violence research and theory: Part 1. The conflict of theory and data. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 680–714.CrossRef

Gaffney, K., & Manno, A.J. (2011). Navigating the gender box: locating masculinity in the introduction to women and gender studies course. Men and Masculinities, 14(2), 190–209.CrossRef

Hamel, J. (2007). Toward a gender-inclusive conception of intimate partner violence research and theory: Part 1-traditional perspectives. International Journal of Men’s Health, 6(1), 36–53.CrossRef

Hamel, J. (2009). Toward a gender-inclusive conception of intimate partner violence research and theory: Part 2-new directions. International Journal of Men’s Health, 8(1), 41–59.CrossRef

Johnson, M.P. (2008) A typology of domestic violence. USA, Northeastern University Press.

Johnson, M.P. (2011). Gender and types of intimate partner violence: a response to an anti-feminist literature review. Aggression and Violent. Behaviour, 16(4), 289–296.

Krug, E.G., Dahlberg, L.L., Mercy, J.A., Zwi, A.B., & Lozano, R. (2002). World report on violence and health. Geneva: World Health Organisation.

Kuhn, T. (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

LeCouteur, A., & Oxlad, M. (2011). Managing accountability for domestic violence: Identities, membership categories and morality in perpetrators’ talk. Feminism & Psychology, 21(1), 5–28.CrossRef

Perry, J., (2012) Digital stalking: A guide to technology risks for victims - Version 2. England: Network for Surviving Stalking and Women’s Aid Federation of England.

Straus, M.A. (2007). Processes explaining the concealment and distortion of evidence on gender symmetry in partner violence. European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research, 13, 227–232.CrossRef

Straus, M.A. (2008). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 252–275.CrossRef

Straus, M.A. (2009a). Gender symmetry in partner violence: evidence and implications for prevention and treatment. In D. J. Whitaker & J. R. Lutzker (Eds.), Preventing partner violence: Research and evidence-based intervention strategies (pp. 245–271). Washington D.C: American Psychological Association.CrossRef

Straus, M.A. (2009b). Why the overwhelming evidence on partner physical violence by women has not been perceived and is often denied. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 18(6), 552–571.CrossRef

Straus, M.A. (2010). Thirty years of denying the evidence on gender symmetry in partner violence: Implications for prevention and treatment. Partner Violence, 1(3), 332–361.

Winstock, Z. (2011). The paradigmatic cleavage on gender differences in partner violence perpetration and victimization. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 303–311.CrossRef

Title: Gender Arguments and Paradigmatic Challenges within Intimate Partner Violence Research: A Call for a more Inclusive Paradigm of Understanding Regarding Physical Partner Violence Perpetration
Authors: Melissa Corbally
Judy Hughes
David Delay
Publication date: 01-11-2016
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Journal of Family Violence / Issue 8/2016
Print ISSN: 0885-7482
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2851
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-016-9875-2

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Gender Arguments and Paradigmatic Challenges within Intimate Partner Violence Research: A Call for a more Inclusive Paradigm of Understanding Regarding Physical Partner Violence Perpetration

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 8/2016

A Tribute to Murray A. Straus

Erratum to: Pushing the Paradigm: Addressing Controversies over LGBTQ Intimate Partner Violence?

Acknowledgment of Reviewers for Volume 31

Changing the Domestic Violence Narrative: Aligning Definitions and Standards

Where Do We Go from here?: Examining Intimate Partner Violence by Bringing Male Victims, Female Perpetrators, and Psychological Sciences into the Fold

Current Controversies within Intimate Partner Violence: Overlooking Bidirectional Violence