Suchergebnisse

Violence against women is an enduring problem around the globe, yet very few books look at the full range of men's violences against women - perpetrated in relationships, in the family, in public spaces, and in institutions. While books that look at different types of violence, such as domestic violence, 'honour' based violence and rape in isolation are useful for depth, it is only by looking across these different spheres that the true extent of men's violences against women becomes clear. This book usefully covers all of the main forms of violence against women, looking at it from a research, policy, and practice perspective. Including discussion of fifteen different types of violence against women, this book is original in offering an introduction to such a broad range of topics, and for including chapters on violences that have rarely been written about, as well as those that are more commonly discussed and those that have been sidelined in recent years. By bringing together work on violence against women committed by partners, family members, strangers, acquaintances, institutions and businesses, this book widens the lens through which we view men's violences against women. Violence against Women is essential reading for criminologists and sociologists who want to be up to date with cutting-edge knowledge on this topic. It is also an invaluable text for those training to enter or become qualified in the specialist domestic and sexual violence sector.

In dieser Besprechung wird zunächst ein kurzer Überblick über die Nutzung qualitativer Methoden in der krimi­nologischen Forschung gegeben. Danach werden zwei Bücher diskutiert, die in einiger Hinsicht sehr unterschiedlich sind: Für NOAKS und WIN­CUP steht das "how to do it" im Vordergrund; ihr Buch richtet sich insoweit vor allem an Studierende oder an Forschende, die mit qualitativen Methoden nur wenig vertraut sind. Im Unterschied hierzu eröffnet der von POGREBIN herausgegebene Band viele Einblicke in das "how it has been done", wobei die empirischen Ergebnisse ebenso beleuchtet werden wie die jeweils verwandte Methodologie. Zusätzlich beschäftigen sich beide Bücher auch mit Fragen der Forschungsethik, auch dies allerdings in unterschiedlicher Weise. Ursächlich hierfür ist möglicherweise das Alter einiger der in Qualitative Approaches to Criminal Justice veröffentlichten Beiträge (allesamt Reprints, von denen einige bereits 1973 erstveröffentlicht wurden), vielleicht aber auch die unterschiedliche Reflektion von ethischen Fragen in nordamerikanischen und britischen Forschungsarbeiten.

Forschungsmethoden sind "Verfahren der ... Datenerhebung" (HARDING 1986) und werden in der Regel in entweder qualitative oder quantitative dichotomisiert. Einige Autor(inn)en vertreten die Position, dass Methodologien grundsätzlich geschlechtsspezifisch geprägt sind (OAKLEY 1997; 1998). Dabei sind quantitative Methoden traditionell mit Begriffen wie Positivismus, wissenschaftlich, Statistik und Maskulinität assoziiert, während qualitative Methoden mit Begriffen wie Interpretation, unwissenschaftlich, Subjektivität und Femininität verbunden sind. Diese Assoziationen haben dazu geführt, dass einige feministische Forscherinnen den quantitativen Ansatz kritisieren (REINHARZ 1979; GRAHAM 1983; PUGH 1990) oder sogar ganz verwerfen (GRAHAM & RAWLINGS 1980), und zwar mit der Begründung, er stehe in unmittelbarem Konflikt mit den Zielen feministischer Forschung (GRAHAM 1983; MIES 1983). Qualitative Methoden, so die Argumentation, seien feministischer Forschung dagegen insofern angemessener, als sie subjektives Wissen (FOX KELLER 1980; DEPNER 1981; DUELLI KLEIN 1983) und eine in höherem Maß gleichberechtigte Beziehung zwischen Forscher(inne)n und den erforschten Personen ermöglichen (OAKLEY 1974; JAYARATNE 1983; STANLEY & WISE 1990). Dieser Beitrag befasst sich zunächst mit der Kluft zwischen qualitativen und quantitativen Forschungsansätzen sowie der epistemologischen Diskussion, die dieser Debatte zugrunde liegt. Anschließend werden zwei Forschungsmethoden, die Umfrage mittels Fragebogen sowie das halbstandardisierte Interview, im Hinblick auf ihren Nutzen für die feministische Forschung genauer betrachtet. Der Beitrag schließt mit dem Argument, dass unterschiedliche feministische Fragestellungen unterschiedliche Methoden erfordern. Sofern diese aus einer feministischen Perspektive eingesetzt werden, besteht keine Notwendigkeit für dichotomisierende Debatten nach dem Prinzip "wir gegen sie" oder "quantitativ gegen qualitativ".

By introducing readers to national perspectives of issues relating to rape, the book presents a comparative approach which highlights similarities and differences between countries, contexts, laws, key issues and policies and interventions.

While there exists increasing awareness and legal remedies in relation to domestic violence in China, victim-blaming still exists – especially in online discourse. This research investigated public reactions to domestic violence in China, using comments made by women on Weibo – China's largest social media platform. Thematic analysis was used to analyse 500 comments related to four extremely high-profile domestic violence cases. The analysis reveals that victim-blaming is manifested in six overlapping ways, blaming victims for: 1) choosing the wrong partner, 2) not resisting abuse, 3) failing to leave the relationship, 4) having 'weak personalities', 5) lacking rationality, dignity and self-love, and 6) being overly influenced by love – known as 'love brain'. The findings not only shed light on the complexities of victim-blaming on social media in China but also illustrate the ongoing clash between modern feminist thought and entrenched patriarchal values within contemporary Chinese culture.

Purpose
This study explores responses by domestic violence perpetrator programme (DVPP) providers of three Western countries (UK, USA and Australia) to the COVID-19 pandemic and population movement control measures on their practice. The purpose of this paper was to offer an evidence base for changes to programme and intervention delivery around domestic violence to sustain integrity of safe, effective working practices with perpetrators, survivors and staff.


Design/methodology/approach
Based on 36 semi-structured qualitative interviews conducted from July to September 2020, the authors mapped the experiences of changes in service with frontline staff, managers and sector-wide representatives.


Findings
The findings focus on how providers of DVPPs adapted to the increase in referrals and workload that had a positive impact on service delivery innovation but an adverse impact on staff wellbeing. Digital services were reported to be adopted into mainstream approaches but introduced new barriers to service access and group dynamics. Integrated safety support for survivors, if not adequately connected to programmes pre-pandemic, risked being disconnected from DVPP that may undermine positive programme outcomes.


Originality/value
The paper provides a documentation of changes in DVPPs, and a cross-comparison of services across three Western countries during the first wave of COVID-19. The work offers implications of the development of digital modes of service delivery for DVPPs and highlights the need for focus on resource management and integration of safety services for survivors in DVPP services.

Domestic violence perpetrator programmes are a frequently used intervention to respond to perpetrators of domestic violence. However, there is considerable concern about the use of 'online', 'virtual', or 'digital' programmes delivered remotely. Policy and practice have developed at pace through the COVID-19 pandemic and research is lacking. This exploratory research examined the challenges and opportunities associated with a pilot online programme in Minnesota, US, for court mandated men. It took place before the COVID-19 pandemic, making it the first study to investigate a 'live' online programme.
A mixed method design was used, consisting of 40 hours of observational data (covering 25 sessions); four interviews with programme facilitators, 12 interviews with programme observers, and six perpetrators enrolled on the programme. We did not investigate the experiences of partners or ex-partners or of partner organisations, which is a limitation.
We found that while the online format solved some long-established issues with programme delivery (for example, providing an intervention for rural communities, a lack of transport, continuity of intervention for those who travel as part of their job), different issues arose in connection to the online programme. These problems included access to necessary broadband speeds, technical hardware and a private place to participate in the sessions.