Womens Violence to Men in Intimate Relationships - Essay Example

Article Critique: Dobash, R.P. and Dobash, R. E. (2004). ‘Women’s violence to men in intimate relationships.’ British Journal of Criminology, 44: 324-349. By Student Name Course University Date Introduction The purpose of this paper is to select and critically appraise a credible piece of primary research. This paper therefore establishes my personal reasons for selecting the research and its practical utility for me. This report will critically appraise the article, emphasising ethics, sampling, and the methodology, and will provide an analysis including the aims and objectives of the study and implications for practice. Researcher Identity The subject of domestic violence has generated significant discussion and attention in the media, academic research and the criminal justice system. Themes in the literature tend to lean toward identifying the consequences and causes of domestic violence (Johnson and Ferraro, 2000). Crime studies tend to demonstrate a bias in favour of women as the primary victims of domestic violence (Straus, 1999). The reality is however, that men are victims of domestic violence (Straus, 1999). In fact, the Home Affairs Committee (2009: 133) of the House of Commons commented that ‘men are the forgotten victims of domestic violence’. It is the reality that men are victims of domestic violence and the fact that the Home Affairs Committee acknowledged the neglect of male victims of domestic violence that prompted my interest in research on this subject. I selected a peer reviewed article by Dobash and Dobash (2004) because it provides empirical evidence of why much of the focus on domestic violence tends to be biased in favour of women as the primary victims. The research was based on a mixed methods approach involving 95 couples where both partners had reported violence against one another. This research is important to me because it helps me in my future career plans in social and community development by shedding light on the social construction of domestic violence as a problem primarily for women. The article selected is: Dobash, R.P. and Dobash, R. E. (2004). ‘Women’s violence to men in intimate relationships.’ British Journal of Criminology, 44: 324-349. Research Strategy In selecting the article by Dobash and Dobash (2004) I began by entering key terms in the search engine provided by several databases online. The databases selected were Jstor, Springer, Wiley, Google Scholar, Sage, Karger Open Access, Elsevier, Taylor & Francis Group, and Exlibris. I also conducted a general search of Google. The key words entered into the search engines were ‘domestic violence against men’, ‘domestic violence against men in the UK,’ ‘men as victims of domestic violence’ and ‘men as victims of domestic violence in the UK.’ There were very few peer review articles in the search results. I selected the most relevant in terms of discussion of the controversy over why there is a bias in favour of female victims of domestic violence, the credibility of the research and the most recent research report. R.P. Dobash is a professor of Criminology and R.E. Dobash is a professor of Social Research. Both are professors at the University of Manchester and have been involved in domestic violence research beginning in the 1970s and have written a number of books, government reports and articles on the issue of domestic violence. Both authors won the World Congress of Victimology Award for Original Research and Publications in relation to their domestic violence research. Dobash and Dobash have also won the American Society of Criminology’s Distinguished Book Award for Comparative Research as well as the August Vollmer Award. Dobash and Dobash have also received several research grants from the Home Office, the Scottish Office, Cargegie Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Economic and Social Research Council among several other government agencies in Canada, Australia, Europe and Great Britain. This particular research was funded by the Scottish Office and the Home Office (Dobash and Dobash, 2004). Critical Appraisal Aim and Objectives Dobash and Dobash (2004) noted that there are two separate results in the literature reporting on the propensity toward domestic abuse for males and females. One set of results is described as asymmetric/men are more prone toward domestic violence as perpetrators or symmetric/men and women are ‘equally’ predisposed toward domestic violence as perpetrators (Dobash and Dobash, 2004: 343). The aim of the research was to ascertain whether or not there were factors that accounted for research revealing contradictory results. The objectives of the study were to identify whether or not the propensity for committing domestic violence differed in a meaningful way so as to direct a different approach to domestic violence policies in the UK (Dobash and Dobash, 2004). Ethical Framework The study was based on a larger study which was an experimental study in which male and female offenders who had been convicted were interviewed (Dobash and Dobash, 2004). In order to comply with ethical standards of research, human subjects were entitled to informed consent. Giving the sensitive nature of the study, informed consent meant that each of the participants were informed of the nature of the research and its implications for them as offenders and the implications for their victims. All stakeholders with a vested interest in the information gathered and analysed were also consulted and were required to consent to the study. This meant that victims, criminal justice agencies and correction agencies were informed of the nature of the study and the implications for them as victims and practitioners involved in intimate partner violence (Dobash, Dobash, Cavanagh, and Lewis, 2000). In addition to informed consent, the researchers took steps to protect the privacy and confidentiality of the participants by ensuring anonymity (Dobash, et al., 2000). The researchers were concerned about the possibility of selection bias coming from how the participants had been dealt with by the criminal justice system. Since the study was experimental in nature, the control group and the experimental group had to have similar traits and histories. Therefore, in order to avoid selection bias, the samples in both groups were tested along 30 variables to ensure that the results would be more credible as the two groups going into the study would be on equal standing in terms of demographics, violence and traits (Dobash, et al., 2000). A pilot study was not conducted in this study. A pilot study is usually conducted in advance of the main study and involves a small scale study which tests the time needed for carrying out the research and whether or not the research questions can be answered by the main study. A pilot study also reveals errors in questions asked in the research instruments and can direct the framing of more precise and relevant questions (Yin, 2011). However, since this research was based over three intervals, a pilot study was found to be of no real avail. The study involved interviews among a large sample which were conducted at three intervals, at conviction, during sentence and post-conviction/sentencing. Thus a Cronbach’s Alpha was used to test internal consistency of interview questions instead (Dobash, et al., 2000). Cronbach’s Alpha is a reliability test that measures variances and co-variances to determine the coefficients or equivalence of questions and their likely responses (Zeller and Carmines, 1980). A purposive sampling technique was used (Dobash, et al., 2000). Purposive sampling involves the selection of a sample population that possesses the information and/or characteristics that are tied to the research questions or the topic (Rubin and Babbie, 2010). Therefore, the sample was comprised of individual men and women who had been both victims and perpetrators of domestic violence in intimate partner relationships. The sample were recruited from and through the criminal justice system and involved the consent and oversight of the correction institutes (Dobash, et al., 2000). Methodological Framework A mixed methods approach was used in that the data, although collected from interviews with 95 couples who were both victims and perpetrators of domestic violence, both in-depth and statistical data were collected from the interviews (Dobash and Dobash, 2004; Dobash, et al., 2000). In other words, the interviews were framed to include close-ended responses for accumulating statistical data as commonly used in quantitative research and open-ended responses for accumulating in-depth details as commonly used in qualitative research (Dobash, et al., 2000). As a mixed methods research both inductive and deductive reasoning was used (Dobash, et al., 2000). Inductive reasoning involves gathering and analysing data with a view to formulating a ‘broader understanding’ of the phenomenon under investigation (Given, 2008). Thus inductive reasoning is commonly used in qualitative research (Given, 2008). Deductive reasoning on the other hand starts out from a broader viewpoint and uses statistical data to narrow the outcome to a more specific understanding of a research problem and thus usually tests hypotheses or theories (Taylor, 2005). Thus, the qualitative data was used through inductive reasoning and the quantitative data was used applying deductive reasoning (Dobash, et al., 2000). Moreover, the qualitative and quantitative data were used to triangulate one another. In this regard, the strengths of the qualitative data were used to compliment the weaknesses of the quantitative data (Creswell, 2014). For example, the statistical data was collected from close-ended data which only permitted short, unexplained responses. The in-depth data from detailed responses expounded upon and complimented the short responses comprising statistical data. Moreover, the use of close-ended questions allowed the researchers to use a much larger sample size than would have been permitted had they confined the instrument to the collection of in-depth detailed responses. In using a mixed methods approach, the researchers were not bound by a single philosophical approach. The qualitative data was analysed using an interpretive philosophy which meant that the data was analysed with the understanding that there was no single objective truth and that reality is subjectively derived (Evans, Hardy, and Shaw, 2010). In analysing the quantitative data, a positivist philosophy was used in that reality was viewed as informed by objective and measurable truths (Evans, et al., 2010). Thus the qualitative data proceeded with an ontological perspective in that it measured the beliefs of the individuals participating in the study. As Frost (2011: 194) points out ontology refers to ‘issues about what people believe is real and what they believe exists in the world’. Thus the qualitative data measured the experiences and perspectives of males and females who were both victims and perpetrators of domestic violence (Dobash and Dobash, 2004). Epistemology, refers to ‘the grounds upon which we believe something to be true’ (Oliver, 2010: 35). From the quantitative perspective, the grounds upon which it is believed that domestic violence against men are asymmetric or symmetric are because incidents of domestic violence are observable and measurable. However, from a purely qualitative perspective, we can only understand the asymmetry or symmetry of domestic violence against men if we understand how violence is experienced and understood by men compared to women (Dobash and Dobash, 2004). The interview questions were framed to illicit responses that revealed not only the participants incidents of violence as both perpetrators and victims, by to reveal their interpretation of violence and how they were effected by those incidents of violence (Dobash and Dobash, 2004). This approach allowed for the collection of in-depth details of the victims and perpetrators’ experiences and perspectives on domestic violence. Questions were also formulated to reveal statistical data on frequency and circumstances in which the participants were victims and perpetrators of domestic violence. Findings and Conclusion Research findings indicate that men are less likely to interpret violence in the same way that women do. The interviews involved women and men involved in the same bouts of domestic violence. Yet, in terms of violence perpetrated by men, 21.1% of women compared to 30.5% of men reported direct violence. Moreover, 47.4% of women compared to 55.8% of men reported between 1 and 4 incidents of violence. Again, 17.9% of women compared to 9.5% of men reported between 5 and 9 episodes of violence and 13.7% of women compared to 4.2% of men reported at least 10 episodes of violence. Thus men seemed to under-report violence perpetrated against women. In terms of violence perpetrated by women against men, the results were virtually even in that both men and women reported fewer incidents of violence against men by women (Dobash and Dobash, 2004). The results of the interviews also indicated that women’s violence against men are usually not as serious nor as frequent as the violence against women by men. In general men are the aggressors and women are more predisposed to shrink from the violence and after a prolonged period of abuse, only a few women will lash out, quite often provoked into violence or simply in self-defence (Dobash and Dobash, 2004). For example, one woman admitted that she stabbed her male partner which was considered serious, and resulted in an initial charge of attempted murder. However, she only stabbed her male partner after he broke her cheek bone (Dobash and Dobash, 2004). The study results also revealed that women rarely force or threaten their male partners into having sexual relations with them. On the other hand men frequently force or threaten their male partners into having sexual relations with them (Dobash and Dobash, 2004). The study also found that from the perspective of women, the incidents of domestic violence and abuse is far more threatening to them. Men on the other hand, are not usually traumatized or moved to fear by domestic violence perpetrated against them. Therefore, it was concluded that domestic violence against men is asymmetric in that men are more predisposed to committing domestic violence against women. Women are therefore not equally predisposed to commit domestic violence against men (Dobash and Dobash, 2004). The results of the study conducted by Dobash and Dobash (2004) has implications for practice. The main implication for practice is that the apparent bias toward women as victims of domestic violence is preferable to treating both men and women as equal victims of domestic violence. The study results not only found that women are more frequently victims of domestic violence, but also that women are far more traumatized by domestic violence than male victims of domestic violence. However, generalizations such as this can be dangerous. There are likely to be some men who are just as traumatized by domestic violence as women are. Moreover, there are also likely to be incidents of domestic violence against men that are not strictly on the basis of provocation or self-defence. In fact, this study was based on domestic violence between couples where both male and female partners were victims and perpetrators of domestic violence. Thus it is hardly surprising that most of the incidents involved women being provoked into violence or fighting back in self-defence. Dobash and Dobahs (2004) acknowledged this weakness in the sampling, but stated that it was impossible to find a sample of males who had reported domestic violence against them that did not involve domestic violence against women as well. This might be indicative of the scarcity of incidents in which males are victims of domestic violence where women are not provoked into violence or fight back in self-defence. Therefore, the need for further research on males as victims of domestic violence needs to be conducted for a better understanding of the phenomenon of domestic violence against men. Bibliography Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dobash, R.P. and Dobash, R. E. (2004). ‘Women’s violence to men in intimate relationships.’ British Journal of Criminology, 44: 324-349. Dobash, R.E.; Dobash, R.P.; Cavanagh, K. and Lewis, R. (2000). Changing violent men. London: SAGE. Evans, T.; Hardy, M. and Shaw, I. (2010). Evidence and knowledge for practice. Cambridge: Polity Press. Frost, N. (2011). Qualitative research methods in psychology: Combining core approaches. Berkshire, England: Open University Press. Given, L.M. (2008). The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Home Affairs Committee, House of Commons, Great Britain Parliament. (2009). Domestic violence, forced marriage and “honour”-based violence. Sixth Report of Session 2007-08, Vol. II. London: The Stationery Office. Johnson, M.P. and Ferraro, K.J. (November 2000). ‘Research on domestic violence in the 1990s: Making distinctions.’ Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(4): 948-963. Oliver, P. (2010). Understanding the research process. London: Sage. Rubin, A. and Babbie, E. (2010). Essential research methods for social work. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Straus, M.A. (1999). ‘The controversy over domestic violence by women: A methodological, theoretical, and sociology of science analysis.’ In Arriaga, X.B. and Oskamp, S. (Eds.) Violence in intimate relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 17-44. Taylor, G.E. (2005). Integrating quantitative and qualitative methods in research. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America. Yin, R.K. (2011). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Zeller, R.A. and Carmines, E.G. (1980). Measurement in the social sciences: The link between theory and data. New York, NY: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. Read More