’
.3 hvukflt

.2 4 fine... .n.
v... u 4. x V.

e, .... .miflwfimr
«3.?
u

 

. “A

{Egiibafl :

., : 2 .z . .
murm. um i. a... flow

. . 1.!“ rl

g211

 

tfil.\.\.. .
a :1: a. a
3 I... I...

i

a.“ .5 5 ,
akafigmgaic :.
a 2)}...

93. If
13.4.. .2
.

hn ... a
Lg. ii:
2:211:23.»
.‘tli‘ .i
14%. h

 

1.5...
fictitill v-
. 13.5 3!
.¢ I. .(Ss ...
36 a... i .3:...2i..rofin
.. fin. 5.341.413.

nun .L: i $5.: c.1321

.v! I I activ‘ 3..
, 1:37} 5.1)1‘.

.;. ‘ . . TILE, .q a
34.52“...” . A _. . ‘ a . . . ‘ “3 H.329? .._

 

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

UNDERSTANDING THE HELP-SEEKING DECISIONS OF
MARGINALIZED BATTERED WOMEN

presented by
AMANDA K. BURGESS-PROCTOR

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Doctoral degree in Criminal Justice

 

 

/W7<

Major/P ofes Or’s Mignature

4/Mz/03

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

...-.--._. . ,,. .

- -.-.-.—t-. --.---.- ---------—~

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5108 K:lProj/Acc&Pres/ClRC/DateDue indd

UNDERSTANDING THE HELP-SEEKING DECISIONS OF MARGINALIZED
BATTERED WOMEN

By

AMANDA K. BURGESS-PROCTOR

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
School of Criminal Justice

2008

ABSTRACT

UNDERSTANDING THE HELP-SEEKING DECISIONS OF MARGINALIZED
BATTERED WOMEN

By

Amanda K. Burgess-Proctor

This dissertation uses data from in-depth, semi-structured interviews with
nineteen battered women from marginalized social groups to explore how and why they
made decisions to get help. Participants were recruited from community-based intimate
partner violence (IPV) support groups in two research sites: a medium-sized Southeastern
city and a large Midwestern urban center. Interviews were conducted to explore the
informal and formal help-seeking strategies the women used, their reasons for using and.
satisfaction with those strategies, and the barriers to help-seeking they encountered. Data
from this study also suggest that historical factors such as childhood victimization
influence battered women’s help-seeking. Two key concepts, help-seeking inhibitors and
help-seeking promoters, are identified, as are the specific mechanisms through which
childhood victimization inhibits and/or promotes help-seeking. These findings offer
support for the application of two existing theoretical frameworks, feminist pathways and
life course models, to battered women’s help-seeking. Finally, the theoretical, practical
and research implications of these findings are addressed, especially as they relate to

marginalized women.

Copyright by
Amanda Burgess-Proctor
2008

For you, Mom. How I wish you were here to read this.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

It goes without saying that the completion of this dissertation depended in no
small part upon the tireless encouragement of many colleagues, relatives, and friends.

I owe an immense debt of gratitude to my parents, Alan Burgess and the late
Diane Dimitroff. Since the time I was seven years old and my greatest professional
desire was to be the first female Major League baseball player, my parents have pushed
me to pursue my dreams. I would not be the scholar or the woman I am today without
their unconditional love. Meanwhile, my sister Megan Burgess has provided me with
emotional support and, when I needed it most, laughter. I also would like to say a special
word of thanks to my in-laws, Marilynn and Bill Peterson and Ron and Rose Proctor, for
loving and supporting me as if I were their own daughter.

I also consider myself very fortunate to be a member of the MSU family. The
faculty, staff, and graduate students in the MSU School of Criminal Justice are among the
most collegial, supportive, and just plain fun people I’ve ever had the privilege of
knowing. All of my fellow graduate students made my time in Baker Hall exceedingly
enjoyable. In particular, I cherish the guidance and lasting friendship of Cedrick Heraux,
Kristy Holtfreter, Joe Schafer, Brandon Kooi, Carol Zimmermann, Sean Varano, Beth
Huebner, Sameer Hindjua, and Justin Patchin. I am especially grateful to faculty
members Tim Bynum, Merry Morash, and Sheila Royo Maxwell, and to my dissertation
committee members: Maxine Baca Zinn (Department of Sociology), Steven Chermak,

Edmund McGarrell, and Christina DeJong. Christina in particular has been a constant

source of support and encouragement for me—both professionally and personally—and I
am blessed to have her as a mentor and as a friend.

Of course, none of my work would have any value without the most important
people in my life: my husband, Bryan, and our daughters, Anna and Maya. Bryan has
been encouraging me to do great things since I first met him, and I struggle to find words
that can adequately express how integral his unwavering support, companionship, and
love have been to the completion of this dissertation. Likewise, my daughters have
allowed me to appreciate life’s most precious gifts. No amount of academic achievement
can ever compare to the incalculable joy and satisfaction I get from being a mom. You
all make life worth living.

Finally, this work is dedicated to the bold, brave, and beautiful women who
shared their stories and their lives with me. I am humbled by your grace, your strength of

character, and, most of all, by your courage.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. x
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION. ............................................................................... 1
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 2
CHAPTER TWO: EXAMINING BATTERED WOMEN’S HELP-SEEKING ............... 4
Battered Women’s Help-Seeking Via the Criminal Justice System ............................... 4
Calling the Police ....................................................................................................... 6
Pursuing Prosecution .................................................................................................. 7
Obtaining Protection Orders ...................................................................................... 8
General Barriers to Help-Seeking ................................................................................... 9
Fear of Reprisal .......................................................................................................... 9
Economic Dependence .............................................................................................. 1 1
Family & Privacy Considerations ............................................................................ 12
Specific Barriers to Help-Seeking for Marginalized Battered Women ........................ 13
Isolation .................................................................................................................... 14
Patriarchal Cultural Norms ...................................................................................... 15
Fear of Public Scrutiny ............................................................................................. 17
Discrimination & Institutional Racism ..................................................................... 18
Fear of Deportation .................................................................................................. 19
Participation in Illegal Activities .............................................................................. 19
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 20
CHAPTER THREE: THEORIZING HELP-SEEKING FROM THE
PERSPECTIVE OF MARGINALIZED WOMEN .......................................................... 22
Existing Theoretical Models of Help-Seeking .............................................................. 23
Battered Woman Syndrome & Learned Helplessness .............................................. 23
Battered Women as “Survivors” .............................................................................. 25
The Barriers Model ................................................................................................... 26
Rational Choice Theory ............................................................................................ 27
The Psychological Process Model ........................................................................... 29
Centering Help-Seeking Theories on Marginalized Women ........................................ 30
CHAPTER FOUR: METHODOLOGY .......................................................................... 35
Methodological Justification ......................................................................................... 35
Research Questions ................................................................................................... 37
Research Sites ........................................................................................................... 38
Southeast City ....................................................................................................... 38
Midwest Metro ...................................................................................................... 40
Sampling Strategy ..................................................................................................... 41
Safety & Privacy Concerns ....................................................................................... 43
Analytic Strategy ....................................................................................................... 44
Coding Scheme ...................................................................................................... 45
Trusmtorthiness & (.‘rcdihi/ity .................................................................................. 46

vii

Sample Characteristics .................................................................................................. 49

Summary ....................................................................................................................... 54
CHAPTER FIVE: RE-EXAMINING HELP-SEEKING ................................................ 56
Help-Seeking Strategies Used ....................................................................................... 56
Informal Strategies .................................................................................................... 57
Personal Spirituality ............................................................................................. 60
Formal Strategies ...................................................................................................... 62
The Criminal Justice System ................................................................................. 62
Police ................................................................................................................ 62
Prosecution ...................................................................................................... 64
Protection orders ............................................................................................. 66
Prior criminal justice help-seeking .................................................................. 68
Shelter & Support Group ...................................................................................... 70
Legal & Medical Systems ...................................................................................... 72
Reasons for Help-Seeking ............................................................................................. 74
Barriers to Help-Seeking ............................................................................................... 78
General Barriers ....................................................................................................... 78
Specific Barriers ....................................................................................................... 81
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 85
CHAPTER SIX: PATHWAYS TO HELP-SEEKIN G .................................................... 86
Childhood Victimization ............................................................................................... 87
Summary of Women ’s Childhood Victimization Experiences ................................... 87
Childhood Victimization & Help-Seeking in the Existing Literature ....................... 89
Childhood Victimization Experiences as Help-Seeking Inhibitors ........................... 92
Establishing Expectation of A base ........................................................................ 92
Lowering Sense of Self- Worth ............................................................................... 95
Prompting Withdrawal .......................................................................................... 97
Engendering Learned Silence ............................................................................... 98
Promoting Attachment to An Abusive Partner .................................................... 1 00
Childhood Victimization Experiences as Help-Seeking Promoters ........................ 102
Encouraging Boundary-Drawing ....................................................................... 103
Fostering “Fighter ” Mentality ........................................................................... 105
Inspiring Determination to End the Cycle of Violence ....................................... .106
What Determines Whether Childhood Victimization Inhibits or Promotes
Help-Seeking? ......................................................................................................... 108
Theoretical Advancement ........................................................................................... 1 1 1
Feminist Pathways Model ....................................................................................... 1 12
Life Course Model ................................................................................................... 1 l4
Extending Feminist Pathways and Life Course Models to Help-Seeking ............... l 16
Summary ..................................................................................................................... 123
CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION ........................................................................... 124
Limitations .................................................................................................................. 124
Implications ................................................................................................................. 126
Policy Implications ................................................................................................. 126

viii

Research Implications ............................................................................................. 131

Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 13 3
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 1 34
REFERENCES .......................................................................................... .................... 145

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Research Site Population Data, Year 2000 ........................................... 39
Table 2: Sample Descriptive Data ................................................................ 51
Table 3: Abuse Experiences in Any Relationship .............................................. 53
Table 4: Help-Seeking Strategies Used in Any Relationship ................................. 58
Table 5: Reasons for Help—Seeking ............................................................... 75
Table 6: Barriers to Help-Seeking ................................................................ 79
Table 7: Number and Type of Help-Seeking Strategies Used ................................ 84
Table 8: Childhood Victimization Experiences ................................................ 89

CHAPTER ONE:
INTRODUCTION

Once regarded as a private family matter unworthy of legal or govemmental
intervention, intimate partner violence (IPV) is considered an important issue for
academic researchers, public policy makers, and women’s rights advocates alike. This
shift in public consciousness occurred largely due to the efforts of feminist activists and
members of the anti-violence and women’s rights movements during the 19703 and
19803. Prior to this time, battered women had few avenues to assist them in disclosing or
escaping their abuse. Today, however, myriad laws, policies, social agencies, shelters,
hotlines, and other resources exist to assist IPV survivors.

What is less clear is the extent to which these opportunities exist for women on
the margins of society: women of color, poor and working-class women, lesbian women,
immigrant women, and others. Research suggests that women from marginalized social
groups, including women of color (Sokoloff, 2004; West, 2002), poor women (Purvin,
2007; Sokoloff, 2004), immigrant women (Raj & Silverman, 2002), and women in rural
communities (Websdale, 1998), are at increased risk of IPV to begin with. In many cases
these women seek different outcomes in dealing with their abuse than majority-group
women (Abraham, 2000; Bui. 2003; Kingsnorth & MacIntosh, 2004; Richie, 1996;
Sokoloff & Pratt, 2005; Websdale, 2001). Obviously, all women desire cessation of
abuse. However, the prevailing assumption that women also wish to leave their abusive
partners may not reflect the specific desires of certain battered women, including
minority-group women (Fugate, Landis, Riordan, Naureckas, & Engel, 2005; Richie,

1996). Consequently, it is problematic to assume that IPV is uniformly experienced by

all women, or that all battered women will respond to their victimization in similar ways.
As Sokoloff & Dupont (2005, p. 2) observe:

Although much pioneering work on domestic violence approached

intimate partner violence as a monolithic phenomenon that affected all

women the same, this ‘universalizing’ approach increasingly has been
regarded as inadequate and inappropriate to explain the experiences or
address the needs of battered women from diverse backgrounds.

Additionally, insufficient attempts have been made to theorize about battered
women’s help-seeking. As discussed in Chapter Three, despite several efforts to place
help-seeking in a theoretical framework, ample room exists for the improvement of these
frameworks. As no existing efforts have focused specifically on the experiences of
battered women from marginalized social groups, this dissertation seeks to fill that void
by theorizing about help-seeking using the experiences of marginalized battered women.
Specifically, this analysis uses in-depth, semi-structured interviews to explore factors
influencing the help-seeking decisions of a sample of marginalized battered women in
two research sites: a medium-sized Southeastern city and a large Midwestern urban
center. By placing marginalized battered women at the center of the analysis, this
dissertation seeks to identify new theoretical concepts that help elucidate the unique

experiences of these women.

Summary
This analysis is particularly important for advancing criminological theory

because it offers insight and understanding into how and why marginalized battered

[\J

women choose specific courses of action in response to their abuse. Because they are
anchored in the experiences of marginalized battered women, findings from this
dissertation can inform important policy strategies for addressing and preventing IPV
among women who are particularly vulnerable and who face significant barriers to help-
seeking. Better understanding of marginalized women’s experiences allows for more
targeted policies and research aimed at improving the lives of underrepresented and

underserved populations of battered women.

DJ

CHAPTER TWO:
EXAMINING BAT TERED WOMEN’S HELP-SEEKING

While existing IPV research has provided significant insight into the help-seeking
experiences of battered women, the unique needs of marginalized battered women—
including women of color, poor and working-class women, immigrant and refugee
women, lesbian women, non-Christian women, and women from other minority groups—
remain underresearched and undertheorized. Although IPV has been a popular research
topic since the 19708, studies that focus on marginalized battered women are less
common. As this chapter reveals, the underrepresentation of marginalized women in the
body of criminological IPV research is particularly regrettable given the significant
obstacles to help-seeking these women face. To illustrate these ideas further, this chapter
is divided into three sections. The first section examines battered women’s help-seeking
via the criminal justice system. The second section identifies barriers to help-seeking that
are experienced by the general population of battered woman, irrespective of their social
location. The third section describes the specific barriers to help-seeking that exist for
marginalized battered women in particular, especially women of color, poor and

working-class, and immigrant women.

Battered Women’s Help-Seeking Via the Criminal Justice System
Help-seeking battered women utilize a wide range of outlets, including both
informal and formal sources of support. However. research suggests that many women
use formal outlets only after informal outlets prove inadequate (Macy, Nurius. Kernic. &

Holt, 2005), or after the relationship violence becomes particularly severe or life-

threatening (Fugate et al., 2005). Thus, at least initially, battered women may prefer to
rely upon informal sources of support by reaching out to relatives and friends (Kaukinen,
2002; Morrison, Luchok, Richter, & Parra-Medina, 2006), drawing upon their faith
I communities or their own spirituality. for support (Potter, 2007), or engaging in self-help
or private survival strategies (Lempert, 1996). Moreover, as the third section of this
chapter reveals, informal avenues of help-seeking may be used more frequently by
marginalized women who face significant structural barriers to accessing formal outlets.
Once the decision to pursue formal sources of help is reached, though, many
battered women turn to the criminal justice system for assistance. For example, women
seek help by calling the police (Abel & Suh, 1987; Bowker, 1984; Coulter, Kathryn,
Byers, & Alfonso, 1999; Hirschel & Hutchinson, 2003; Hoyle & Sanders, 2000;
Hutchinson & Hirschel, 1998), pursuing the prosecution of their abusers (Bui, 2001;
Ford, 1983, 2003; Goodman, Bennett, & Dutton, 1999), or by obtaining orders of
protection (Fernandez, Iwamoto, & Muscat, 1997; Fischer & Rose, 1995; Zoellner et al.,
2000). Of course, battered women also pursue formal avenues of support outside of the
criminal justice system by entering domestic violence shelters (Gondolf & Fisher, 1988;
Krishnan, Hilbert, & VanLeeuwen, 2001), reaching out to medical and healthcare
personnel (Bacchus, Mezey, & Bewley, 2003; Duncan, Stayton, & Hall, 1999; Peckover,
2003; Van Hook, 2000), or utilizing other non-legal support systems (Chatzifotiou &
Dobash, 2001; Goodkind, Gillum, Bybee, & Sullivan, 2003). Nonetheless, the criminal
justice system remains an important source of support for battered women, and it is

particularly important for criminologists to understand battered women’s help-seeking

experiences with the criminal justice system. Thus, women’s utilization of the police,
prosecution, and orders of protection is described in detail below.
Calling the Police

Though the police are one of the most frequently used resources for battered
women (e. g., see Bowker, 1983), there is great variety in the extent to which battered
women call the police, and in what they want from the police. Estimates of the
percentage of battered women who call the police vary considerably. According to the
US. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (1998), about half of all
incidents of IPV experienced by women are reported to police, an estimate nearly
identical to that produced by Langan & Innnes (1986) in their analysis of National Crime
Survey data. In addition to these official data sources, interviews with more than 6,000
shelter residents in Texas similarly revealed that 54% of women reported their abuse to
police (Gondolf & Fisher, 1988). However, the Langan & Innes study has been criticized
for presenting a “far higher reporting prevalence rate” than other studies (Hutchinson &
Hirschel, 1998, p. 438), and several analyses have reported the percentage of battered
women who call the police to be far less. For example, Bowker (1983) conducted
interviews with 146 battered women in Milwaukee and found that only 38% of women
called the police even after the worst incident of violence, and that fewer than 10%
involved the police after the first violent incident. Other studies also estimate that fewer
than 10% of battered women report their abuse to the police (see Hutchinson & Hirschel,
1998 for a review), including studies of Black women in particular (Richie, 1996;

Websdale, 2001 ).

Further, while in most cases it is a woman’s call to the police that initiates contact
with the criminal justice system (Erez & Belknap, 1998), survivors differ widely in terms
of what they want the police to do when they arrive. Many women do not want the
police to make an arrest, but rather simply want the police to stop the abuse (Buzawa &
Austin, 1993; Hoyle & Sanders, 2000). Wishing only for the police to “teach him a
lesson” or to provide their household with some “peace and quiet,” many women draw
clear distinctions between police removing and arresting their partners (Hoyle & Sanders,
2000). Thus, despite having initiated contact with police, many women categorically do
not want their partners to be arrested or to serve jail time (Hirschel & Hutchinson, 2003).1
Consequently some women withdraw their statements to police after their partners are
arrested but before charges can be filed (Hoyle, 1998). That many battered women want
their partners to avoid formal sanctions like arrest is echoed by the fact that some women
choose not to pursue prosecution of their partners.

Pursuing Prosecution

There exist relatively few investigations of battered women’s decision-making
regarding prosecution of their abusive partners, leaving criminologists with only a
“partial picture” of survivors’ desires (Goodman et al., 1999, p. 428). Based on what
little is known, it is “common knowledge” that battered women frequently resist the
prosecution of their partners (Goodman et al., 1999, p. 428). For example, interviews
with battered women reveal that between half(Erez & Belknap, 1998) and three-quarters
(Ford, 1983) of women drop charges against their partners or simply fail to appear at their

hearings. Though termination of prosecution by battered women typically is regarded as

 

' Of course, this assumes that there is not a mandatory- or pro-arrest policy at work. While a discussion of
mandatory arrest (and no-drop prosecution) policies is beyond the scope of this work. readers are invited to
explore the extensive body of research in this area.

undesirable by court officials, evidence suggests that allowing women to drop charges
against their partners—at least in the case of victim-initiated charges—may actually
benefit women by protecting them from further violence (see Ford, 2003 for a
discussion). For women who do not wish to prosecute, though, the reasons they provide
are familiar: fear of reprisal, unfamiliarity with the system, reluctance to get their partners
in trouble, and economic dependence on their partners (Goodman et al., 1999; see
discussion in the following section). For women who do wish to prosecute, evidence
suggests that their decisions are influenced by the amount of social support to which they
have access, the severity of the violence they experience, and the presence of children
shared with the abuser (Goodman et al., 1999). Not surprisingly, similar concerns also
influence women’s decisions about obtaining protection orders.
Obtaining Protection Orders

Our understanding of battered women’s decisions regarding orders of protection
is not much clearer than our understanding of their prosecution decisions. For example,
research is inconclusive as to whether women are satisfied with the protection they
receive from their orders, whether their orders are adequately enforced by police, or
whether their orders succeed in actually preventing re-abuse (Burgess-Proctor, 2003). As
with other stages of the criminal justice process, women who are economically dependent
on their partners tend to have less success with their protection orders than more
financially independent women (Burgess-Proctor, 2003). Interestingly, women who have
limited access to resources may report less success with their orders because they have
differing expectations, as research suggests that some poor women obtain protection

orders to act as a makeshift divorce when they cannot afford a legal one (Websdale,

1998, 2001). On the other hand, increased severity of violence and a feeling of reaching
a tolerance limit (i.e., “enough is enough”) seem to prompt those women who do pursue
protection orders into action (Fischer & Rose, 1995), though at least one study indicates
that escalation of abuse impedes completion of the protection order process (Fernandez et
al., 1997). Finally, as with studies of battered women’s support for prosecution,
protection order studies indicate that many women—perhaps more than half of those who
initiate the protection order process—withdraw from the process by terminating their
orders or by reconciling with their partners while their orders are still in effect (Zoellner

et al., 2000).

General Barriers to Help-Seeking

Though availability of its resources to battered women has improved in recent
decades, the criminal justice system (and, for that matter, other formal avenues of
support) is not always accessible to battered women. Research exploring battered
women’s help—seeking has identified several barriers to help-seeking that exist for the
entire population of battered women, irrespective of their social location. Three of the
most common barriers to help-seeking are discussed below.

Fear of Reprisal

Perhaps the biggest impediment to help-seeking for battered women is fear that
reaching out for help will prompt their partners to exact revenge through esCalating
violence (Bui, 2001; Erez & Belknap, 1998; Fischer & Rose, 1995; Ford, 1983; Krishnan
et al., 2001; Zoellner et al., 2000). As Ford (1983, p. 469) observes of the women in his

sample: “[Some] women were simply too frightened to continue [with prosecution of

their partners]. Having underestimated the wrath of a man arrestedand threatened with
future confinement, these victims backed down in response to threats”. As it turns out,
women’s fears about reprisal are warranted. Increased violence following a period of
separation or attempted separation is so common that it has its own term: “separation
assault” (Mahoney, 1991 ).‘ It is widely recognized that perhaps the most dangerous
period of time for a battered woman is immediately after she moves out, files for divorce,
or otherwise makes an effort to leave the relationship (Kurz, 1996; Mahoney, 1991).
Moreover, many intimate partner homicides have been shown to occur .in response to
attempts at separation (Websdale, 1998). Women’s fears about prompting retaliation are
borne out in the help-seeking literature as well. In one study of 419 battered women in
Charlotte, NC, participants who advocated for their partners’ arrest were more likely to
be reabused, indicating that help-seeking can be physically risky for women (Hirschel &
Hutchinson, 2003). Similarly, Goodman, Dutton, Vankos, & Weinfurt (2005) found that
women who directly resisted their partners’ violence (e.g., by fighting back physically or
sleeping in a separate room) were more likely than their counterparts to experience
reabuse.

By extension, the severity of abuse that a woman experiences also plays a role in
her decision to seek help, though there is not a directly positive relationship as one might
expect. That is, increased severity of abuse has been associated with both increased
(Gondolf & Fisher, 1988; Goodman et al., 1999) and decreased (Reidy & Von Korff,
1991) help-seeking efforts. Of course, in some instances women are simply physically

restrained by their partners and thus prevented from seeking help (Fleury. Sullivan,

10

Bybee, & Davidson, 1998). On the whole then, concerns about abuse severity and their
partners’ retribution can severely impede women’s help-seeking efforts.
Economic Dependence

As with fear of reprisal, research consistently indicates that women’s economic
dependence on their partners handicaps their help-seeking efforts (Abraham, 2000; Bui,
2001; Fischer & Rose, 1995; Goodman et al., 1999; Horsburgh, 1995; Krishnan et al.,
2001; Moe, 2007; Websdale, 1998). For example, in a study of 448 battered women in
Seattle, participants who reached out to legal outlets were significantly more likely to
have higher levels of education and income, suggesting that poor women may face
difficulty accessing formal agencies for assistance (Macy et al., 2005). If an incarcerated
partner means the loss of the family’s sole source of income, the absence of readily
available child care, or is in any other way financially debilitating, it is easy to see why
women might decide against seeking outside help. In the stark words of one survivor,
“It’s easier to know when you’re next butt kicking is than to know when your next meal’s
coming” (Petersen, Moracco, Goldstein, & Clark, 2004, p. 72). Moreover, economically
dependant women who leave their abusive partners only to become homeless face a
particularly cruel circumstance: some homeless shelters turn away women who are not
currently being abused (Petersen et al., 2004), while protection order applications
sometimes require the flier to provide a permanent home address (Moe, 2007). Finally,
these economic barriers are especially salient for poor women whose ability to maintain
employment is seriously compromised by their intimate partner victimization (Browne,

Salomon, & Bassuk, 1999).

11

Family & Privacy Considerations

Emotional, social, and psychological ties resulting from cohabitating with, being
married to, or sharing children with abusive partners can present a real challenge for
help-seeking battered women (Bui, 2001; Erez & Belknap, 1998; Fernandez etal., 1997;
Fischer & Rose, 1995; Goodman et al., 1999; Kingsnorth & MacIntosh, 2004). Indeed, a
desire to preserve the family unit complicates help-seeking decisions immensely. For
example, Kirshnan, Hilbert, McNeil, & Newman (2001) found that women who wished
to reconcile with their partners reported their abuse to police less frequently than women
who did not intend to reconcile. This finding has serious implications for married women
who may be more motivated to reconcile, although at least one study suggests that
married women are more likely to seek help than are non-married women (Hutchinson &
Hirschel, 1998). Similarly, 88% of participants in one shelter-based study indicated that
they did not contact the police because they did not want anyone to know about the
abuse, or because they did not want their partners to get into trouble (Fleury et al., 1998).
Along with those who are economically dependant, then, women who wish to preserve
their family unit face barriers to reaching out for help (e.g., see Fischer & Rose, 1995).
In particular, battered women often make clear distinctions between wanting to end their
abuse and wanting to end their relationship (Campbell, Rose, Kub. & Nedd, 1998;
Fugate et al., 2005; Gondolf& Fisher, 1988).

Further complicating matters is the presence of children and the impact of the
abuse on the children. Certainly, concern for children can prompt women into calling
the police or leaving their partners (Abraham, 2000; Fine, Roberts, & Weis, 2005). In

one study, participants who shared children with their abusive partners were over three

times more likely than their counterparts to cooperate with the prosecution of their
partners (Goodman et al., 1999). However, other research suggests that a desire to
preserve the family unit that includes shared children impedes help-seeking efforts

(Petersen et al., 2004).

Specific Barriers to Help-Seeking for Marginalized Battered Women

The existing IPV literature recognizes that battered women face barriers that
undermine theirwillingness and ability to seek help. However, the additional challenges
that marginalized battered women face only recently have been documented: While fear
of retaliation, economic dependence, and family and privacy considerations represent
barriers that exist for the entire population of battered women, marginalized women face
additional structural barriers than can further stunt their help-seeking efforts, particularly
using formal avenues of support.

These barriers are especially problematic given that women from marginalized
social groups are particularly vulnerable to IPV in the first place. Research reveals that
women of color (Sokoloff, 2004; West, 2002), poor women (Purvin, 2007; Sokoloff,
2004), immigrant women (Raj & Silverman, 2002), and women in rural communities
(Websdale, 1998) all are at greater risk of IPV than their majority group counterparts.
For example, estimates from the 1998 National Crime Victimization Survey point to
eleVated IPV rates among Black women and women with lower household incomes
(Rennison & Welchans. 2000). Similarly. the National Violence Against Women Survey
finds elevated rates of IPV among Black and American Indian/Alaska Native women,

and elevated rates of rape by an intimate partner among Hispanic women (Tjaden &

13

Thoennes, 2000). Consequently, the specific barriers outlined below can exacerbate
marginalized women’s already heightened vulnerability to IPV.
Isolation

Perhaps the most common barrier for marginalized battered women is the
debilitating isolation they often face. It is true that isolation is a problem for the general
pepulation of battered women (Levendosky et al., 2004), particularly because isolation is
a control tactic often used by batterers to keep their partners subordinated and alienated
from their families and friends (F leury et al., 1998; Johnson, 1995). However, isolation
is even more pronounced for marginalized battered women. One way that marginalized
women experience isolation is in absolute terms of geographic isolation, as in the case of
rural battered women. Living miles away from the nearest neighbor and from sources of
support such as police stations, and sometimes lacking access to transportation or an in-
home telephone, rural battered women face enormous isolation that can prevent them
from seeking outside help (Krishnan et al., 2001; Websdale, 1998). For example,
conversations with police officers in rural districts reveal that response times after receipt
ofa 911 call can be upwards of 40 minutes in very isolated areas, surely discouraging
women from calling the police (Websdale, 1998).

Alternatively, cultural isolation is experienced by rural (Websdale, 1998)
immigrant and refugee (Abraham, 2000; Bui, 2004), Native American (Hamby, 2000;
Rasche, 1988), and Orthodox Jewish battered women (Horsburgh, 1995). For example,
Websdale (1998, p. 162) draws parallels between rural battered women’s geographic and
cultural isolation, noting that their “general physical immobility is a metaphor for their

sociocultural isolation”. Similarly, Abraham (2000) observes that immigrant women

14

from Southeast Asia often rely on resistance strategies within their relationships rather
than turning to outside sources for help because of the intense cultural isolation they feel
once in the United States. Unfamiliarity with the American legal and criminal justice
systems, absence of acquaintances outside of the immigrant community, and lack of
awareness about the resources that are available to battered women all act to keep
immigrant battered women isolated from services. Particularly in the case of immigrant
women, this cultural isolation may stem from language barriers (Abraham, 2000; Bui,
2004; Rasche, 1988; West, Kaufman Kantor, & Jasinski, 1998). That is, for women who .
do not speak English (or who exhibit a preference for their native language), the prospect
of calling the police and/or disclosing abuse to English-speaking social service agents
becomes almost wholly untenable. Moreover, isolation within the immigrant culture can
mean that immigrant battered women are dependent on friends and family for help,
including batterers’ relatives who often are dismissive of the abuse (Abraham, 2000; Bui,
2003, 2004; Raj & Silverman, 2002). Finally, as with other marginalized women, lesbian
women can feel isolated from family and friends who disapprove of their sexual
orientation, and this isolation can be particularly damaging for women who are abused by
their partners (Kaschak, 2001; Morrow & Hawxhurst, 1989).
Patriarchal Cultural Norms

As an extension of this cultural isolation, many marginalized battered women are
subjected to cultural norms that emphasize women’s submissiveness and men’s right to
maintain control over their female partners. These patriarchal cultural norms create
intense pressure for some marginalized battered women to preserve their family unit

despite the abuse they endure (Bui. 2004; Fine et al., 2005; Raj & Silverman, 2002;

15

Rasche, 1988). It is important to note here that this statement should not be interpreted as
an indication that some cultures are more approving of violence against women. As Das
Dasgupta (1998) notes, reports of dowry deaths and wife-buming in Middle Eastern
countries create the illusion for many Americans that “other” cultures condone IPV. Of
course this is not the case, as these crimes are just as offensive to public consciousness
elsewhere as they are in the US. However, it remains the case that many marginalized
battered women feel the weight of cultural constraints that either emphasize the role of .
wife as caregiver and provider, that discourage them from leaving an abusive
relationship, or both.

For example, South Asian and other immigrant women frequently face serious
cultural pressure to remain with their abusive partners, stemming from traditional beliefs
about the sanctity of marriage (Abraham, 2000; Bui, 2004; Raj & Silverman, 2002).
Likewise, Puerto Rican women are burdened by traditional gender-role expectations that
can make it difficult to leave an abusive partner (Fine et al., 2005). In the case of rural
women, cultural norms that emphasize female submissiveness to male partners and the
right of men to use violence toward their female partners, what Websdale (1998) dubs
“rural patriarchy,” can be extremely powerful inhibitors to help-seeking. Finally,
Orthodox Jewish women’s help-seeking may be impeded by religious and cultural
pressure to maintain the family unit and to submit to husbands’ requests (Horsburgh,
1995), though similar pressures may exist for C atholic. Muslim, or Protestant women as

well.

16

Fear of Public Scrutiny

Next, women from communities of color and immigrant communities often
choose not to contact the police or to engage in other types of formal help-seeking for
fear of opening their community to undue public scrutiny. Help-seeking women of color
(Richie, 1996; Websdale, 2001; Wolf, Ly, Hobart, & Kemic, 2003), Muslim and
Orthodox Jewish women (Hajjar, 2004; Horsburgh, 1995), rural women (Websdale,
1998), and lesbian women (Morrow & Hawxhurst, 1989) all face the possibility that by
disclosing their abuse they will invite further negative stereotyping of their communities.
Lesbian battered women often are reluctant to disclose their abuse for fear of exposing
the gay and lesbian community to further stigmatization, believing that “public discussion
would reinforce homophobia” (Morrow & Hawxhurst, 1989, p. 58). Native American
battered women express concern that “drunken Indian” stereotypes will influence police
officers’ determinations of aggressor and victim at IPV scenes (Wolf et al., 2003, p. 125).
Anti-Semitism can prevent Orthodox Jewish from contacting authorities about their
abuse, while beliefs that Jewish men are not violent and that IPV is not a problem in the
Jewish community act as additional barriers (Horsburgh, 1995). In a similar manner, the
idea among many Black'women that IPV is a “white woman’s problem” (Websdale,
2001) not only leads to shame and embarrassment for Black battered women, but also
yields reluctance to opening up the Black community to further stereotyping. Of course,
in communities of color and in the African American community in particular, the role of

discrimination toward men of color must not be overlooked.

l7

Discrimination & Institutional Racism

As Richie (1996) notes, discrimination against abusive men of color can act as a
barrier for their partners in several ways. First, Richie reports that the Black battered
women in her study were “deeply loyal” to their Black maleipartners, particularly in light
of the treatment men of color receive by agents of the criminal justice system. To be
sure, the overrepresentation of young men of color in every stage of the criminal justice
process is one of criminology’s most robust and enduring findings (Allen & Austin,
2000; Spohn & Holleran, 2000; Steffensmeier, Ulmer, & Kramer, 1998). Moreover, ugly
incidents of police brutality against young men of color help to perpetuate a long-
standing and deeply ingrained distrust of the police in communities of color (Anderson,
1999). As Rasche (1988, p. 159) observes, for battered women of color, “Fear of the .
police may also derive not so much from concern that they won’t do anything, but from
concern that they will do too much.” Finally, and more broadly, institutionalized racism
that works to stunt the upward mobility of young men of color (Massey & Denton, 1993;
Wilson, 1987) creates a sense of allegiance between women of color and their male
partners (Richie, 1996; Websdale, 2001) that can prohibit them from “betraying” their
partners by calling the police. Still, the impact of institutionalized racism goes beyond
women’s fears about their partners“ treatment. Battered women of color and immigrant
battered women also have reason to fear their own exposure to unfair or discriminatory
treatment by criminal justice officials, whether via overzealous arrest and/or confinement
(Bui, 2001; Rasche, 1988) or via reduced likelihood of arrests on their behalf (Robinson
& Chandek, 2000). Clearly, these realities can act as aggravating forces that prevent

women of color from engaging in help-seeking.

l8

Fear ofDeportation

For immigrant battered women, fear of deportation is perhaps the most salient
barrier to help-seeking, and for good reason. “Under [federal immigration law passed in
199.6], intimate partner violence, including restraining order violation, is grounds for
deportation if the abuse occurred within five years of entry into the United States” (Raj &
Silverman, 2002, p. 386). But immigrant women are not limited to concern that their
intimate partners will be deported, as they also fear deportation of their children or
themselves (Bui, 2001, 2004). Further, abusers may threaten to keep or destroy their
partners’ immigration documents or prohibit their partners from learning English or
learning about American laws. Echoing the ideas of cultural isolation discussed earlier,
Raj & Silverman (2002) call this specific type of IPV “immigrant-related abuse,” which
they describe as being culturally specific and extremely powerful. Thus, whether out of
concern about loss of immigrant status if the abuse is reported, or out of a general
ignorance of American IPV laws, fear of being deported acts as a monumental constraint
for immigrant women (Abraham, 2000; Bhuyan & Senturia, 2005; Bui, 2001, 2004; Raj
& Silverman, 2002; Rasche. 1988). Of course, formal help-seeking is nearly unthinkable
for undocumented women. as disclosing their abuse also means exposing their illegal
immigration status. In fact, reluctance to disclose illegal activity also acts as a barrier for
other groups of marginalized battered women.

Participation in Illegal Activities

Battered women who have been arrested. who have outstanding warrants, or who

participate in illegal activities often avoid reporting their abuse to authorities. especially

the police (e.g., see Abel & Sub, 1987; Erez & Belknap, 1998; Moe. 2007). To be clear,

19

raising this point is not intended in any way to perpetuate the stereotype of women of
color as criminals. Still, the fact remains that for many marginalized women,
participation in the illegal economy is one (and perhaps the only) viable means of income
(Richie, 1996). For example, Richie (1996) reveals how Black battered women whose
victimization experiences led them to criminality (often after being forced by their
abusers into selling drugs or prostituting themselves) had strong prohibitions against
contacting the police or other official agents. Fears of arrest on drug charges make
substance abusing battered women less likely than their counterparts to disclose their
abuse to authorities (Erez & Belknap, 1998). For example, interviews with 92 mostly
African American battered women revealed that participants who reported higher levels
of substance abuse were two times less likely than their counterparts to cooperate with
the prosecution of their partners (Goodman et al., 1999). The role of substance abuse is
particularly important in this context, as evidence suggests that battered women

sometimes use drugs and alcohol to self-medicate as a means of surviving (Rogers,

McGee. Vann, Thompson. & Williams. 2003; Websdale, 2001). '

Summary
This chapter demonstrates the importance of studying help-seeking. particularly
among marginalized women. More information is needed to increase our understanding
of the extent to which women from all backgrounds utilize the criminal justice system
and other avenues of support for help. It is clear that there are many barriers to help-
seeking that exist for all battered women, including fear of reprisal. economic

dependence, and family and privacy considerations. For battered women from

marginalized groups, though,.the impediments to help-seeking are even greater, yet .their
experiences tend to be underrepresented in the academic literature. In the following
chapter, I show that the experiences of marginalized women also are absent from efforts
to theorize about help-seeking, and assert the importance of theorizing about help-seeking

from the perspective of marginalized women.

CHAPTER THREE:
THEORIZING HELP-SEEKING FROM THE
PERSPECTIVE OF MARGINALIZED WOMEN

Despite the existence of numerous studies, as a whole the body of help-seeking
scholarship remains underdeveloped from a theoretical standpoint. Much existing help-
seeking research is largely descriptive and does not attempt to explain women’s behavior.
That is, most help-seeking studies simply report differences between sample subgroups
without investigating why those differences exist or what influences women’s decisions.
While we have some understanding of what help-seeking strategies battered women use,
there has been comparatively little attention devoted to explaining how and why they
decide to use those strategies (Goodman et al., 1999; Kingsnorth & MacIntosh, 2004).
Thus, battered women’s help-seeking is in dire need of theoretical development
(Kingsnorth & MacIntosh, 2004).

Further, help-seeking among marginalized battered women in particular has been
almost completely ignored. Although a few help-seeking studies specifically sample
women from marginalized groups (e. g., Bui, 2003; Krishnan et al., 2001; O'Campo,
McDonnell, Gielen, Burke, & Chen, 2002), this research is mostly descriptive. In
general, marginalized women have been left out of efforts to theorize about battered
women’s help-seeking. a circumstance that is particularly regrettable given their
heightened vulnerability to IPV and the immense barriers to help-seeking that they face,
as outlined in Chapter Two.

Therefore, a sizeable void exists in our theoretical understanding of battered

women’s help-seeking decisions. particularly among women from marginalized social

groups. It is the aim of this analysis to help fill that void. With that goal in mind, this
chapter is divided into two sections. The first section examines the theoretical
frameworks for help-seeking offered to date, and evaluates the relevance of these
frameworks for marginalized women. The second section demonstrates the importance

of anchoring theories of help-seeking theory in the experiences of marginalized women.

Existing Theoretical Models of Help-Seeking
While there are many empirical studies of women’s responses to IPV, theoretical
development of battered women’s help-seeking is lacking (Goodman et al., 1999;
Kingsnorth & MacIntosh, 2004). To illustrate, after analyzing data from detailed
interviews with 419 battered women to conclude that married women are consistently
more likely than unmarried women to seek help, Hutchinson & Hirschel (1998, p. 449)
1' e rnark: “[I]n retrospect, it would have been invaluable to have asked the women in our
S«El—:tfrrple why they sought each type of help. ...”. In this case, asking “why?” is an
e rI‘leirical afterthought. Clearly, to know that certain battered women are more or less
H k ely to seek help without knowing why does little to advance our understanding of this
issue. Still, some effort has been made to place help-seeking in a theoretical context.
The theoretical models for understanding battered women’s help-seeking that have been
0 t‘fered to date are discussed in detail below.
Battered Woman S)’I7(ll‘0iit€ & Learned Helplessness
Lenore Walker’s (1979) groundbreaking book, The Battered Woman, arguably
“as the first attempt to theorize about the actions and decisions of abused women. As

h art of the broader Battered Woman Syndrome she postulated, Walker (1979) offered an

 

explanation for why women remain with their abusive partners even in the face of severe
abuse. Borrowing learned helplessness theory from psychology, Walker (1979) argued
that being exposed to intermittent abuse psychologically “paralyzes” battered women and
leads to resignation and. submissiveness to their partners. Severe abuse thus creates a
powerful sense of helplessness in battered women, and this helplessness is manifested in
their failure to leave the abusive relationship. Though not necessarily a theory of help-
seeking per se, Walker’s (1979) thesis posits that women’s help-seeking efforts will
decrease as the severity of violence escalates, and as their accompanying psychological
“paralysis” becomes more pronounced.
Although laudable as an effort to place battered women’s actions and decisions in
a theoretical framework, learned helplessness has been criticized for emphasizing
pathology in battered women (Gondolf & Fisher, 1988; Grigsby & Hartman, 1997), and
for perpetuating the stereotypical image of battered women as passive and meek (see
Gondolf & Fisher, 1988 for a review).2 More importantly, several empirical studies of
b «Entered women’s help-seeking find evidence that directly refutes learned helplessness
1Clfineory (Bowker, 1983; Pagelow, 1981), including subsequent work by Walker herself

C 1 979). In response, Gondolf & Fisher (1988) proposed an alternative conceptualization

\

2 There is a great deal of literature criticizing learned helplessness theory and the “pathological” view of

battered women it engenders. In brief, critics charge that individualistic approaches such as learned
helplessness often prompt a focus on pathology in battered women, leading to remedies that include
“treatment” for their “illness”. Moreover, this type of model is dangerous in terms of its tendency to stifle
understanding of battered women’s actions. “[P]erhaps influenced by a research literature that emphasizes
pathology in battered women...criminal justice officials seeking to explain why victims do not cooperate
with prosecution frequently derive psychological explanations citing domestic violence victims as
depressed, emotionally dependent, or suffering from learned helplessness” (Goodman et al., 1999, p. 428).
Taken to the extreme. this approach can lead some officials to conclude that battered women are “addicted”
to their abusive partners or to the abuse (Websdale, 1998, p. 147). For a more thorough discussion ofthese
issues, see Gondolf and Fisher (1988).

Of battered women that emphasizes the survival strategies women use and that highlights
the magnitude of their help-seeking.
Battered Women as “Survivors”

Gondolf & Fisher’s (1988) causal model suggests that, in contrast to learned
helplessness, women’s help-seeking actually increases in response to escalation of abuse,
whether to themselves or to their children. Using data collected from 6,000 interviews
with shelter residents in Texas, Gondolf & Fisher (1988) discovered that increased abuse
combined with batterers’ increased anti-social behavior (i.e., substance abuse, general
violence, and arrests) was related to greater help-seeking efforts. Therefore, this theory
emphasizes that battered women are survivors who actively resist and respond to their

abuse by engaging in a wide array of help-seeking strategies.

The “battered women as survivors” theory represents a marked advancement in

help-seeking theorizing, particularly over learned helplessness. However, in the causal
lI‘lodel, the variables that are hypothesized to influence battered women’s help-seeking
a‘re limited to the individual and interpersonal levels. In other words, there is no
0 pportunity to examine how women’s socio-cultural context—that is, their relative
13 rivilege or disadvantage based on social characteristics—shapes their help-seeking
dvecisions. While subgroup analyses revealed that white women experienced fewer
barriers to help-seeking than their counterparts, and that Hispanic women had the longest
duration of abuse and were less likely to reach out to certain outlets for help (Gondolf &
1: isher, 1988), the existing model does not make adequate allowances for the influence of
structural forces on the actions of help-seeking battered women. However, the “barriers”

model of help-seeking does attend to these structural issues.

 

The Barriers Model

Writing in the field of pyschotherapy, Grigsby & Hartman (1997) developed a
theoretical model that aims to understand battered women’s behavior within the context
of both individual- and structural-level factors. According to the authors, this “barriers
model”:

places the battered woman in the center of four concentric circles. Each

circle represents a layer of barriers in the battered woman's experience that

potentially impedes her safety. These layers include: barriers in the

environment; barriers due to family, socialization, and role expectations;

barriers from the psychological consequences of violence; and finally,

barriers from childhood abuse/neglect issues (Grigsby & Hartman, 1997,

p.485)
The authors identify barriers in the first (environment) layer that include lack of money
and transportation, inadequate response of police or the criminal justice system,
discrimination and language barriers, and issues related to culture and immigration,
among others. Additionally, barriers in the second (role expectations) layer reflect
cultural issues such as religious and familial values, and beliefs about family violence.
Although this theoretical model recognizes that structural forces can shape the actions
and decisions of battered women, it has its own limitations.

First, this model 'is designed more to improve intervention for therapists rather
than to explain battered women’s help-seeking. In other words, while the barriers model
may be useful in understanding the difficulties certain women face in reaching out for

help, the primary purpose of this model is to suggest appropriate intervention strategies

for therapists rather than to explain battered women’s help-seeking. Second, it is not
clear that the development of the barriers model was based on empirical evidence. While
Grigsby & Hartman (1997, p. 485) indicate that the model “was developed as a result of
[our] combined experience of 23 years of work with thousands of battered women in
shelter and nonshelter settings,” the development of the model seems to have been based
on anecdotal evidence rather than systematic data collection. While there has been some
preliminary empirical support for this model (Anderson et al., 2003), its utility for
understanding battered women’s help-seeking — particularly for marginalized women —
remains uncertain.

Still, the concept of barriers appears to be theoretically important to understanding
battered women’s help-seeking, as other analyses suggest. For example, data from face-
to-face interviews with 491 battered women in Chicago-area medical facilities reveal that
barriers including hassle, fear, confidentiality concerns, and tangible loss were salient in
the decisions of women not to seek help (Fugate et al., 2005). Perhaps more important
theoretically, evidence suggests that such barriers impede women’s help-seeking only
until a particular threshold is reached, at which point women’s concern for their personal
safety prompts them to seek help in spite of these barriers (Fugate et al., 2005; see also
Campbell et al., 1998). Unfortunately, research into these issues to date is insufficient,
and, as with the other models, attention to the experiences of marginalized women is non-
existent.

Rational Choice Theory
More recently, Kingsnorth & Macintosh (2004) placed battered women’s help-

seeking in a theoretical context using rational choice theory. In their analysis, the authors

suggest that battered women’s support for official action is based on a “complex decision
making process in which they seek to weigh the costs and benefits of involving criminal
justice system officials in their lives” (Kingsnorth & MacIntosh, 2004, p. 322). For
example, the authors state that different groups may arrive at different conclusions about
help-seeking during their cost-benefit analysis, noting that race/ethnicity, cohabitation,
and prior history of violence each significantly influence whether battered women choose
to involve criminal justice authorities. This idea is supported by other studies that have
relied on the concept of rational or reasoned action to understand battered women’s
actions, particularly in terms of women’s stay/leave decisions (e. g., see Choice & Lamke,
1997)

However, rational choice theory is too simplistic to be a sufficient theoretical
framework for understanding the complex help-seeking decisions battered women make.
As the discussion in Chapter Two makes clear, marginalized battered women face
enormous structural and cultural forces that complicate their help-seeking decisions
beyond simply weighing the pros and cons of leaving their abusers. Therefore, rational
choice theory is inadequate because its focus on simply evaluating and selecting from
available options is too individualistic, de-contextualizes the experiences of battered
women, and isolates women’s decisions from the broader social structure (e. g., see
Websdale, 1998). For example, regarding the limited selection of “options” for rural
battered women, Websdale (1998, p. 171) remarks, “Rural battered women’s ‘choices’
often boil down to remaining with abusers and enduring/resisting violence. leaving the
abuser and enduring poverty under the welfare system, or leaving the abuser and entering

wage work in a hostile gendered capitalist economy”. Although women forced to choose

between unappealing help-seeking options undoubtedly do weigh the costs and benefits
of each, failure to consider that structural forces dictate the availability of those options
severely limits rational choice theory as a model to explain help-seeking. Although
Kingsnorth and MacIntosh (2004, pp. 311-312) rightly observe that we must move away
from studies that “characterize victim support for intervention as a static single-stage
phenomenon rather than an evolving orientation capable of change over time,” rational
choice theory is too astructural to be theoretically relevant to the experiences of
marginalized women.
The Psychological Process Model

An even more recent effort to theorize about battered women’s help-seeking
appears in the psychological literature. Liang et a1. (2005) propose a process-oriented
theoretical framework for understanding help-seeking. That is, the authors view help-
seeking as a reciprocal three stage decision-making process in which women: (1)
recognize, define, and appraise their abusive relationship as problematic, (2) decide to
seek help for this problem, and (3) determine the appropriate help provider (i.e., informal
versus formal systems of support). Importantly, the authors note that this process both
influences and is influenced by individual (e.g., severity of violence, self-blame).
interpersonal (e. g., nature of relationship with partner, concerns over negative police
response), and socio-cultural (e.g., cultural norms, limited access to resources) factors.
With inclusion of this socio-cultural element. this framework represents an improvement
over the rational choice model; however, it does not go far enough to address the unique
vulnerabilities of marginalized women or the structuring influence of intersecting systems

of power. Rather than simply recognizing that structural forces influence individual help-

seeking decisions, a viable theoretical help-seeking model must be grounded in the

unique experiences of marginalized women.

Centering Help-Seeking Theories on Marginalized Women

We know from the discussion in Chapter Two that women from marginalized
social groups, including women of color, immigrant women, poor and working class
women, and women living in rural areas, are particularly vulnerable to IPV. In addition,
Chapter Two illustrates that marginalized women face significant barriers to help-seeking
beyond those that exist for the general population of battered women. It is also true that
efforts to theorize about battered women’s help-seeking have excluded the unique
experiences of marginalized women. Taken together, these factors provide justification
for developing analyses that are centered on marginalized women, yet there is another
reason why efforts to understand help-seeking should begin with women from
marginalized social groups, as discussed below.

Even as late as the early 19805, IPV was regarded by most government and public
officials as a private family matter that did not warrant legal intervention. Agents of the
criminal justice system were especially reluctant to become involved in domestic
disputes, either because they implicitly condoned men’s use of violence against'their
female partners or because they believed that familial violence should not be the concern
of the state (Ford, 1983). In order to counter this prevailing attitude and in an effort to
bring woman battering to the forefront of public consciousness, mainstream anti-violence

activists adopted rhetoric that emphasized the criminalization of IPV. These advocates

L»)
O

wanted to establish a “law and order” approach in which IPV was treated seriously by the
criminal justice system (Richie, 1996; Sokoloff& Dupont, 2005).

Of course, assault has always been a crime. However, feminist activists
recognized that while stranger and intimate partner assault “are legally identical, they are
sociologically distinct” (Hoyle & Sanders, 2000, p. 14). For example, advocates
criticized the fact that stranger assaults were sanctioned by the criminal justice system
more harshly than were intimate assaults, and attempted to give “equal justice” to women
who were assaulted by their intimate partners (Hirschel & Hutchinson, 2003; Richie,
1996). Moreover, the criminalization of IPV was intended to serve both general and -
specific deterrent purposes, as well as symbolic purposes by emphasizing the “moral
unacceptability of domestic violence” (Hoyle & Sanders, 2000). The most visible result
of this law and order orientation was the establishment of mandatory- and pro-arrest
policies, as well as “no drop” prosecution policies that eliminated women’s ability to halt
prosecution of their partners (Bui, 2001; Ford, 2003; Hoyle & Sanders, 2000).

One unintended consequence of this stance was the positioning of the criminal
justice system as the primary means of help-seeking for IPV (Almeida & Lockard, 2005;
Josephson, 2002; Richie, 1996). as evidenced by the heavy emphasis on criminal justice
responses embedded in the landmark Violence Against Women Act ("Violence Against
Women Act", 1994). As a consequence, a norm developed in which battered women
were expected to invoke the criminal justice system to prove that they were “serious”
about getting help (Ford, 1983. 2003; Hirschel & Hutchinson, 2003; Hoyle & Sanders.
2000). These efforts to emphasize the criminalization of domestic violence were

especially damaging to marginalized battered women because they fostered reliance on a

criminal justice system that often is unresponsive to, and at times blatantly discriminatory
toward, marginalized women and men (Richie, 1996; A. Smith, 2005; Websdale, 2001).
As Almeida & Lockard (2005, p. 318) succinctly observe, “Given the racism, classism,
sexism, and homophobia inherent in the criminal justice system, heavy reliance on that
structure to end family violence is problematic”.

Equally problematic for marginalized battered women is a second piece of
antiviolence rhetoric that emphasized the universalization of IPV. “It can happen to
anyone” was a phrase echoed by early activists in order to emphasize that IPV transcends
race and class status. As a political strategy, then, feminist advocates purposefully
downplayed the fact that women from marginalized groups are more vulnerable to IPV in
favor of emphasizing that all women are equally susceptible to abuse (Crenshaw, 1991;
Richie, 1996; Sokoloff, 2004). The problem with this universalizing approach is that it
served to reaffirm the needs of majority-group women. As Richie (2000, p. 1135) notes,
“when the national dialogue on violence against women became legitimized and
institutionalized, the notion that ‘It could happen to anyone’ meant that ‘It could happen
to those in power.’ Subsequently, the ones who mattered most in society got the most
visibility and the most public sympathy. . .”.

This rhetoric ignored marginalized women’s increased need for specialized IPV
services, the funding for which may be reduced based on the idea that white, middle-class
women must have services available to them, too (Josephson, 2002). In other words, it
was suggested that there is a risk posed even to those women whom we would least
expect to be victimized by their intimate partners: white women of means. This

observation was particularly problematic for marginalized battered women, who face

daunting structural barriers to help-seeking as outlined in Chapter Two. As a result, the
unique needs of marginalized women were glossed over in favor of a universal “battered
women’s” experience (Hamby, 2000; Josephson, 2002; Richie, 2000; Sokoloff, 2004).

Thus, rhetoric that emphasized the criminalization of IPV fostered reliance on a
criminal justice system that marginalized women had limited opportunity or inclination to
use, while rhetoric that emphasized the universalization of IPV called attention away
from the structural barriers that influence help-seeking among marginalized women. In
addition, the idea that all women are- equally vulnerable to IPV reduced justification for
providing services that are targeted at marginalized women’s unique needs. Considered
together, the end result was the “erasure” of marginalized battered women from anti-
violence measures (Richie, 2000, p. 1135). By alienating women who are particularly
vulnerable to intimate abuse, these circumstances ultimately did a disservice to
marginalized battered women.

Together, this “erasure” of marginalized women, coupled with their increased
vulnerability to IPV, their exposure to additional help-seeking barriers, and their absence
from efforts to theorize about help-seeking, create a need for analyses that can offer a
corrective. Specifically, it is crucial that IPV studies—particularly those that aim to
make theoretical advancements—are centered on the experiences of women from
marginalized social groups (Sokoloff, 2004; Sokoloff & Dupont, 2004, 2005; Sokoloff &
Pratt, 2005). For example, theoretical frameworks of help-seeking must recognize the
structural nature oflPV (Websdale, 1998; Websdale & Johnson, 1997) and must. inform
intervention strategies that are culturally competent and relevant for marginalized women

(Almeida & Lockard. 2005; Coker. 2000).

33

Summary
This chapter demonstrates the need to improve theoretical frameworks of battered
women’s help-seeking. Although several attempts have been made to theorize about
help-seeking, the absence of marginalized women’s experiences hampers these efforts
and leaves much room for improvement. These factors set the stage for this dissertation,
which focuses on the experiences of marginalized women and which aims to advance and

improve help-seeking theory, as discussed in the following chapters.

34

CHAPTER FOUR:
METHODOLOGY

9’ The purpose of this dissertation is to improve understanding of battered women’s
help-seeking, and to advance a theoretical framework of help-seeking that is rooted in the
experiences of marginalized women. To that end, this dissertation uses a qualitative
analysis of data from in-depth, semi-structured interviews. This chapter presents an
overview of this study and is divided into two sections. The first section provides
justification for the use of qualitative methodology, while the second section outlines the

research project and offers descriptive data for the sample.

Methodological Justification

Qualitative research methods have several advantages that are relevant to this
dissertation. First, qualitative analyses allow access to data concerning particularly
sensitive topics (Rosenblatt & Fischer, 1993) and to particularly vulnerable populations,
such as marginalized battered women, that may otherwise be inaccessible to researchers
(Maeve, 1998). Further, qualitative methods are characterized by an interpretive and
reflexive relationship between researcher and subject (Maeve, 1998). The relative
proximity of researchers to their subjects coupled with the desire to unearth the meanings
attached to subjects’ experiences provide qualitative researchers the opportunity to
increase disclosure of sensitive information and access to hard-to-reach groups.
“Qualitative strategies are also advantageous in studying topics where feelings, thoughts,

meanings, and accounts are complex. qualified. ambivalent, situational. or different at

35

different times” (Rosenblatt & Fischer, 1993, p. 173). In other words, qualitative
methods are particularly appropriate for collecting data in contexts that may otherwise
challenge or frustrate information-gathering conducted using quantitative techniques.
Clearly, battered women’s experiences are complex, and this is particularly true of
women from marginalized social groups. As a consequence of the complexity and
variation that characterize these experiences, qualitative approaches are especially
applicable to the study of battered women’s help-seeking.

Second, one goal of qualitative methodologies is “thick description” (Cupchik,
2001). This means that qualitative analysis is undertaken in an attempt to collect rich and
detailed information about social phenomena from the perspective of the participants and
their lived experiences. “Thick description” refers to the identification and reconstruction
of meanings that individuals attach to certain events. In other words, “this type of
analysis is directed toward drawing out a complete picture of the observed events, the
actors involved, the rules associated with certain activities, and the social contexts in
which these elements arise” (Berg, 2004, p. 181). The utility of qualitative analysis in
contextualizing research findings is particularly advantageous for social science inquiries.

Third, qualitative methodologies are particularly advantageous in theory
development (Creswell, 2003; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998; Teddlie & Tashakkori,
2003). As Hagan (2000) notes, qualitative researchers seek to develop “sensitizing
concepts” that advance one’s understanding or explanation of reality. Because the
emphasis of qualitative research is on describing, understanding, and explaining the
experiences of individuals in particular settings, it follows that such rich information is

useful for developing theories that attempt to explain social phenomena. Further,

qualitative methodologies typically are marked by inductive logic—"that is, deriving
general themes from specific observations—which further adds to their utility in theory
development. Finally, the ability of qualitative methodologies to access information of a
sensitive nature or among vulnerable populations enhances their utility for theory
construction:
[Qualitative] methodology allows extensive probing in areas that have not
been well studied and in which tightly structured nonqualitative
approaches are difficult to use because of a lack of theory or research
literature to guide tightly structured investigation. Thus, qualitative family
research can be valuable in theory development (Rosenblatt & Fischer,
1993,p.173)
Investigations of help-seeking benefit greatly from a tool that facilitates theory
development (Liang et al., 2005), therefore qualitative analysis is especially appropriate

in this analysis.

Methodological Overview
Research Questions
This analysis seeks to answer the following research questions: How do battered
women marginalized by intersecting race, class. and gender systems make decisions to
get help? What factors influence their decisions? What is important to them as they

make the decision to get help, and as they decide which outlets to pursue for assistance?

Research Sites

Battered women who attended IPV support groups were recruited from two
research sites: “Southeast City,” a mid-sized urban city of roughly 190,000 residents in a
southeastern state, and “Midwest Metro,” a large urban center of roughly 900,000
residents located in a midwestem state.
Southeast City

The first research site, Southeast City, is the largest city in Southeast County and
one of most populous cities in the state (pop. 190,000). According to the 2000 US.
Census, the city population is 55.6% white, 37.1% Black, and 8.6% Hispanic, while just
over half (53%) of the city’s residents are women (see Table 1). The median household-
income in 1999 was roughly $37,000, and 15.2% of the city’s population was living
below the poverty level at that time. Southeast City is demographically quite similar to
the county in which it is located, though it has a slightly higher Black and Hispanic
population and its residents tend to be slightly poorer than county residents. Moreover,
though there are several small cities adjacent to Southeast City, the county itself contains

many rural areas as well.

38

Table 1. Research Site Population Data, Year 2000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Southeast Southeast Midwest Midwest
City County Metro County

Population 190,299 306, 919 91 1,402 2,016, 202
Percent female 53.0 52.2 52.9 52.0
Percent Black 37.1 25.6 81.6 ‘-42.2
Percent white 55.6 68.5 12.3 51.7
Percent Hispanic 8.6 6.4 5.0 3.7
Percent H.S. grads
(trig: 25+) 80.2 82.0 69.6 77.0
Percent
homeowners 55.8 65.6 54.9 66.6
Median home
value $102,200 $1 14,000 $63,600 $99,400
Median income* $37,006 $42,097 $29,526 $40,776
Percent below _
poverty 15.2 11.0 26.1 16.4
Land area (sq mi) 109 410 139 614
Persons per sq mi 1706.7 747.2 6855.1 3356.1

 

* Denotes 1999 data

Southeast County, and to a lesser extent Southeast City, has demonstrated a strong

commitment to addressing IPV through infra-agency collaborations and partnerships. For

example, the county recently consolidated representatives from all of its domestic

violence support services (e. g., law enforcement, legal aid, victims services, etc.) in the

county court building, located in Southeast City, in an effort to streamline service

provision for IPV survivors. The city’s shelter (in which the support group is housed)

was funded principally by United Way monies. as well as state and federal funds and

private donations. A converted retirement home that is striking in its attractiveness. the

shelter houses 24 women. In addition. several of the adjacent cities have their own

shelters as well. Some of the Southeast City participants mentioned that they either had

been to (or had the opportunity to go to) a shelter in a nearby city, suggesting that

reasonable opportunities exist for women to receive emergency shelter. The agency that

 

runs both the support group and the shelter is a county-level service provider that offers a
broad array of family support services not limited to domestic violence programs, so it is
well connected to the community. Finally, with respect to law enforcement, both the
county and the city police departments have either mandatory- or pro-arrest policies.
This fact will become important during the discussion in the following chapter of women
who were court-ordered to attend the support group because they were arrested after
having called the police.
Midwest Metro

The second research site, Midwest Metro, is the most populous city both in
Midwest County and in the state, having just under a million residents. According to the
2000 US. Census, the city population is overwhelmingly Black (81.6%), withjust 12.3%
white and 5.0% Hispanic residents (see Table 1). Like Southeast City, just over half
(52.9%) of Midwest Metro’s residents are women. The median household income in
1999 was $29,526, and over one-quarter (26%) of the city’s population was living below
the poverty level at that time. Midwest Metro is demographically very unlike the county
in which it is located, having roughly twice as many Black residents as, and a median
income roughly $10,000 less than. Midwest County. Moreover, a sprawling suburban
area surrounds Midwest Metro. and the county itself is home to some of the most affluent
communities in the US.

As with many other of its public services, Midwest Metro is characterized by
inadequate domestic violence services relative to the number of residents it must serve.
For example, there is only one battered women’s shelter in a city of nearly a million

people. Although that shelter has 67 beds, the program director in Midwest Metro

40

indicated that there often is insufficient bed space because residents may have as many as
five or six children staying with them, thereby reducing the actual number of beds
available for women requiring emergency shelter. The only other women’s shelter in the
county is located some 30 miles away in a (predominately white, affluent) community
that is largely inaccessible to many of the city’s residents, particularly those who are poor
and/or who lack transportation. The faith-based agency that runs the support group—
located in a small, non-descript building—is small and self-contained, and is funded
chiefly by individual and corporate donations, as well as by grant monies. Moreover, it is
one of only two such programs for IPV survivors in the entire city. Finally, crime rates in
Midwest Metro are notoriously among the highest in the nation, meaning that the city
police department must respond to substantial amounts of serious, violent crime. Thus,
as expressed by at least one participant in this research site, long delays sometimes can
occur after a call to police is placed.
Sampling Strategy

This study utilizes a convenience sample of women from marginalized social
groups who had experienced at least one incident of emotional, verbal, physical, or sexual
abuse by an intimate partner, and who attended a community-based IPV support group.
This sampling frame was chosen in an attempt to access women who had used the
broadest array of help-seeking behaviors possible, both informal and formal. For
example. unlike women in shelter- or police-based samples who by definition have ’
engaged in relatively substantial formal help-seeking. several women in this sample had
engaged in little fomral help-seeking, limited only to support group attendance. Of

course, all of the women in this sample had engaged in some type of formal help-seeking

41

by attending the support group (or by utilizing the criminal justice system, which then
resulted in their support group attendance), meaning that the sample necessarily contains
selection bias. Still, by not limiting the sample to women who had necessarily called the
police or sought shelter, this study maximizes the spectrum of help-seeking behaviors
utilized by the participants.

Participants were recruited by a key informant from the support group in each
city. The key informants assisted in identifying and scheduling interviews with women
who were willing to participate in the research study. Each participant who was
interviewed was compensated in the amount of $25. The'money for this remuneration .
was provided by the Michigan State University School of Criminal Justice, and was given
to every participant who was interviewed, regardless of length or completeness of the
interview.

Interviews were conducted between May and August 2006. I began by
interviewing women in Southeast City. Once initial interviews there were completed, I
analyzed the data and looked for emerging themes. Suspecting that some of the themes
identified during the first round of interviews might be regionally specific, I sought out a
group of similarly situated women in a different geographic area by selecting Midwest
Metro as my second research site. With the addition of a non-southern research site. I
aimed to explore whether and to what extent the experiences of the women in Southeast
City were shared by the women in Midwest Metro by comparing data from the two

locations.

Safety & Privacy Concerns

As the sample consists of battered women, maintaining the physical safety of the
participants was paramount. This research project posed little additional risk to
participants. beyond what they had already experienced. Interviews were conducted
where the support groups normally met, so participants were not asked to travel to an
unfamiliar location. Each participant was informed before her interview that if at any
time she believed her safety or the safety of her children to be at risk, she should
immediately terminate her participation in the study and take the necessary safety
precautions.

Participants’ privacy was protected in several ways. First, participants chose
pseudonyms for use during the research project. (1 assigned pseudonyms to women who
chose to use their real names during the interviews.) Once interviews were transcribed
and data analysis was completed, the interviews were re-checked to ensure that no
identifying information was included in the transcripts. At no time were the pseudonyms
linked with participants’ real names in the final analysis. Second, data confidentiality
was maintained by storing all files on a password-protected computer to which I alone
have access. I also obtained verbal and written consent from each participant. Before
being interviewed, every participant signed a complete informed consent form stating: (1)
that her participation is entirely voluntary, (2) that she may discontinue her participation
in the project at any time and with no consequence (particularly if physical safety is a
concern), and (3) that provision of support group services is in no way contingent upon or

otherwise influenced by her participation in the study. Finally. participants were given

43

the opportunity to ask questions or voice their concerns about the study or their
participation in it before interviews began.
Analytic Strategy

A systematic analysis of the research literature on battered women’s help-seeking
was first conducted in order to identify factors shown to influence help-seeking, and to
aid in the formulation of questions for the interview instrument. 3 The interview
instrument contains many questions that I aimed to cover during the interviews; however,
as the interviews were semi-structured, each of these questions was not asked in a
sequential fashion. Rather, I asked the participants three broad questions: (1) What was it
like for you growing up?, (2) What was your relationship with your partner like?,” and
(3) What was the first time you decided to tell someone or get help?, and followed their
responses from there. I was sure to cover each question on the interview instrument
during the interview, although I did so by asking questions in an order that made sense in
the women’s developing narratives.

After collecting and coding interview data in the first research site (as described
below), I identified themes that were important to understanding the participants’ help-
seeking decisions. Once the first round of data collection was completed, I selected an
additional research site, from which I collected a second round of data. Results from the
second round of data collection were compared to the first and themes were re-examined
and refined.

It is important to note that the data in this dissertation are not limited to women’s
current romantic partnership. That is. I made the decision to include and analyze

information about help-seeking in any abusive relationship that women had experienced.

 

” See Appendix A for the interview instrument.

44

 

 

This decision was made for two reasons, one practical and one theoretical. First,
including information only from current relationships would have dramatically reduced
the amount of data in this study. Some of the most insightful and informative comments
women made concerned previous relationships, and this useful information would have
been lost had I excluded prior relationship data from the analysis. Second, it became
clear during data analysis that women’s previous experiences with abuse and help-
seeking were theoretically relevant. This discovery, coupled with a desire to maximize
data quantity and quality, resulted in the decision to include any and all help-seeking
experiences.
Coding Scheme

Data from the in-depth interviews were coded using an evolving coding paradigm.
First, data were coded using an open coding system, an unstructured approach to coding
in which the researcher identifies themes as they emerge from the data. The aim of this
initial stage of coding is to identify concepts that fit the data (Strauss, 1987). Once I
became comfortable with the themes that emerged from the open coding system, I moved
on to a second and more refined coding system, axial coding. In axial coding, data
analysis is centered on one category at a time; in other words, the category forms the axis
of the code. As the researcher becomes more confident in the categories identified in
open coding, a transition is made to focusing on particular categories through axial
coding (Strauss, 1987). The final coding system was selective coding, in which data are
collected and coded systematically around the principle, or core category (Strauss, 1987).
A core category is one that anchors the data analysis, and that unites all of the themes that

are identified throughout the coding process (Strauss, 1987). Thus. once a core category

has been identified, axial coding gives way to selective coding, which is used to
specifically code around the core category.

Initial (open) coding was performed using the N6 software program. This
program facilitates the coding process and provides an electronic means of categorizing
and sorting blocks of text. Once I moved from open to axial and selective coding, I no
longer used the N6 program and instead coded by hand. Whereas the software program
was useful in the early stages of analysis when I was dealing with large amounts of data,
as the data analysis became more directed and manageable I felt it was easier and faster
to code by hand.

Trustworthiness & Credibility

Where quantitative studies demonstrate rigor though reliability and validity
checks, qualitative studies use alternative measures of “trustworthiness,” such as
credibility. “Credibility, a criterion of trustworthiness in the naturalist paradigm that is
similar to internal validity, is concerned with whether the reconstruction in the research
findings represents constructed realities of participants” (Wuest & Merritt-Gray, 1999, p.
115). Some suggested steps for ensuring credibility of one’s findings include
documenting important decision-making processes in an “audit trail,” and keeping
research memos in order to record important thoughts, ideas, impressions, and hunches
(Cutcliffe & McKenna, 1999). Other strategies for ensuring trustworthiness include
triangulating data sources, maintaining a reflexive journal, and debriefing with fellow
researchers (Lopez & Emmer. 2000). Several of these steps to ensure credibility and
enhance trustworthiness were taken in this study. First, I created research memos

detailing my initial reactions, insights. observations. and ideas about preliminary

46

findings. These memos were coded for themes along with the interview transcripts, and
they also serve to document the development of my data analysis. Further, I engaged in
peer debriefing by sharing my memos and the coded interview transcripts containing my
emerging findings with my committee members. I also debriefed regularly with my ’
dissertation chair, who observed my presentation to the participants in both research sites,
as well as my first several interviews. Finally, I also spoke informally with the key
informants in both research sites and shared with them my emergent findings. I took
notes during my conversations with the key informants and, when appropriate, used their
insight in analyzing the data.
Researcher Re exivity

A defining characteristic of qualitative methodology is researcher reflexivity.
Reflexivity “implies a shift in the way [researchers] understand data and their collection.
To accomplish this, the researcher must make use of an internal dialogue that repeatedly
examines what the researcher knows and how the researcher came to know this” (Berg,
2004, p. 154, emphasis in original). In other words, rather than assuming a stance of
assumed neutrality, reflexive researchers evaluate how their presence shapes the
construction of knowledge at each stage of the research process (Malterud, 2001).

From the outset, I worried about the social distance between myself and the
- women I would interview, and what effect our dissimilarities might have on the
information they chose to reveal to me. Certainly, I share little in common with the
women in my study: I am white, college educated, not economically disadvantaged, and
not an IPV survivor. This is particularly true in Southeast City, where my status as an

outsider also included being a “yankee”. (Some ofthe women there took good-natured

47

jabs at me about by my “accent”.) I also was cognizant of how my status as a university
researcher shaped the women’s impressions of me. For example, several of the women
addressed me as “ma’am,” despite my repeated assurances that such formality was
unnecessary. Thus, I anticipated that the women might regard me either with skepticism
and distrust or with an exaggerated sense of deference (or a combination of the two), and
wondered about how this dynamic would influence the amount and type of information
the women chose to share with me during the interviews.

Informed by the assumptions of feminist standpoint epistemology (e. g., see
Hartsock, 1998), I proceeded with the understanding that I could achieve at best only a
partial understanding of the women’s experiences. I also was keenly aware that the
manner in which the women represented their lives likely would have differed had they
been interviewed by a member of their own community. With that knowledge in mind, I
worked to establish a trustworthy relationship with the participants in order to facilitate
their willingness to speak with me. For example, after meeting with me privately, the key
informants in each site spoke to their clients on my behalf, describing me as a safe ally in
whom they could feel comfortable confiding. The key informants’ endorsement acted as
a “buffer” against the social distance between myself and the women, encouraging them
to share their experiences with me. I also made an initial presentation introducing myself
and describing my research project to the women in each research site during one of the
group counseling sessions. Despite my initial concerns that I would be greeted with
skepticism and distrust (and notwithstanding the surprising amount of nervousness I

experienced before my very first address in Southeast City). my presentation was met

48

with a mixture of excitement and appreciativeness, and the women generally were eager
to speak with me.

Like other researchers who have interviewed across great social distance and
found their participants to be generally forthcoming (e. g., Websdale, 1998), I perceived
the women to be extremely candid during their interviews. Time and again, they shared
with me—an outsider and a complete stranger—incredibly painful, private, and personal
details of their lives. In fact, more than one woman stated that I was the first person to
whom she had ever revealed such intimate details of her relationship. After the
interviews were completed, women in both research sites expressed gratitude for the
opportunity to tell their stories, and thanked me repeatedly for taking an interest in—and
thereby acknowledging and validating—their experiences. For these reasons, I believe
that providing the women the opportunity to “give voice” to their experiences went a long

way toward overcoming the potential challenges presented by our social distance.

Sample Characteristics
The sample for this study consists of 19 women: 15 from Southeast City and four
from Midwest Metro (see Table 2). The women range in age from 21 to 57, with the
mean age being 31. The sample is fairly racially diverse: 12 (63.2%) of the women are
Black, 5 (26.3%) are white, one is a Spanish-speaking Latina, and one self-identified as
“multicultural”. Like all four women in Midwest Metro, eight women in Southeast City

lived in the community at the time of the interview. while the remaining seven women

49

were shelter residents.4 Just over half(57.9%) of the women were employed in some
capacity (part-time, full-time, or self-employed) at the time of the interview. Seven
women (36.8%) were married to their partners at the time of the interview, and all but
four (78.9%) have children.’ Five of the 15 women in Southeast City were court-ordered
to attend the support group, either because they had been arrested on scene after calling
the police for help, or because they had failed to appear at a hearing at which they were
scheduled to testify against their partners (i.e., they were “show-caused” into the support
group). It is not possible to be court-ordered into the program in Midwest Metro, so this

issue did not apply to the women there.

 

’ The support group in Midwest Metro provides extended services——that is, after the time ofinitial crisis
and often after a woman has left her partner——which likely explains why none ofthe women in that city
stayed in a shelter at the time ofthe interviews.

50

Table 2. Sample Descriptive Data (N=19)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variable N (%)

Location

Southeast City 15 (78.9)

Midwest Metro 4 (21.1)
Age

Range 21-57

Mean 31
Race

Black 12 (63.2)

White 5 (26.3)

Latina 1 (5.3)

Multi 1 (5.3)
Residence

Community 8 (42.1)

Shelter 7 (36.8)
Employed

Yes 11 (57.9)

No 8 (42.1)
Married

Yes 7 (36.8)

No 12 (63.2)
Children

Yes 15 (78.9)

No 4 (21.1)
Court-Ordered*

Yes 5 (33.3)

No 10 (66.6)

 

 

 

* Southeast City only (N=15)

The women in this study experience marginalization in multiple and
multiplicative ways. First, 14 of the 19 participants (73.7%) are women of color who
occupy a marginalized social location on the basis of race/ethnicity. Two of the women
are immigrants (one white, one Latina); the former moved to the United States from
Germany as young child while the latter arrived from Mexico as a teenager. Many of the

woman experienced economic marginalization, in some cases because they had grown up

51

 

very poor, but more often owing to ongoing financial struggles in adulthood. For
example, eight women (42.1%) were unemployed at the time of the interview, and
several discussed at length their economic hardships, including lack of transportation and
insufficient money for housing, child care, and, at times, basic necessities such as diapers.
Further, most of the economically marginalized women are women of color, thereby
underscoring the role of intersecting systems of power such as race/ethnicity and class.
As for other sources of marginalization, a few of the women recounted growing up in
remote, rural areas of the country, while the two foreign-bom women described
experiences of cultural isolation. However, all of the women reported having male
partners, so none was marginalized due to sexual orientation; likewise religious
marginalization was not a factor as none of the women identified as being non-Christian.5

Women in the sample experienced a wide array of abusive behaviors in their
relationships, ranging from verbal abuse only to savage, life-threatening beatings.
Notably, eight women (42.1%) had been in more than one abusive relationship (see
Table 3), sometimes going back as early as high school. This finding has important
implications for help-seeking, as Chapter Six reveals, but for now it is relevant to recall
that the abuse data reported here include experiences from any of the women’s

relationships, not necessarily her most current partner.

 

5 See Appendix B fora data display of participants’ demographic profiles.

52

Table 3. Abuse Experiences in Any Relationship

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type of Abuse N (%)
Verbal/emotional abuse 19 (100)
Threats/control tactics 17 (89.5)
Partner substance abuse . 11 (57.9)
Moderate physical abuse ‘- 18 (94.7)
Severe physical abuse 8 (42.1)
Sexual abuse 5 (26.3)
Child threats/abuse 6 (31.6)
More than one abusive partner 8 (42. 1)

 

 

 

 

Some abusive behaviors were universally experienced. For example, every
woman in the sample reported experiencing verbal and/or emotional abuse, such as when
their partners called them names or made embarrassing or degrading comments about
them. Similarly, all but two women reported that their partners threatened them (often
involving threats to kill), or engaged in control tactics such as taking away car keys or
refusing access to cash. In some cases these measures of control were extreme, leaving
women virtual prisoners in their own homes. For example, Lana’s partner insisted that
she shower with him, and failing to obey him would result in physical abuse. Similarly,
Nikki was not allowed to leave her bedroom for long periods of time under her partner’s
threats of death. In some cases, control was exerted in the form of physical violence with
which women were “punished” for their transgressions, like overcooking their partner’s
broccoli or failing to stop a housefly from entering the home. Other control tactics
centered around the children. For example, Keira tearfully recalled how her partner
prevented her from attending to her young son, whom he had locked in a bedroom,
despite the toddler’s extended sobbing and frantic pleas. Nearly 60% of the sample
reported that their partners’ abusive episodes were fueled by drugs and/or alcohol use, or

that their partners had a substance abuse problem.

53

All but one woman reported incidents of moderate physical abuse. (The
exception, Eleanor, had a partner who emotionally abused her and who physically abused
the minor child living in their home, but who never physically assaulted her.) For the
purposes of this analysis, moderate abuse includes violence that generally would not
require immediate medical attention, including slapping, hitting, punching, kicking,
biting, pulling hair, and the like. In contrast, eight women (42.1%) experienced severe
physical abuse, or that which likely would require immediate medical attention.
Examples of severe physical abuse experienced by the participants include being burned
with a hot iron, being kicked in the head with a steel-toed boot, and being struck in the
head with a cast-iron frying pan. Some women’s injuries even were disfiguring or life-
threatening, including broken noses, jaws, teeth, and ribs, stabbings, and, in Nikki’s case,
having her nipple bitten off of her breast. Several women reported being assaulted while
pregnant (or that the abuse began after they became pregnant), and at times their fetuses
were endangered. Five women (26.3%) reported that their partners sexually assaulted
them, with some describing how their partners treated them like “sex slaves.”
Additionally, six women (31.6%) indicated that the abuse was directed at their minor
child(ren), either in the form of verbal abuse or threats or involving actual physical

6
abuse.

Summary '
This chapter presents justification for the use of qualitative methodology in this
dissertation, and provides an overview of the research project. The sample descriptive

data familiarizes the reader with the study participants, and serves as a reminder that they

 

6 See Appendix C for a data display ofparticipants' abuse experiences.

54

' are real women who have had very real—and very frightening—experiences with IPV.
Research results concerning the women’s help-seeking decisions are presented in the

following two chapters.

55

CHAPTER FIVE:
RE—EXAMININ G HELP-SEEKING

The results of this dissertation are presented in two parts. First, this chapter
presents information about the women’s help-seeking strategies and the factors that
shaped their help-seeking decisions. This chapter also returns to the discussion of
barriers begun in Chapter Two to see what, if any, barriers to help-seeking were
encountered by the participants. Next, Chapter Six identifies concepts and themes that
emerged from the data that may be used in offering a theoretical framework for
understanding battered women’s help-seeking decisions. Together, these two chapters

provide a thorough picture of the women’s help-seeking that emerged from this analysis.

Help-Seeking Strategies Used

Quite purposefully, this dissertation uses the broadest possible definition of “help-
seeking”. In contrast to analyses that count the number of participants who engage in
pie-determined help-seeking activities (i.e., calling the police), in coding the data I
identified as help-seeking any behavior that might reasonably be conceived of as an effort
to ameliorate abuse, including actions like praying for guidance or changing the locks.
My decision to include private or personal survival strategies is supported by other help-
seeking studies that have done the same (e.g., see Bowker, 1983). Once tallied. 1 divided
these strategies into two categories: informal and formal. In contrast to informal
strategies. formal strategies involve a person or agency acting in an official capacity, or a

source of support that is “officially sanctioned by the community” (Bowker. 1983, p. 87).

56

Some researchers draw distinctions between “personal” strategies, such as hiding or
attempting to dissuade one’s partner from becoming violent, and informal strategies like
telling friends or relatives about the abuse (Bowker, 1983). However, as a criminologist
the primary distinction of interest for me is informal versus formal help-seeking I
(especially using the criminal justice system), therefore in this analysis I consider
“personal” and “informal” strategies together. Finally, using an inclusive approach to
coding help-seeking behaviors allowed the most complete possible picture of help—
seeking to emerge.
Informal Strategies

Mirroring the findings of most help-seeking studies, participants in this study
engaged in a wide array of informal help-seeking strategies (see Table 4). At the most
basic level, six women (31.6%) told a relative or a friend about the abuse, while three
women (15.8%) told their pastor or someone at their church. Some of the women
engaged in what can be described as very private help-seeking strategies, such as secretly
plotting their escape from the relationship (15.8%), engaging in peacekeeping strategies
like complying with their partners’ requests for sex or money (10.5%), avoiding their
partner by sleeping in separate rooms (26.3%), or other preventative measures like

changing the locks or their telephone number (10.5%).7

 

7 See Appendix D for a data display of participants’ informal help-seeking strategies.

57

Table 4. Help-Seeking Strategies Used in Any Relationship

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Help-Seeking Strategy [ N L%)
Informal
Fought back/used self-defense 10 (52.6)
Separated from partner/moved out 7 (36.8)
Prayed/ask for God’s help 7 (36.8)
Told family or friends 6 (31.6)
Fled the home 5 (26.3)
Avoidance/slgept on couch 5 (26.3)
Told pastor or people at church 3 (15.8)
Alerted neighbors (e.g., by screaming) 3 (15.8)
Plotted to leave/planned escape 3 (15.8)
Contemplated killing partner 2 (10.5)
Used peacekegiing (e.g., complied with request for sex or money) 2 Q05)
Asked partner to go to counseling 2 (10.5)
Changed locks/phone number 2 (10.5)
Used private/self-help 1 (5.3)
Formal
Contacted police 14 (73.7)
Entered shelter 11 (57.9)
Took out warrant/pressed charges 9 (47.4)
Obtained protection order 7 (36.8)
Sought out support group* 6 (42.9)
Went to hospital for medical treatment 4 (21 .1)
Told other professional personnel (e.g., social worker) 4 (21.1)
Testified in court 3 (15.8)
Filed for divorce 3 (15.8)
Told medical/health care personnel 3 (15.8)
Hired attorney 1 (5.3)

 

 

*Excludes court-ordered women (N=14)

58

 

It is important that these types of private or surreptitious forms of help-seeking be
recognized. While outward appearances might suggest that women using these personal
methods did not actively seek help, in fact they engaged in what Gondolf & Fisher (1988)
termed “survival strategies,” which, though private, are nonetheless examples of help-
seeking. One poignant example helps to illustrate this point. In her interview, Keira
recalled one strategy she used to fend of her partner’s sexual assaults: “I wouldn’t bathe
thinkin’ he wouldn’t touch me because of it. ...” Keira’s attempts to make herself
undesirable in an effort to prevent her partner from raping her emphasize that it is
important to use an inclusive definition of help-seeking. Stated differently, her efforts
might otherwise go undetected in investigations using more narrowly defined help-
seeking behaviors.

Other women used more visible informal measures, such as fleeing the home
(26.3%) or, rather ingenuously, alerting neighbors to an incident of abuse by screaming
(15.8%). As Rhonda succinctly recalls, “What it was, I didn’t call the police, but I didn’t
keep myself quiet in that house.” In this instance, Rhonda’s informal help-seeking was
relatively fruitful, as she continues, “And somebody heard my scream. And he testified
in my case [about] what he heard.” Additionally, ten women (52.6%), described fighting
back against their partners, sometimes using weapons and, in at least one case, potentially
lethal violence. In fact, two women seriously contemplated killing their partners as a
means of escaping the abuse.8 Other types of relatively visible help-seeking strategies

used by the women include moving out of the house or separating from their partners

 

8 This finding raises the question of lethal violence as a form of help-seeking, an option to which some
women may turn particularly in the absence of perceived alternatives (Dutton, Hohnecker, Halle. &
Burghardt, 1994). Although related, this issue is beyond the scope ofthis paper.

59

(36.8%), or, taking the opposite approach, asking their partners to attend marital
counseling (10.5%).
Personal Spirituality

One of the most prominent themes to emerge from this analysis is the crucial role
of women’s church communities and/or personal spirituality in their decisions to seek
help. In fact, it was the frequency with which women in Southeast City spoke
passionately about their faith in God that prompted the selection of Midwest Metro as an
additional research site. Religiosity is generally accepted to be higher in the American
South than in other regions of the country (Smith, Sikkink, & Bailey, 1998), therefore I
wanted to know whether personal spirituality would be as important to similarly situated
women in a non-southern location as it was to the women in Southeast City. As it turns
out, spirituality-based help—seeking was not regionally specific, as women in both
research sites drew upon their personal faith as a source of support.9 Four women from
Southeast City and three from Midwest Metro (seven women total; 36.8%) prayed for
guidance or asked God for help in their relationships, while one woman from each
research site (two women total; 10.5%) drew strength from a particularly inspirational
hymn or gospel song. Other researchers have demonstrated that personal spirituality is an
important source of support for Black battered women (Few & Bell-Scott, 2002; Potter,
2007), a finding that is unsurprising given the importance of Black spirituality more
generally resulting from the African slavery experience (Few & Bell-Scott, 2002).
Interestingly, though, spirituality was not limited to Black participants in this study, as

some white women also spoke movingly about their faith in God. Thus. for the seven

 

9 Although these findings are not intended to be generalized to the broader population of battered women,
they are still presented with caution given the far smaller sample size in Midwest Metro than in Southeast
City. Please see discussion of sample size in Chapter Seven for more information.

60

women who described drawing upon their faith as a means of seeking help, it proved to
be an extremely important source of support.

While some women spoke to their pastors, church leaders, or other parishioners in
an effort to get help, others described how their own-individual spirituality was a key
source of strength for them. These women discussed at length how, when they felt that
all else was lost, they still had their faith in God to fall back on; in other words, “God was
all I had.” Indeed, it is perhaps unsurprising that women whose partners had isolated
them almost completely would draw most deeply from the one source of support that no-
one could take from them: their personal faith. In the following dramatic example,
Rhonda describes how her decision to finally flee her abuser was prompted by hearing
God instruct her to do so:

And he—after he beat me like that he laid down and went to sleep! Laid

down and went to sleep. Now one thing [was] tellin’ me to bash him

upside his head...You know what I’m sayin’? I think that’s where my

whole spiritual thing came in, [because] something was like, “Rhonda, get

out.” Because I know if he wake up, I’ll probably be dead.... I was like,

“Oh my God, he’s asleep.” [But then I heard the voice] sayin’, “Rhonda,

get out!” I think it was God, ‘cause it was just so clear. It was like,

“Rhonda, get out!” It wadn’t even my subconscious. Man, I threw on my

Timberlands, blood all over from drippin’ on my shoes and clothes. Ran

over there, got my son, wrapped him up—he had on pajamas—l packed

everything that I thought he would need. All I had on was bloody clothes,

[but] I didn’t care... I [will] never forget that. [Later] I told my mom, “I

61

heard the voice of God.” I know in the...Old Testament when God used

to speak to people...that’s how He spoke to me...He just spoke and said,

“Get out!” and I got out. ..[I]t wadn’t my voice. It was somebody

else...“Get out.” And I left, ‘cause I think that God knew that he was

gonna wake up, ‘cause He knew that the devil was in his heart, and [that

he would] kill me because he beat me so bad...

Formal Strategies

In addition to the informal strategies described above, women also availed
themselves of more formal strategies involving the criminal justice system or other
professional outlets. In fact, it appears as though women in this analysis generally used
formal strategies more often than informal strategies. This discussion of formal strategies
begins with women’s use of the criminal justice system, and then continues onto other
formal avenues of support. ’0
The Criminal Justice System

Police. Fourteen women (73.7%) called the police for help (see Table'5). This is '
a sizeable percentage of women, and offers hope that the women in this study did not
face some of the barriers to police utilization that were outlined in Chapter Two.
However, women’s intentions in calling the police often varied, as did their satisfaction
with the help they received once police arrived. With respect to their intentions, some
women called the police with the hope that their partners would be arrested, whereas
others simply wished for the police to diffuse the situation. In some cases women’s
reluctance to have their partners arrested despite calling the police appeared to stem from

practical concerns, as several women echoed the sentiment that “he doesn’t do nobody

 

’0 See Appendix E fora data display of participants’ formal help-seeking strategies.

62

any good in jail”. However, at other times it seemed to be rooted in women’s genuine

concern for their partners. For example Lana’s ambivalence is palpable: “I didn’t want
him [in] jail. I didn’t want him in trouble. . .I just didn’t want him to do mean things [to
me]”. I

With respect to satisfaction, there was tremendous variation. Some women felt
validated by the responding officers, whom they described as “supportive” and who
treated their situations seriously and with respect. For example, several women noted
with gratitude that on-scene officers gave them materials about domestic violence
resources, encouraged them to make use of those resources, and in some cases physically
transported them to the shelter. Indeed, several officers expressed laudable compassion,
sensitivity, and understanding of IPV dynamics, as when they warned women, “What
about when he gets tired of breaking things?,” or “I went on a case and it didn’t end up as
good as yours did.” Lana recalled that one officer “was trying his best” to convince her
to admit that her partner had assaulted her, telling her, “All you have to do is nod your
head and we’ll arrest him right now.” All of these examples offer reassurance that police
officers often respond appropriately to IPV calls.

Meanwhile, other women expressed dissatisfaction with the police response to
their calls. For example, Tammy noted that the police failed to arrest her partner on an
outstanding domestic abuse warrant, while Olivia expressed concern about the amount of
time it took for the police to respond to her call (perhaps unsurprising given the high
volume of calls police officers in Midwest. Metro must field). Other women felt that the
responding officers were condescending and dismissive toward them. Not surprisingly,

especially in the case of those who themselves were arrested, women who were

dissatisfied. with the police sometimes remarked that calling the police had “backfired” on
them.

This “backfire” constitutes a worst-case scenario from a help-seeking perspective.
For example, Melanie had never. told anyone about the abuse in her relationship, despite
the fact that it had gone on “for years”. One day, after her partner threw a full beer can at
her face, she decided to call the police, which marked her first ever attempt at help-
seeking. Based on claims that her partner made that she had. injured him, and despite
bruises on her face from where the beer can had hit her, the responding officers decided
to arrest her and not her partner. She describes her arrest this way:

It was terrible. Um, I couldn’t believe that I was being arrested. I really

couldn’t. And it was like, the attitude that the officer had, he was like,

“Well, I had to come out so somebody’s going to jail,” you know. And I

just couldn’t believe that. You know, just like that I was being arrested.
Obviously, for Melanie and others like her, calling the police did not result in the desired
outcome, and, as described below, more than one woman expressed that she would never
again make use of the police unless her life depended on it. Still, it is important to
remember that many women praised the police and reported high levels of satisfaction.
Thus, women’s experiences with the police were far from universal.

Prosecution. A slightly smaller group of women (47.4%) made use of the
criminal justice system by requesting warrants or pressing charges against their partners.
Interestingly, of the nine women who agreed to press charges, only three actually testified
in court against their partners. In some cases testimony might have been unnecessary, but

in other cases the women described changing their minds and deciding against going to

64

court, sometimes out of fear of reprisal, but other times out of a desire to reconcile with
their partners. As described in Chapter Four, aside from those who were arrested on
scene, other Southeast City women were court-ordered into the support group (“show
caused”) as punishment for failing to testify against their partners.

Like the police, the court system sometimes was a source of dissatisfaction for the
participants. In. particular, women were dissatisfied both with the judicial process, which
many found extremely frustrating and confusing, as well as with individual judges.
Several women described being overwhelmed by the paperwork that was required of
them, and explained that their resulting confusion was misinterpreted as deceit by the
judges in front of whom they appeared. For example, Darlene describes how her

3”

“tounge-twistin stemming from her exasperation with the court process led the judge to
believe that she was “misleading the court” about the circumstances of her assault,
resulting in her being sanctioned. Similarly, Gretchen recalls how frazzled she felt
during the court process after several days’ absence from her home, which she had fled:
And we spent all day in the courthouse fillin’ out the paperwork. Oh,
God, we were there [for] five hours. And then from there they take you
into the courtroom, before the judge, and, I was just so...you know...[it
was] just so much to, to go through, I didn’t know what was going to
happen. And, uh, it was just rough...And I’m sittin’ here and I’m like,
“My whole world is just fallin’ apart. I don’t know what I’m going to
do.” I can’t go home, I can’t even get my contacts in. I’m wearin’ my

glasses. no makeup, my hair—l mean, I, you kn0w_1-m like, “God!”

65

Finally, still other women recalled feeling as though they were given short shrift by
judges who did not give them a chance to fully explain their experiences. However, not
every court experience was negative, as some women commented that individual court
staffers were helpful and encouraging, thereby alleviating some of their anxiety about the
court process. As with the police, then, women’s experiences with the court system were
varied.

Protection orders. Seven women (36.8%) obtained protection orders against their
partners. Often securing a protection order as an additional measure of safety, these
women shared Olivia’s philosophy: “Let somebody know in the system”. As with the
other two criminal justice resources, women experienced varying levels of success and
satisfaction with their protection orders. On the positive side, Nikki reported that her
protection order was very successful in keeping her partner away from her, noting that he
did not contact her at all during the time the order was in place. However, in a painful bit
of irony, Nikki also explained that the judge failed to renew her protection order because
her partner had not bothered her, and that once the order expired her partner resumed
harassing and threatening her:

I got a order of protection, it lasted two years. Last year January the order

of protection was up. That’s when the harassment calls started. That’s

when 1 went back to the police to tell ‘em [claps hands] to give me a new

order of protection, but they wouldn’t give it to me. That’s when the

death threats started. “I’ma kill you. and I’m gonna takemy kids.” So it

got to the point where he shot out the front of my door. of my house, and

66

um, my kids were upstairs. Twelve bullets went through my house... I

needed my order of protection renewed and they wouldn’t do it.

They wouldn ’1 do it, because he hadn ’t bothered you in two years, right?

Yep. That’s why...I didn’t understand [it]. The only reason he stayed

away was ‘cause of the order of protection. If he stayin’ away ‘cause of

the order of protection, give me another one!

Similarly, Gretchen recalls with disbelief how the judge refused to issue her a
protection order. Gretehen’s husband, angry that she had inadvertently run into her ex-
husband (and the father of her eldest son) at a Christmas gathering, locked himself in
their bedroom for two days, emerging periodically in silence only to retrieve more beer
from the refrigerator. Describing her husband as a “volcano” ready to erupt, Gretchen
sensed the danger she and her youngest son were in:

And, you know, [there were] beer cans on the counter, and I’m thinking,

you know, “That’s not good.” He’s been locked in the bedroom since

Christmas Eve, hasn’t even come out to have anything to do with

Christmas Day with his child, he was just fixated on, you know, my ex-

husband [showing] up [at the party the day before]...l looked at [my son]

and I said. “I’m not stayin’ here, let’s go.” So we left.

Despite her husband’s ominous behavior and her keen awareness that his fury was
“festering.” the judge decided that a protection order was not warranted because
Gretchen’s husband had not physically harmed her or her son. Given situations like this
in which their proactive efforts at help-seeking prove fruitless. it is easy to understand

why women can be disillusioned and dissatisfied with orders of protection.

67

Prior criminal justice help-seeking. A final word about criminal justice help-
seeking is warranted here. It is especially important to consider how women’s
experiences with the criminal justice system can influence their inclination to again use
criminal justice resources in the future. For example, one of the few existing studies to
specifically examine this issue found that, logically, women were more likely to reuse the
criminal justice system for help with IPV if they initially were treated well by the system,
among other factors (F leury-Steiner, Bybee, Sullivan, Belknap, & Melton, 2006). As
data from this dissertation reveal, the opposite idiom also applies: negative experiences
can dissuade women from using the criminal justice system again.

It is particularly problematic when women who have negative experiences with
the criminal justice system decide against re-using it in future, as this cuts off an
important and potentially valuable avenue of support. For example, Gretchen recalled
how inadequate domestic violence laws and ineffectual police response during her first
abusive relationship nearly two decades ago soured her on the criminal justice system:

If [the laws then were the same as the laws now, the police] would have

gone and picked him up immediately because I had marks all over my

body from where he would throw me down the stairs and stuff. Now it’s

automatic. Back then it wasn’t. So, um, you know, I mean, you don’t go

to the police because my experience with my first husband was, well, you
know, “You’re still married! He can do whatever he wants 'to you!”
Unless he’s actually, you know, in front of their face, that’s when they’ll
take him off [to jail]... [At that time I] never really had, uh. any laws to

really protect me or help me, and I never went to the police.

68

Other examples involve criminal justice staff who were dismissive or rude to women as
they attempted to navigate the system. For example, Olivia described feeling belittled by
the court staffer who assisted her in filing her protection order, whose attitude suggested,
“We’ve heard it all before”. In Lana’s case, she took offense when a police officer
questioned her decision to press charges against her partner by asking her, “Do you really
want to go to court over a push?” Similarly, Paula felt manipulated by the police into
taking out a warrant against her partner, an action for which she later was sanctioned
when she attempted to drop the charges.

Understandably, bitterness and disillusionment with the criminal justice system
were particularly acute for the five women from Southeast City who were arrested,
incarcerated, and/or court-ordered to attend the support group. In terms of fostering a
healthy criminal justice response to IPV, instances in which battered women are
themselves arrested after calling the police are especially damaging. Over two decades of
research, community organizing, and awareness-raising have been dedicated to
encouraging battered women to utilize the criminal justice system, and to train police
officers to treat IPV seriously. However, some of the women in this study who turned to
police or the courts and themselves were punished expressed understandable reluctance
(and at times outright refusal) to involve the criminal justice system again. As Paula,
who was arrested, jailed, and courtordered to attend the support group, bluntly remarked,
“And now, going “through what I’ve been through? I think if he hit me I’d be damned if
I’d call the police. Because I’m not the one who—I’m the one in trouble here. ...I don’t

trust the police here now.” Though these experiences thankfully do not represent the

69

norm, they nonetheless have serious ramifications for battered women’s willingness (or
lack thereof) to use the criminal justice system as an avenue of support.

Other Formal Avenues
. Shelter & Support Group

Eleven women (57.9%) sought shelter as a means of reprieve from their abusive
relationships, and all eleven were from Southeast City. This finding likely is an artifact
of the sampling strategy. The support group in Southeast City is located in the shelter,
therefore shelter residents were easily recruited for participation in the study. However,
this finding also may reflect the relative inaccessibility of shelter space in Midwest
Metro, as none of the four women interviewed there had ever stayed in a shelter. As
described previously, shelter space in Midwest Metro is woefully inadequate relative to
the number of city residents. Additionally, six of the 14 women who were not court-
ordered (42.9%) sought out the support group on their own, absent shelter residency.
Four of these women were from Midwest Metro, which again likely is a sampling artifact
as none of the women there entered the support group via shelter residency or court order,
as was the case in Southeast City.

Almost unanimously, women reported being very satisfied with both shelter and
support group services. Satisfaction was not entirely universal, though, as there were a
few sources of contention. Not surprisingly, the chief complaint women had about the
shelter involved the harsh realities of shelter life, such as loss of freedom and the
difficulties of living in a confined space with many other people. For example, some
women cited disputes with other shelter residents as being a problem, while other women

spoke of their annoyance at having to abide by shelter rules and regulations. Still other

70

9

women described shelter residency as “embarrassing. ’ and experienced feelings of
depression and resignation in their first few days there. As April describes:

And I thought about [going to the shelter] long and hard. I was like,

“Leave all my stuff from home and just go to this place?” When I got

here i just cried and cried and cried. I felt like I was in a prison.

[Because] I couldn’t, you know, go walk in the kitchen and cook my food,

or sit on my couch and watch a DVD with my baby, you know. Let her

play in her room with any of her toys. It was just really, really hard.

Really hard.

Despite these problems, nearly all of the shelter residents recognized the crucial
assistance the shelter provided to them. Most women, even those who described having
initial regret at entering the shelter, ended up praising it for providing a sanctuary from
their abuse and a safe haven to which they and their children could escape and feel
secure. Gretchen was particularly effusive in her praise: “But a place like this gives you
safety and everything. Safety, shelter... It gives you a new beginning to get, you know,
to finally get out. And every city should have one. They really should.”

Similarly, the support group elicited equally heartfelt praise from women in both
Southeast City and Midwest Metro. In some cases. the primary benefit women derived
from the support group was financial, such as housing vouchers, grocery coupons, or
other sources of financial assistance. In other cases. Women noted that the support group
provided them with assistance in job training, resume writing, and other practical skills.
However, the primary source of satisfaction for support group members was the support.

encouragement, guidance, and validation they received from their fellow members. In

71

particular, women noted the tremendous value of hearing stories of other women with
abuse experiences, and knowing that they were not alone. Although hearing stories of
abuse more severe than their own initially caused some women to downplay or doubt
their own victimization, they all agreed that their fellow residents were quick to point out
that abuse of any type or severity is unacceptable.

Notably, satisfaction with the support group even extends to the women who did
not participate voluntarily. Though several of the court-ordered women expressed initial
feelings of resentment and defiance at being forced to attend the support group, they all
came to appreciate the knowledge that there are other women who have experienced
abuse by an intimate partner. Paula recounts her shifiing’feelings this way:

Oh no, [at first] I was [whispers] pissed! And I put it off for a long time...

there were times that I coulda come [to the support group] that I was just

really puttin’ it off because I was mad and didn’t think 1 was the one that

was supposed to be in therapy. Which, I see now that it does help me. It

really helps a lot...

Finally, it is worth noting that two women, Nikki and Jackie, believed deeply enough in

the benefits of seeking counseling services that they actively sought out a support group

despite no longer being with their abusive partners in an effort to find continued support.
Legal & Medical Systems

Only one woman (5.3%) availed herselfof legal assistance by hiring an attomey,
and just three of the seven married women (42.9%) filed for divorce. That comparably
few women sought legal assistance may or may not be a function of the relatively low

socio-economic status of the participants. though it is noteworthy that the one woman to

hire an attorney (Gretchen) is a white woman who is employed full-time. As for medical
help-seeking, four women (21.1%) went to the hospital to seek treatment for injuries,
though it is important to point out that in two of those four cases their partners took them
to the hospital. H Interestingly, of the four women who went to the hospital, only one ’
disclosed to emergency room doctors what really had happened; the remaining women
lied about the origin of their injuries. When asked why they concealed the abuse from
the doctors, women gave answers including fear of her partner (Nikki), ambivalence
about her role in the altercation (Bethany), and concern about disappointing her family
(Rhonda). Ironically, the one woman who told the truth was not believed because her
partner accompanied her to the hospital. In Izzy’s words:

He had stomped on my shoulder, you know, when I was layin’ down one

time, we got in a fight. And I had to go to the hospital and they thought I

was crazy because he took me, and I kept tellin’ them he did it, you

know...

They didn ’t believe you?

They thought I was crazy. They said, “Are you high?” [laughs

incredulous/y] I was like, “No.” You know, it hurt for months. When I

would cough or sneeze or anything it would hurt real bad up in here

[points to shoulder].

And you told them that your partner had done that to you?

Mm hmm. And they asked me if I was high [laughs], at the hospital. It

was. like, 4:00 in the mornin’, you know.

 

H Two other woman. Fran and Paula. disclosed the abuse to a personal physician or a mental health
professional.

And then that was it? They never followed up? Or —
...I mean, he took me [to the hospital]. I guess they [figured], “Well, he
wouldn’t be here, you know, if he [had hurt me].”

Lastly, four women (21.1%) disclosed their abusive relationship to some other

professional, such as a social worker or their children’s teacher or daycare provider.

Reasons for Help-Seeking
During the interviews women described many and varied reasons for seeking
help. The two most common reasons given by participants in this study have been well
documented in the help-seeking literature: over half of the women (57.9%) were
motivated to seek help either out of concern for their children’s safety and well-being, or
out of a feeling that they had reached the threshold of what they could endure (see

Table 5).

74

Table 5. Reasons for Help-Seeking

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reason N (%)
Desire to p_rotect children 11 (57.9)
Reached threshold (“enough is enough”) 11 (57.9)
Religious motivation 7 (36.8)
Recognized toll abuse was taking/wanted to better self 6 (31.6)
Abuse gclparticularly severe (e. g., weapon used) 4 (21.1)
Wanted to document abuse/didn’t want partner to get awgy with it 4 (21.1)
Believed abuse was life-threatening; feared death 4 (21.1)
Desire to break cycle of violence 3 (15.8)
Tired of lying about abuse 1 (5.3)
Abuse occurred in presence of others 1 (5.3)
Desire to protect other famm members 1 (5.3)
Saw friend in similar situation 1 (5.3)
Felt situation was getting out of control 1 (5.3)

 

 

First, many women expressed that, while they believed they could tolerate the
abuse, they could not stand the toll the abuse was taking on their children. In some cases,
this happened after the first time that the woman’s partner focused his abuse on one of
her children, as in this incident recalled by Rhonda:

But, the last time with this one, he swung my baby, his daughter. That’s

what drew the line with me. He grabbed her by one arm like a rag do]!—

she like this [dangles arm limp/y]——and swings her over me. I grab her,

‘cause I don’t know if he gonna let her go or knock her arm outta socket.

[snapsfingers] That drew the line.

In other cases, women agonized over the emotional toll that their own victimization was
taking on their children. For example, several women noted seeing a negative change in
their children’s outward demeanor. and consequently fretted over their mental if not their
physical health. In Keira's case, her anguish over her partner’s threats to harm her

children spurred her into action:

75

 

And I [thought to myself], “I can’t do this no more, ‘cause you’re hurtin’
my—you’re hurtin’ me, but you’re hurtin’ my kids most of all. And I
can’t have my kids hurtin’ because of you.” I mean, uh, I just can’t do it.

God done blessed me with kids to love and to love me back, and that was,

like, the only love that I was gettin’. I mean, I cherish that, so I couldn’t

have him threatenin’ me with my kids or threatenin’ my kids. I just
couldn’t do that, so that was what pushed the decision [to leave].

Second, other women expressed a more nebulous feeling that they had simply
reached their breaking point in terms of tolerating the abuse. Terrned by some
researchers as a “threshold,” (F ugate et al., 2005) the idea that “enough is enough” is an
important theme of this study. Phrases such as “last straw,” “I couldn’t take nothin’

99 H'-

else, tired of everything,” and “just had enough,” illustrate that, once their breaking
point was reached, women were motivated to seek help when they previously had not. In
Bethany’s case, her threshold was reached when an injury she sustained left a scar, a
permanent reminder of the abuse she had sustained: “That was like a wake up call.
‘Cause I don’t want no more scars from no more men. That is my goal... I’m not takin’
nothin’ from nobody else.”

Altematively, six women (31.6%) stated that they were motivated to get help after
recognizing the toll that the abuse was taking on them, or out of a desire to better
themselves. As Samantha put it, “I knew that I was a beautiful young lady and I deserved

better than that. ...[so] I separated from him.” Four women (21.1%) found motivation for

seeking help after the abuse directed toward them became particularly severe, such as if a

76

weapon was used for the first time, while an equal number were prompted into action
when they perceived that their lives were seriously in danger.

The previous section described the role of personal faith in the lives of many of
the women in this study, therefore it is not surprising [that seven women (36.8%) had
some sort of religious motivation for seeking help. For example, Rhonda rationalized her
decision to get help this way:

Now, if God already promised us troubles with the days that we have, why

add troubles on top of that?...The Bible says He promised us these days—

the days of plague, the days of this, the days of that. . .Now, if you already

promised all these troubles in this world, why you goin’ sit there and let

somebody hit on you? Why you goin’ to sit there and let somebody
disrespect you?
Similarly, this passage from Jackie’s interview echoes the use of scripture to justify her
decision to seek help: “I had to put God first and leave the devil alone, ‘cause he wadn’t
nothin’ but the devil. So I made a decision: I kept God in my life and I left the devil
alone. He was the devil in my life. so I had to get rid of him. Either I’ma be on the
Lord’s side or the devil’s side. .

The remaining reasons for seeking help were offered by fewer women in the
sample. Three women (15.8%) described a desire to break the cycle of abuse or prevent
their children from growing up in an abusive household as they had. This finding has
important theoretical implications and will be discussed in more detail in Chapter Six.
Other reasons for getting help expressed by individual women include being tired of

lying about the abuse. being embarrassed after the abuse occurred in the presence of

77

others, wanting to protect other family members, seeing a friend in a similarly abusive

situation, and feeling that they were no longer able to keep the situation under control.

Barriers to Help-Seeking

Chapter Two outlines several barriers to help-seeking identified in the existing
literature, including general barriers that apply to the entire population of battered women
(i.e., fear of reprisal, economic dependence, and family and privacy considerations), as
well as specific barriers that apply especially to women from marginalized social groups
(geographic isolation, cultural isolation, patriarchal cultural norms, fear of public
scrutiny, discrimination and institutionalized racism, fear of deportation, and participation
in illegal activities). The results of this dissertation indicate that many women
experienced general barriers to help-seeking, but that, perhaps surprisingly given the
focus on marginalized women in particular, very few experienced specific barriers.
However, despite the limited influence of those specific barriers, closer inspection reveals
that marginalization nonetheless matters in battered women’s help-seeking.

General Barriers

It is clear that fear, economic dependence. and family and privacy considerations
weighed heavily on the minds of many women and negatively influenced their decisions
to seek help. For example, six women (31.1%) described staying silent out of fear, at
times for their life after their partners threatened to kill them and/or their children if they
told anyone (see Table 6). In fact, some women were so fearful that they went to great
lengths to conceal their injuries from others, so as not to arouse suspicion and chance

retaliation from their partners. Helen poignantly describes her efforts to keep her injuries

78

hidden: “You cover it up with makeup. [If] somebody pull some of your hair off, you
buy you a wig or you cut your hair or you blend it in together and you just blend stuff.

You blend it in together to make it work.”

Table 6. Barriers to Help-Seeking

 

 

 

 

 

Barrier ] N (%)
General Barriers for All Women
Family/privacy considerations 13 (68.4)
Fear of reprisal 6 (31.6)
Economic dependence 4 (21.1)

 

 

 

Specific Barriers for Marginalized Women
Isolation (geographic) 3 (15.8)
Isolation (cultural) 2 (10.5)
Patriarchal cultural norms --
Fear Of public scrutiny --
Discrimination & institutionalized racism --
Fear of deportation 1 (5.3)
Participation in illegal activities --

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Slightly fewer women (21.1%) stated that economic dependence was a barrier to
help-seeking for them. For some it was a matter of their partners being the primary
breadwinner, while for others it was simply the material comforts offered by their
relationship that mattered the most. April’s words are instructive here: “If [another] guy
even looked at me I’d get smacked in the face. . .But he took care of me. you know what
I’m sayin’? He bought me clothes, jewelry—bought me everything.” Other women were
dependent on their partners for emotional rather than financial security. For example,
Connie notes that she was not in love with her partner, though she stayed with him
because doing so made her feel “like she belonged somewhere.”

In contrast, nearly 70% of the women experienced barriers related to family and

privacy considerations. including concern for children they shared with their partners,

79

their own embarrassment, shame, or humiliation at being in a battering relationship, or
their genuine love and concern for their partners. Bethany’s words summarize this first
point well:

You know what? I never called the cops on my son’s dad.

0K. Tell me why.

I don’t know. . .. I never had that family thing or anything, and I had a kid

with him ...So I was tryin’ to keep that family thing goin’ on between me

and him. It wasn’t like I was scared of him not to call the police. ...I guess

‘cause it was my son’s dad [I decided against it]....

Next, for other women it was shame or embarrassment that kept them quiet. As
the “athletic and smart” child in her family, Rhonda felt self-imposed pressure to conceal
that she was being beaten by her high school boyfriend. Her fear of disappointing her
family, whom she believed expected great things of her, compelled her to keep her abuse
a secret from them.

Finally, other women’s silence was prompted by the genuine affection, care, and
concern they felt for their partners. For instance, Nikki describes her tremendous efforts
to cover up for her partner (even after his abuse left her severely injured). prompted
mainly by a desire to protect her family:

Was it you going to the hospital on your own?

Yeah, on my own....l went by myself. [I would] wait until the sores got

real old, like a day or two. ‘Cause back then if they [were] brand new you

could get assault [charges brought], but if it happened a couple of days

80

earlier [the authorities] can’t do nothin’ about it. See, me knowin’ the law

I knew what to do.

So you did that on purpose to protect your partner?

Protect my partner. Mm hmm. ‘Cause I didn’t want to see him in jail,

and all of this mess. So that became. . .a way to protect him, but there was

nobody to protect me. And I didn’t think about me...Everything I did, I

did for him, I did for my children. That was it.

.S'pecific Barriers

Far fewer women reported experiencing the specific barriers relevant for
marginalized women outlined in the help-seeking literature. Three women (15.8%)
expressed obstacles to help-seeking stemming from the geographic isolation of living in a
rural area. On the most basic level, Keira had no telephone in her home, which obviously
drastically limited her ability to get help. More abstractly, the other two women
described feeling constrained by the relative lack of privacy that comes from living in a
small, rural community. As Rhonda knowingly remarked, “This town is small, and when
people know about your old situation [with abuse], they try to run with that. . .You never
let anybody know about your situation if you can help it.” In Rhonda’s view, she
believed that her current partner felt entitled to hit her because he knew. via the local
gossip mill, that she had been abused by a previous partner.

Cultural isolation also was cited as a problem by Connie, a Spanish-speaking
Latina from Mexico. Language barriers were less ofa concern for Connie than the
“immigrant-related abuse” she experienced, including her partner’s threats and taunts

about her undocumented immigrant status. Ofcourse, these experiences relate to fear of

81

deportation, which Connie experienced to a limited extent. More than fearing
deportation, though, she felt threatened by her partner’s constant intonations that, absent
basic documentation such as a birth certificate or driver’s license, her calls to the police
would be futile. In Connie’s words, she did not have “an identity,” as her partner
repeatedly reminded her, so she was dissuaded from contacting authorities about the
abuse.

Interestingly, patriarchal cultural norms, fear of public scrutiny, and
discrimination/institutionalized racism were not discussed by any of the women in the
sample, at least not with respect to their abusive adult relationships. Additionally,
participation in illegal activities was not identified as a barrier by the one woman who
admitted to having a criminal history.12 In fact, when I asked Izzy whether the fact that
she had “been in trouble before” was a concern for her in telling others about the abuse or
in calling the police, she responded that is was not. However, while there was not a
direct relationship between her criminal record and her reluctance to contact the
authorities, there was an indirect relationship as her history of drug abuse resulted in two
of her four children being removed from her custody. As a consequence, Izzy was
reluctant to call the police about her abusive partner for fear that the authorities would
take away her two remaining children. Though this barrier to help-seeking clearly
involves concern for shared children as discussed under “general barriers,” it also has

roots in her illegal drug use as well. In her words, “I didn’t call the police, I didn’t go to

 

'2 While not engaged in illegal activity per se, Lana expressed concern that her failure to appear at court
hearings at which she was scheduled to testify against her partner would get her into trouble. Of her
decision she states, “That next month [my partner abused me] again, but I wouldn’t go to the police
because I was scared I was gonna get in trouble since I didn’t go to court the other times...”

82

the hospital, I didn’t do none of that, ‘cause I didn’t want anybody to know, you know?
I’m dealin’ with [protective services]; I didn’t want them to find out...”

Given the marginalized social status of the women in this study, it is surprising
that so few of them described experiencing the specific barriers for marginalized women
outlined in the help-seeking literature. That none of the women identified patriarchal
cultural norms, fear of public scrutiny, or discrimination/institutionalized racism as
impediments to their help-seeking efforts begs the question: does marginalization matter
to battered women’s help-seeking efforts?

Despite the fact that participants did not speak at length about specific structural
barriers, closer inspection of patterns in the data suggest that marginalization does matter,
as women of different social locations sought help in different ways. For example,
women who relied most upon formal strategies tended to occupy positions of relative
social privilege, often owing to their majority group racial/ethnic or socioeconomic status
(see Table 7). As was noted previously, the only woman to hire an attorney is white and
employed full-time, and relatively few of the married women sought a divorce, perhaps
signaling a lack of resources necessary to successfully engage the legal system. In
contrast, a different group of women—namely those occupying positions of relative
social disadvantage—turned instead to informal strategies. Women who relied most
upon informal strategies tended to be Black and/or economically disadvantaged. In other
words, women using the broadest array of formal mechanisms tended to have more
privileged social locations, while the opposite is true of women who concentrated their
help-seeking efforts on informal channels. Taken together, these findings suggest that

even when not explicitly acknowledged, socio-structural barriers do impede the help—

83

seeking efforts of certain groups of women, particularly via formal channels.

Table 7. Number and Type of Help-Seeking Strategies Used

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number of Informal Formal
Strategies
6 Rhonda, Olivia Gretchen, Paula
5 Bethany, Keira, Lana Bethany, Nikki, Fran, Izzy, Tammy
4 Nikki, Tammy, Eleanor Samantha, Lana, Olivia
3 April, Gretchen, Helen, Fran, Paula Connie, Rhonda
2 Jackie April, Keira, Eleanor
1 Samantha, Darlene Helen, Darlene, Melanie, Jackie
0 Connie, Izzy, Melanie --

 

However, a few women engaged in extremely limited help-seeking of any kind,
yet these women were not necessarily the “most” marginalized as one might expect.
Melanie’s help-seeking, for example, was almost non-existent; she never told anyone
about the abuse and waited “years” before taking any official action against her partner.
However, Melanie is employed and has no children—factors that elevate her social status
relative to the other women in the sample. While it is possible that her limited help-
seeking is attributable to individual-level factors, given the overall help-seeking patterns
described above, it is also possible that this analysis failed to fully account for the
influence of structural barriers on Melanie’s help-seeking. As other IPV researchers who
study help-seeking have noted, “subtle and institutionalized forms of [discrimination] are
not easily detectable, particularly by persons in the middle of a crisis. as were the women
in this study. Hence, it is likely that their help-seeking efforts were affected in ways

beyond those explicitly identified” (Moe, 2007, p. 693).

84

 

Summary

This chapter re-examines the help-seeking behaviors of the women in the study by
identifying and describing the types of help-seeking strategies they used, their reasons for
using (or not using) particular strategies, and the barriers to help-seeking that they faced.
Results indicate that women’s help-seeking was vast and varied, involved both informal
and formal sources of support, and resulted in varying degrees of satisfaction. In
particular, women reported having both positive and negative experiences with the
criminal justice system, and these related to their future inclination to use the criminal
justice system. This chapter also follows up on the discussion of help-seeking barriers
first raised in Chapter Two. Findings suggest that while women experienced many of the
general barriers that exist for the entire population of battered women, they experienced
relatively few of the specific barriers that exist for marginalized women. Upon closer
inspection, however, patterns in the data suggest that marginalized still does matter in
battered women’s help-seeking. The next chapter extends this discussion in the context

of a theoretical framework for understanding battered women’s help-seeking.

85

CHAPTER SIX:
PATHWAYS TO HELP-SEEKING

The previous chapter followed up on the “barriers” to help-seeking that were
discussed in Chapter Two. In the help-seeking literature, barriers are conceptualized as
issues that exist contemporaneously in the relationship. In other words, barriers are
conditions or characteristics of the relationship such as fear or isolation that women
experience while they are involved with their abusive partners. As outlined in Chapter
Two, much of the existing help-seeking literature examines how these barriers negatively
affect battered women’s help-seeking decisions. Other contemporaneous factors such as
abuse severity, presence of children, and marital status also have been shown to influence
women’s help-seeking decisions (Fernandez et al., 1997; Goodman et al., 1999;
Hutchinson & Hirschel, 1998).

However, data from this analysis suggest that other, historical factors also
influence women’s help—seeking. In addition to the barriers described previously,
battered women’s help-seeking is shaped by life events that predate their intimate
relationships. Further, data suggest that one historical circumstance is particularly
powerful in influencing women’s help-seeking: exposure to childhood trauma and abuse.
Women’s childhood victimization experiences shape their adult help-seeking in two
ways. First, childhood victimization acts as an inhibitor to help-seeking. This term,
appropriated from chemistry, describes a substance that retards a chemical reaction or
prevents it from reaching completion altogether. Used metaphorically, use of this term

suggests that trauma experienced before a woman enters her abusive relationship can

86

preclude her help-seeking efforts in later years. Second, childhood victimization also can
work in the opposite manner, that is, by facilitating future help-seeking. In these
instances, rather than working as an inhibitor, exposure to childhood trauma acts as a
promoter of help-seeking. In both cases, the results of this analysis suggest that
explanations of battered women’s help-seeking must include consideration of prior life
experiences.

In this chapter I examine how battered women’s experiences with childhood
victimization either inhibit or promote help-seeking in their adult intimate relationships.
Key concepts that emerged from the data represent specific mechanisms through which
child victimization inhibits or promotes help-seeking. I also explore the theoretical
implications of these findings by arguing for the extension and application of two
existing theoretical frameworks—feminist pathways and life course models—to battered

women’s help-seeking.

Childhood Victimization
Summary of Women ’s Childhood Victimization Experiences
To begin, it is important to note that childhood victimization was not a theme I
asked specifically about during the interviews. As indicated in Chapter Four, I asked
three broad questions during each interview: “What was it like for you growing up?,”
“What was your relationship with your partner like?,” and “What was the first time you
decided to tell someone or get help?”. It is in response to the first question that women

disclosed having experienced abuse, neglect, or other victimization as children.

87

That the women in this study almost uniformly had childhoods fraught with
physical and sexual abuse, neglect, substance abuse, and other types of victimization is
perhaps the strongest theme that emerged from the data. Indeed, there is some evidence
to suggest a link between violent childhood experiences and adult IPV victimization
(Coid, Petruckevitch, Chung, Richardson, & Moorey, 2001; Whitfield, Anda, Dube, &
Felitti, 2003; Wyatt, Axelrod, Carmona, & Loeb, 2000). What is more, girls from
marginalized social groups are more likely to be victimized as children than their
counterparts. For example, national-level data collected via the National Child Abuse
and Neglect Data System reveal that girls are slightly more likely than boys to experience
childhood maltreatment, and that children of color (Pacific Islander, American Indian or
Alaskan Native, and African American children in particular) have the highest rates of
victimization (Child Maltreatment 2004, 2006). Similarly, focus group research
conducted by a Canadian research alliance found that isolation, inaccessibility of
services, and social ills like racism and homophobia exacerbate vulnerability to
victimization for marginalized girls (Violence Prevention and the Girl Child, 1999).
Therefore, while it is not necessarily surprising to discover that marginalized battered
women in this study had been victimized by abuse and neglect as young girls, the
magnitude and severity of the abuse they suffered was indeed striking.

Every woman in the sample experienced at least one type of childhood
victimization (see Table 8).13 Women most commonly were physically abused by a
parent or other relative (50.0%) or witnessed parental domestic violence (44.4%).
Moreover, approximately twenty percent of the sample were sexually abused as girls,

either by a relative (16.7%) or by someone else (22.2%). Moving beyond physical
abuse, many women were victimized by the unhealthy home environments in which they

 

'3 The one exception is Darlene, from whom I did not collect thorough background information due to time
constraints during our interview. It is not known for certain whether Darlene experienced childhood
victimization, so her data are excluded from the calculation of percentages appearing in Table 8. However,
comments from her interview suggestive of victimization are included in the discussion that follows.

88

were raised. For example, seven women (38.9%) reported substance abuse by one or
both parents (most typically alcoholic fathers), while nine women (50.0%) had parents
who either were divorced, separated, or had never lived together. Finally, 15 of the 18
women from whom background information was collected (83.3%) described growing
up in a home that might best be characterized as chaotic or traumatic. Women who were
raised in traumatic environments lost a parent to suicide or suspected homicide, lived
with a series of different caregivers, or were singled out by their parents and treated
poorly compared to their siblings or other children in the home. Moreover, most women
experienced more than one type of victimization. Women in the sample experienced an
average of three types of childhood victimization, while one woman reported as many as
five types of victimization. In short, the early lives of most women in the sample were
characterized by exposure to abuse, violence, trauma, and instability.l4le 8. Childhood
Victimization Experiences (N =1 8)*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type or Victimization N (%)
Chaotic/traumatic environment 15 (83.3)
Parents divorced/separated 9 (50.0)
Physically abused by relative 9 (50.0)
Parental physical violence 8 (44.4)
Parental substance abuse 7 (38.9)
Sexually abused by other 4 (22.2)
Sexually abused 131 relative 3 (16.7)

 

 

 

Min=1 Max=5 Mean=3

 

* Background information not collected from one participant

Childhood Victimization & Help-Seeking in the Existing Literature

The suggestion that childhood and adulthood victimization experiences are linked
is not unique to this dissertation (e. g., see Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). Though not nearly
as voluminous as the body of scholarship devoted to the “cycle of violence,” which
suggests that children who experience violent abuse grow up more likely to perpetrate
violence acts against others (Widom, 1989), a substantial number of studies exist that
examine the connection between childhood and adulthood victimization. Termed
“revictimization” and studied almost exclusively by psychologists, the idea that
victimization begets victimization has received empirical support (Coid et al., 2001;

Roodman & Clum, 2001; Whitfield et al., 2003). However, there have been scant efforts

 

 

'4 See Appendix F for a data display of participants‘ childhood victimization experiences.

89

to explain precisely how childhood victimization might lead to adulthood victimization.
To date, the etiology of revictimization is most often discussed using the language of low
self-esteem and learned helplessness (Frisch & MacKenzie, 1991; Whitfield et al., 2003).
While researchers acknowledge that childhood victimization does make one vulnerable to
adult victimization (Dutton, 1993), we know very little about why this is so. Even more
puzzling, this relationship has scarcely been addressed by criminologists, feminist or
otherwise, despite the relevance of this line of inquiry to the field.

It contrast to the seemingly straightforward proposition that childhood
victimization can heighten one’s vulnerability to adulthood victimization, it may seem
initially less intuitive to consider that childhood victimization could influence adult
women’s help—seeking. After all, most predictors of battered women’s help-seeking are
contemporaneous factors as discussed previously. However, as with revictimization,
psychological research offers preliminary support for a relationship between childhood
trauma and adult women’s help-seeking.

In studies of battered women’s “coping”—a conceptual cousin to help-seeking—
psychologists have found that the ways in which adult battered women deal with their
relationship violence are shaped by historical and contextual factors such as exposure to
childhood trauma. In these studies, coping often is conceptualized using two distinctions.
The first distinction is between “approach” or “engagement” coping, characterized by
active behaviors such as talking to others 0r making a plan of action, and “avoidance” or
“disengagement” coping, characterized by passive behaviors such as withdrawal
, (Waldrop & Resick, 2004). The second distinction is between “cognitive” coping,

involving changing one’s manner of thinking about a situation, and “behavioral” coping,

90

which involves “observable actions” (Waldrop & Resick, 2004, p. 292). Researchers
investigating how childhood victimization influences adult coping behavior explore the
extent to which women with and without a history of trauma engage in approach versus
avoidance coping, of in behavioral versus cognitive coping.

For example, Mitchell and Hodson (1986) found that battered women who had no
history of violence in their family of origin used more active coping strategies as the
violence in their intimate relationship worsened. This finding lead the authors to
conclude that, as a moderator in the relationship between abuse severity and coping,
childhood exposure to violence reduced coping efficacy. Similarly, Taft, Resick,
Panuzio, Vogt, & Mechanic (2007) found that childhood physical and sexual abuse were
negatively associated with engagement coping, while witnessing parental IPV was
positively associated with disengagement coping. Finally, Dutton (1993) suggests that
“A battered woman with a history of childhood abuse may be even more vulnerable to
the efforts of others to control her, and thus less able to protect herself from others” (p.
1224)

Here again, though, the criminological literature has been perplexingly silent
about potential linkages between childhood victimization and adult battered women’s
help-seeking. To date, no criminological research has attempted to place this relationship
in a theoretical context, or to examine precisely how this relationship might operate.
Further, no study has considered how childhood victimization might have a positive
impact by acting as a promoter of help-seeking. Therefore, this dissertation represents a
first step toward opening a dialogue in criminology about exactly how having a history of

victimization can influence battered women’s future help-seeking behavior. To that end,

91

this dissertation identifies five mechanisms through which childhood victimization
inhibits battered women’s help-seeking, and three mechanisms through which it promotes
help-seeking. While some of these mechanisms echo findings from the psychological
coping literature, others appear unique to this analysis.
Childhood Victimization Experiences as Help-Seeking Inhibitors

There are several ways in which battered women’s experiences with childhood
victimization make them less inclined to seek help, particularly using formal channels.
On a basic level, strained family relations stemming from a violent home life sever one
potential avenue of help-seeking for women. Just as batterer-imposed isolation restricts
women’s opportunities to tell loved ones about the abuse, so does estrangement from
parents stemming from childhood abuse and neglect. However, the data further suggest
five specific mechanisms through which childhood victimization experiences inhibit
battered women’s help-seeking: establishing women’s expectation of abuse, lowering
their sense of self-worth, prompting withdrawal, engendering learned silence, and
promoting attachment to their abusive partners. Each of these five mechanisms is ‘
discussed below.
Establishing Expectation ofAbuse

The first way childhood victimization inhibits battered women’s help-seeking is
by establishing an expectation of abuse. That is, for women who grew up in households
in which they were emotionally, physically, and/or sexually abused, such behavior is
perceived as being normative or commonplace. In other words, violence and abuse
became the model for how family members interact with one another, particularly in

intimate relationships. As Gretchen put it:

92

The marriage was abusive before [my pregnancy], and our, uh—the whole

time we dated was abusive. I mean, he would—oh God, he was so

controlling, so jealous, you know? And, um...God, really, he was really,

he was really a nutcase back then. And I knew it, and I saw it and—but

then I guess I just didn’t think much of it ‘cause it’s just normal, you

know? It’s all I’ve ever known from males. Never seen a good, normal

relationship with a male, you know?
Similarly, Lana remarked: “I thought, well, I guess you could say now, looking back,
maybe [my stepfather] was controlling. He [was] controlling because I saw a lot of
things he did and I didn’t think it was right, but I was looking through a child’s eyes so I
thought, ‘Well, maybe that’s just how it’s supposed to be when you’re grown ups’.”

What is important about this observation is that many of the women, in explaining
why they did not seek formal avenues of help, either directly or indirectly referenced the
attitude that they had developed about familial violence based on their early experiences
with victimization. In other words, women expressed that they were not particularly
motivated to seek help because, for them, ending up with a violent partner was not
necessarily an extraordinary circumstance that warranted action or intervention on their
part. Their previous experiences with abuse and violence had shaped their worldview
such that violence was an expected, if not condoned, aspect of intimate relationships.

For example, consider this comment from Helen, a woman who experienced
horrific physical and sexual abuse as a young girl: “I am so good in tunin’ stuff out,
because I had got so many licks [as a child that] I tuned stuff out. Now [if] somebody

come over here and smack me a couple of times, I’d probably just sit and take it.

Because it was a part of my life.” Clearly, Helen describes in very stark terms how her
inclination toward help-seeking has been inhibited by her childhood victimization
experiences, and her words recall the avoidance and withdrawal that are indicative of
disengagement coping. In fact, she initially did not seek help once her partner became
abusive; instead, the authorities were alerted only after the nurse who had performed her
mammogram called the police after surmising that she had been abused.

Nikki, who was severely physically abused by her mother and repeatedly sexually
molested by her mother’s boyfriend, made similar comments. As an adult, Nikki stayed
with her abusive husband for nearly ten years, despite his vicious (and, on more than one
occasion, life-threatening) attacks on her. Though she had gone to the hospital on
numerous occasions for medical treatment, she never once disclosed the nature of her
injuries to hospital staff, or to the police who were called in when hospital staff grew
suspicious of her repeated, severe injuries. In the following exchange, notice how Nikki

initially contributes her silence to fear, but then quickly shifts to her expectations of

abuse:
So before when I used to come [to the hospital] I’d be like—l never said
anything anytime [the police] asked me what happened. I never said
anything. They’d call a social worker down. I still never said anything.
How come?

Fear. Of him. I had fear of him. At the time I thought that was love.
In Nikki’s case, equating her partner’s violence with love kept her from disclosing her
abuse to authorities despite being presented with opportunities to do so. Though Nikki

engaged in some degree of help-seeking by going to the hospital, the expectation of abuse

94

that she had developed as a child—after the people she loved hurt her repeatedly—
prevented her from doing anything beyond simply mending her wounds. What is more,
Nikki was aware of the connection between her childhood abuse and her adult decision-
making, as she told me, “I [have] to step back to show you ‘where the neglect started. . .l
have tell you [about the childhood abuse] in order to make you understand why I fell for
[my husband], and [why] I stayed with him. . .”.
Lowering Sense ofSelfl Worth

The second way childhood victimization inhibits battered women’s help-seeking
is by lowering their sense of self-worth. This theme is related to establishing expectation
of abuse, but more directly involves a woman’s reduced self-esteem as a result of her
childhood victimization, and, by extension, her willingness to stay with her partner
despite his abuse. For example, some women talked pointedly about growing up in
unloving households, so that love was not something of which they felt worthy as adults.
After learning that her mother had attempted to abort her and after her mother’s attempts
to give her away as a small child, Nikki had such a devalued sense of herself as to
question, “Why was I even bom?”. Paula was similarly despondent over her alcoholic
parents’ lack of participation in her young adult life: “I lettered in two sports in high
school. No one was ever there [to watch me compete]. Everyone else’s parents were
there [but mine]”. Other women described how they had been called names their whole
lives, so that they were less likely to respond negatively when their partners did the same.
This is not to say that the women were not affected by the verbal abuse; on the contrary,

several participants remarked that the cruelty of their partners’ words hurt worse than the

95

physical blows. Instead, it is suggested only that their lowered sense of self-worth
desensitized them to the verbal abuse and kept them from demanding cessation of it.

Helen’s description of her childhood, in which her father sold her sexually in
order to pay off his gambling debts, echoes both of these sentiments:

And, I never really knew love, you know? I never had nobody just to love

me genuine. And, when I look at myself in the mirror, I still don’t see

myself ‘cause Ijust don’t know who I am. I just feel like, you know, a

punchin’ bag or somethin’.... Ijust felt like a sex slave all my life. When

you daddy sell you...what is you really worth? If your own daddy will

sell you? His own child? What you really worth, ma’am?

The lasting pain of Helen’s violent childhood is evident in her words, but also in her
limited help-seeking, as discussed previously. Similarly, Lana addresses how her
lowered sense of self-worth as a result of her traumatic upbringing affected her
perception of her adult relationship with her partner: “. . .I told [my partner that] I didn’t
think I was his type or whatever, but really to be honest, I didn’t see myself as anybody’s
type...I guess I thought it just grand if anybody liked me, you know?”

Lana’s observation relates to help-seeking because women who experienced a
lowered sense of self-worth often rationalized their decisions to stay with their abusive
partners or to keep their abuse a secret. As described in Chapter Five, despite repeated
abuse Lana initially resisted calling the police or engaging in any other type of
help-seeking. However, after a particularly severe assault she finally called the police
and her partner was arrested. Shortly thereafter she received a phone call from her

partner in jail, after which she expressed relief that he was not “mad” at her. Pleased that

96

he was not angry with her, she posted his bail and later failed to attend a hearing at which
she was scheduled to testify against him, resulting in her being sanctioned by the court.
Thus, Lana’s repeated decisions to accept her partner back into her life or to terminate the
help-seeking that she had initiated appear related to her need for acceptance that reflects
her lowered sense of self-worth stemming from her childhood trauma.
Prompting Withdrawal

The third way childhood victimization inhibits battered women’s help-seeking is
by prompting withdrawal. As discussed, withdrawal and avoidance are two behaviors
indicative of disengagement coping strategies, which research suggests are more often
utilized by women with a history of childhood victimization (Taft et al., 2007). In these
instances, women’s early experiences reinforce for them that the violence in their lives is
most appropriately dealt with on their own, without involvement from others. For
example, some participants described responding to their childhood victimization by
“withdrawing” from those around them. In recalling her childhood during which she was
physically abused by her mother and sexually molested by her mother’s ex-husband,
Keira states, “I had all types of abuse, and I just suppressed it in.” Melanie expressed a
similar sentiment: “I was like, more so, um. . .withdrawn. Um, I stayed like in a shell. I
was — Ijust didn’t want to be seen. Uh, I hated to come home from school. [I’d rather]
just go anywhere, you know, than to come home. And when I did I was just in a shell. I
wouldn’t leave my room or nothin’.”

These observations are important in relation to help-seeking. In Keira’s case, she
relied upon covert, internal methods of help-seeking, echoing Taft et al.’s (2007) finding

that childhood abuse is associated with decreased engagement coping. Keira did not

97

initiate contact with the police (though this admittedly would have been difficult as she
did not have a telephone), and despite telling a counselor about the abuse did not pursue
any formalized help-seeking. Instead, she carefully planned her escape in secret over a
period of weeks. In Melanie’s case, her partner had been abusive “for years” “before she
finally decided to get help by calling the police, stating : “I just put up with it.” In both of
these cases, the women’s inclination to respond to their partner’s abuse by “putting up
with it” or by otherwise keeping their experiences a secret may be rooted in their
withdrawal and seclusion as young victims of abuse.
Engendering Learned Silence
‘ The fourth way childhood victimization inhibits adult battered women’s help-

seeking is by engendering learned silence. Some women’s silence stems from observing
their mothers’ response (or lack thereof) to IPV. For example, the bitterness in Paula’s
voice was unmistakable as she described her mother’s failure to leave her abusive father:

And he’s hitting her, he’s got her down he’s hitting her. I don’t know how

many nights that I went to bed and prayed to God that something would

happen to him, that he wouldn’t come back home, because Mom wouldn’t

get us out, because if she—she had opportunity. My dad’s mother tried to

get her to leave and come and live, take us and live with her. And, but if

she went there she’d have to straighten up, she couldn’t drink. She

couldn’t stay drunk all the time,’ So, it was more worth it to her, and it

didn’t matter if I had done anything [to help my mom] or not.
Similarly, Gretchen described her own mother’s unwillingness to leave her abusive father

in plainer terms:

98

She basically just took it. I mean, um, she just took it. She let him treat

her that way, you know...I remember one time when I was real small he

tried to choke me to death, and my mother took me and we went out, and

she had somebody come pick us up and we went to their house, and I was

really young but I remember her, I guess, talking with a friend, like, “You

don’t need to go back to that.” You know, “You need to get away from

that,” and all that. And then Daddy comin’ and gettin’ us and going back

home. But, uh, she just took it.
In both of these examples, Gretchen and Paula recall that their mothers did not seek help
in any way that was perceptible to them. Both of these women also expressed some
reluctance to engage in formal help-seeking when they found themselves in their own
abusive relationships. When asked directly about whether she contacted the authorities
about the violence in her marriage, Gretchen stated clearly her unwillingness to do so that
recalls her learned silence: “I never went to the police, and I didn’t go to the hospital
because, I don’t know, you just don’t, you know? I’ve always taken care of myself.”

Finally, and most ominously, some women actually were reprimanded or
punished for attempting to seek help as children. Helen recalled how at age 11 she
received a “whoopin’” from her parents after she told them that her uncle had been
sexually molesting her. Similarly, Keira told her pastor about her physically abusive
mother, but he told her that he “couldn’t get into it because that was my mother”.
Through their negative experiences with help-seeking as children, Helen and Keira

learned that telling others about the violence in'their homes not only was ineffectual, but

99

also brought about serious negative repercussions. As discussed previously, both women
relied most heavily upon personal self-help strategies.

Likewise, Paula described how help-seeking backfired on her when she called the
police as a teen to report instances in which her father assaulted her mother. ’ Paula stated
that when the police officers did not arrest her father after she had called them to her
home, she would “be in that much more crap” for attempting to seek help on her mother’s
behalf. This recalls Dutton’s (1993) assertion, based on examples from her clinical
practice, that battered women who grew up with parental IPV to which the police were
unresponsive may “learn” during childhood “that the police were not a viable option to

stop the violence” (p. 1220).

Promoting Attachment to An Abusive Partner

The fifth way childhood victimization inhibits adult battered women’s help-
seeking is by promoting attachment to their abusive partners. For example, more than
one woman talked in very candid terms about her attempts to fill an emotional void left
by a destructive upbringing—most often through a father’s absence—with her partner’s
affections, despite the abuse. As Izzy recalls:

I was always—I thought of my son’s father as a father, kinda, because my

father left. He was gone, and he—the way [my partner] took care of' me,

and the children...l always wanted it, you know? I was like, ‘Forget what

he does to me. He takes care of me.’...I think that was a big part of it, I

100

didn’t want to leave him. I did but I didn’t, ‘cause I didn’t have nobody to

take care ofme.

Similarly, Nikki remarked, “But, it wasn’t even all about him anymore because his dad
and his mom became a mother and father to me, just as they were to him. And his father
gave me something that I didn’t have with my dad: a relationship.”

Commitment to staying with an abusive partner stemming from a woman’s own
traumatic childhood is perhaps best exemplified by Lana’s experience. Lana displayed
an almost maddening amount of justification for and rationalization of her partner’s
behavior. In her interview she recounted how she repeatedly made excuses, ignored, or
downplayed his abuse, or expressed hope that he would change. However, the shock of
inadvertently discovering as a teenager that her mother’s husband was not her father——
and the doubts about having loving and trustful relationships with men that developed as
a result—might help explain her continue willingness to stay with her abusive partner:

You know, he really went through a lot, and I felt. . .hurt for him, you

know? And I felt like —— and I guess I knew kinda how it was to, you know,

have things go wrong when you’re a child and stuff...so I just thought, I

thought he needed a better chance at life, you know?... “He just needs

somebody to love him,” this is what I’m thinkin’, you know? Well, if he

just knows somebody really, really loves him and really, really cares about

him, [things might be different].

Finally, while this discussion has focused on childhood victimization as an
inhibitor, eight women (42.1%) had been victimized in previous intimate relationships.

To date, the criminological literature on help-seeking (or the broader IPV literature, for

101

that matter) has not adequately examined the consequences or causes of women’s
experiences with serial battering relationships. To my knowledge, there is no study in
existence that systematically examines women’s experiences with multiple abusive
partners. However, using the psychological literature on re-victimization as a guide, it is
reasonable to conclude that, as with childhood victimization, women’s prior experiences
with adult relationship violence also can inhibit their future help-seeking efforts as well.
Indeed, after her parents showed tremendous support and intervened on her behalf in her
first abusive relationship, Rhonda recalled, “I could not possibly let them know I was
goin’ through that again!” Therefore, prior IPV victimization may very well function in
the same manner as childhood victimization, though there are too few data in this study to
analyze this issue in sufficient detail.

This analysis suggests five ways that childhood victimization inhibits battered
women’s help-seeking: by establishing women’s expectation of abuse, lowering their
sense of self-worth, prompting withdrawal, engendering learned silence, and promoting
attachment to their abusive partners. Through these mechanisms, women’s early
exposure to violence and abuse dissuades them from pursuing formal help-seeking
strategies as adults. However, in some cases childhood victimization can also work in the
opposite manner by facilitating battered women’s help-seeking, as discussed below.

Childhood Victimization Experiences as Help-Seeking Promoters

Childhood victimization can have the opposite influence and can compel women
to seek help when they otherwise might not. Data from this analysis suggest that even
though childhood victimization primarily acted as an inhibitor to help-seeking, in some

cases women drew strength from their past experiences and used them to facilitate their

102

help-seeking. The data suggest three specific mechanisms through which childhood
victimization experiences promote battered women’s help-seeking: by encouraging
women’s boundary-drawing, fostering a “fighter” mentality, and inspiring their
determination to end the cycle of violence. Each of these three mechanisms is discussed
below.
Encouraging Bounduly-Drawing

The first way childhood victimization promotes battered women’s help-seeking is
by encouraging boundary-drawing. Several women shared how the abuse they had
suffered as children enabled them to establish clear limits for their intimate partners. For
example, after years of verbal abuse from her father (as well as a previous intimate
partner), Paula established “ground rules” with her husband by demanding that he refrain
from calling her names: “‘You will not call me out of my name, because I will not
tolerate it.’ ‘Cause once you start tolerating it, they keep doing it. . .I put up with it too
many years from someone else to go—just to go to someone [new] and let them do it.”
Paula’s use of her past victimization experiences (including years of being beaten and
whipped by her alcoholic father during a childhood she likened to “hell”) to draw
boundaries with her partner are evidenced even more clearly in a second example. She
recalls in the following passage her response to an altercation in which her partner
grabbed her—an act that clearly crossed the physical boundaries she had established for
herself:

IfI don’t want to be touched, don’t touch me. And if you do, ifI can’t

overpower you I’m going to call someone who can. ..if you put your hands

on me I will call 911 right then....When I say “let me go”—after my

103

childhood, when I say, “Let me go, don’t touch me” that means let me go.

Now! ...And I’m sorry. I know he didn’t hit me. I know he didn’t bruise

me. And I know he was telling me he loved me. [clenches teeth] But

when I tell you to get your hands. off me, I mean get your hands off me! I

don’t—after all I went through growing up, that’s as far as you’re taking it

with me.
While grabbing her in itself was not a serious act of abuse, in the context of Paula’s
violent upbringing this action clearly crossed an invisible line, prompting Paula to
involve the police in her situation.

Although this chapter focuses primarily on childhood victimization, as with the
previous discussion of inhibitors there is evidence that prior IPV victimization can also
promote battered women’s help-seeking through boundary-drawing. For example,
Bethany had a similar experience to Paula, although her prior victimization came
courtesy of a previous intimate partner rather than a parent. Still, the influence of that
abuse on her desire to establish boundaries is clear in the following passage:

This ain’t the first time somebody’s done told me they loved me and cared

about me and then beat me up or somethin’. So when I got with [my

second partner], and he even got close to, like, intimidatin’ me or
whatever, I was ready to go...I told him, I said, “Now, my son’s dad done
dragged me. I gotta scar for the rest of my life on my back....l don’t want
nothin’ else from you! OK?

In this way, Bethany sets clear limits for what is acceptable in her relationship, which

provides a baseline for her to engage help resources should that limit be breeched.

104

Fostering ”Fighter ” Mentality

The second way childhood victimization promotes adult battered women’s help-
seeking is by fostering a ‘fighter ” mentality. Interestingly, several women used the term
“fighter” to characterize themselves as a result of their abusive upbringing. This
“fighting” mentality promotes help-seeking by giving women a stance from which to
combat their victimization; in other words, they can fight back against abuse and take
care of themselves. For example, Olivia describes herself as “a fighter” growing up. She
notes that she did not back down from her step-father’s verbal abuse, and in fact would
respond in kind to his harsh words. With her partner, the first time he physically
assaulted her was the last, as she called the police as soon as he became violent. As she
explains, “I was a fighter, you know, by then...”

Similarly, Darlene recounts a difficult upbringing in an urban northeastern city,
where the kids there “make you want to fight”. In describing her intimate relationship,
she touches upon her youthful experiences, “I [kept] my guard up, because of my
lifestyle, you know, how I was raised.” Here, Darlene’s “fighting” instinct is manifested
in her willingness to both physically and legally resist her partner: “And he’s just holdin’
me down, tryin’ to... take my strength away, you know? ‘Cause he’s tryin’ to make me
weak, but I kept comin’ back, you know? Kept comin’ back. And I pressed charges on
him.” Eleanor exhibits a similar tendency, as when she “knocked [her partner] back” and
noted, “I’ve always been the person to defend myself. Growing up I was a fighter.”

Finally, Gretchen’s “fighting” mentality has many sources: her physically violent
and alcoholic father, the bullying she experienced as a consequence of being German--

born and speaking little English, and a prior violent partner. In describing how her

105

“fighting” mentality led to her use of violent resistance, Gretchen touches on all three of
these sources:
There was this one boy that, you know, all through elementary school,
he...called me names...So I kinda got tough, you know, with that, and
with my dad, and with my first husband. Because I would fight back. I
would hit him back. And my second husband, I would hit him. I would
literally hit him, and at times I was afraid I would literally kill him. I
would get put to that point, and I have got to that point where I would
literally kill him. I mean, I just, it wouldn’t take much for me to just kill
him, and he’s twice my size. And I was ready to do it and I would have
done it, and um—you know, being that angry is really scary. I mean, you
get put in that position and it’s either going to be you or [him], and it’s
going to be [him]! You know. But um...[very quietly] so I’ve been
fighting all my life.
Clearly, when Gretchen feared for her life, the toughness she developed from prior
experiences with victimization enabled her to physically fight back. Further, in each of
these examples, this “fighter” mentality recalls the notion of “survivor” used to
emphasize resilience, agency, and tenacity among battered women (e.g., see Gondolf &
Fisher, 1988).
Inspiring Determination to End the Cycle of Violence
The third way childhood victimization promotes adult battered women’s help-
seeking is by inspiring determination to end the cycle of violence. This is perhaps the

most straightforward and logical mechanism through which childhood victimization

106

promotes battered women’s help-seeking. The premise is simple: women learn from
their experiences that they do not want to duplicate with their intimate partners the
unhealthy and abusive dynamics of their families of origin. For example, Connie had
been sexually abused as a child, and it was her husband’s threat to rape her that prompted
her to call the police. In this instance, it was a threat to repeat the specific trauma that she
had endured as a child that spurred Connie to contact the police, even when she had not
done so previously.

Another way that childhood abuse promotes women’s help-seeking is the exact
opposite of the learned silence that develops while watching their own mothers remain
with their abusive fathers. That is, whereas some women watched their mothers “take it”
and learned that this is the appropriate strategy for handling IPV, other women grew up
adamant that they would not end up like their mothers. Thus, the parental IPV in April’s
household informed her help-seeking decisions in two ways. First, it was her mother who
encouraged April to seek shelter in the first place, using her own experiences with April’s
abusive father as her guide. Second, April describes her attempts to “get some stuff taken
care of” by enrolling for classes, getting food stamps, and getting her own apartment, and
notes, “I want my baby to have a normal life and not see what I saw [growing up].”
Though not ameliorative strategies per se, April’s efforts to gain independence certainly
constitute help-seeking, and are informed by the trauma of her childhood.

Similarly, Olivia moved out when things with her partner began to “fade”.
Though her mother wanted her to stay with her partner because he was handy around the
house, she told her, “Well, yeah, look, I’m not about to go through abuse like you did...”

In terms of help-seeking, Olivia called the police after the first time her partner physically

107

abused her; compared to the other women in the sample, this is remarkably swift help-
seeking. Similarly, Olivia connects her'reasons for seeking out the support group to
watching the parental IPV in her home and her resulting low self-esteem. Of her decision
to leave her abusive partner, she comments, “Or I coulda just followed my mother’s
footsteps. . .you know, I could be so blind to men out here today and do whatever they tell
me to do...”

Finally, Jackie, who is Olivia’s half-sister and whose father was responsible for
the IPV directed at her (and Olivia’s) mother, described a similar desire to avoid the
victimization that her mother endured. Indeed, Jackie exhibited a very matter-of—fact
attitude in her help-seeking: she made the decision to leaver her partner, and she did,
without looking back. Again, compared to many of the other women, this type of quick
and decisive separation is uncommon. However, Olivia’s willingness to leave her partner
seems to have clear roots in her refusal to end up in a battering relationship as her mother
had:

I done seen—I grew up with it, and I seen my momma go through it, and

I’m not ‘bout to go through it, especially in front of my kids. You know

what I’m sayin’? ..... I done seen that—I done been there, done that. . .. So, I

had a choice to either stay there and get my butt whooped or leave. It ain’t

like he had a gun to my head sayin’, you know, “You better stay with me.”

So, hey! I left him alone.

What Determines Whether Childhood Victimization Inhibits or Promotes Help-Seeking?

As the foregoing discussion reveals, this analysis suggests three ways that

childhood victimization promotes battered women’s help-seeking: by encouraging

108

boundary-drawing, fostering a “fighter” mentality, and inspiring determination to end the
cycle of violence. However, for most women exposure to childhood violence acted as a
help-seeking inhibitor through one of the five mechanisms described in the previous
section. Consequently, one important question raised by these findings is what
determines whether childhood victimization inhibits or promotes a woman’s help-
seeking? One possible factor is severity of childhood victimization. For example, some
women whose narratives offer examples of help-seeking inhibitors—like Keira, Nikki,
Paula, and Helen—were victims‘of extremely severe childhood abuse, whereas this is not
true for women like Olivia and Bethany who provided examples of help-seeking
promoters. This is not always the case, however, so victimization severity alone cannot
differentiate between help-seeking inhibition and promotion. An alternative explanation
is that severity of relationship violence matters. As noted previously, several of the
women who experienced help-seeking promoters engaged in remarkably quick and
decisive help-seeking, sometimes by calling the police or leaving their partners after the
first incident of physical abuse. The violence in these women’s relationships obviously
was less extensive than that of women who remained with their abusive partners for
many years before seeking help, therefore it is possible that childhood victimization is
more likely to promote help-seeking in the early stages of IPV or before the violence has
become particularly severe. Still, this observation does not fully explain why prior
victimization promoted some women’s help-seeking and enabled them to “get out”
quickly, while other women with similar victimization histories were inhibited in their

help-seeking efforts.

109

Additionally, it is possible that it is not childhood victimization per se but rather
the resulting exposure to help-seeking resources that matters in distinguishing between
inhibitors and promoters. In this case, women who were cut off from avenues of support
or who had negative experiences with help-seeking agencies as children may be more
likely to experience help-seeking inhibitors than women having favorable childhood
experiences with help-seeking. For example, Tammy described how her decision not to
enter a battered women’s shelter was rooted in unpleasant memories of staying in a
shelter as a child with her mother:

Had you ever thought about going to the shelter?

Nooo. ..

No?

I had kids and I didn’t—I used to stay at a shelter when we was kids

because my mother had went through the same situation with [her

boyfriend]. And that’s—I would not suggest a shelter for no-one....

We used to stay in the shelter a long time ago and it’s not good for

nobody. . .That’s why I never jumped up and went.

That is, it may be that positive help-seeking experiences stemming from prior
victimization facilitate battered women’s later help-seeking, while negative help-seeking
experiences inhibit future help-seeking. The inhibiting influence of negative help-
seeking experiences may be particularly pronounced for girls of color and other
marginalized girls, as Helen’s comments reveal. Noting her family‘s prominence among
the Black upper class, she remarked that the child abuse “was always a secret in my

family,” and that the resources available to victims like herself at that time were

110

nonexistent: “You got little kids, you know, bein’ abused, and they didn’t have all this,
uh, psychiatrist stuff for Black people”. In this way, social-structural forces also likely
play an important role in determining whether childhood victimization (and the resulting
help-seeking experiences) inhibits or promotes adult battered women’s help-seeking,

making these findings especially relevant for marginalized women.

Theoretical Advancement
Taken together, the results of this analysis suggest that past life events (most

saliently childhood and other past victimization experiences) influence women’s help-
seeking. In other words, past experiences matter in shaping future behavior. Obviously,
this observation does not constitute a theoretical breakthrough, as this is one of the
fundamental tenets of life course or developmental theory (e. g., see Elder, 1998).
However, this analysis advances theory through what Snow (2004, p. 134) has described
as “theoretical extension”:

In this process, one does not generate or develop a new theory per se, but

extends pre-existing theoretical or conceptual formulations to other groups

or aggregations, to other bounded contexts or places. or to other

sociocultural domains. As such, theoretical extension focuses on

broadening the relevance of a particular concept or theoretical system to a

range of empirical contexts other than those in which they were first

developed or intended to be used (p. 134).

The results of this dissertation support the theoretical extension of two existing

frameworks—feminist pathways and life course models—to the study of battered

111

women’s help-seeking. In criminology, both of these frameworks exclusively examine
offending outcomes, but this dissertation reveals that they also are useful in examining
altemative outcomes such as help-seeking. Below I describe each of these models, and
then offer justification for extending these models to the study of battered women’s help-
seeking.
Feminist Pathways Model

The term “feminist pathways” refers to a body of research that examines the
influence of girls’ childhood victimization experiences on their adult criminality and
offending behaviors. “Since the late 19705, feminist criminologists have increasingly
referred to this link between victimization and trauma with subsequent offending as the
‘pathways’ approach. Stated alternatively, the pathways approach identifies girls’ and
women’s (and sometimes, boys’ and men’s) victimization and trauma histories as risk
factors for trajectories into offending behaviors” (Wilson & Belknap, in press). In
particular, feminist pathways research aims to use girls’ and women’s voices to explore
linkages between their childhood victimization and their adult offending behaviors
(Belknap, 2007). “Thus, the feminist pathways research to date typically attempts to gain
data that are quasilongitudinal by asking girls and women to discuss their lives and
attempts to sequence major events (e. g., abuse by parents, school experiences, delinquent
and criminal behavior, and so on)” (Belknap, 2007, p. 71).

Perhaps the best known pathways analysis is Daly’s (1994) examination of female
offenders. In this article, Daly explores the diversity of circumstances, including abuse

experiences, addiction, relationship dynamics, and economic marginalization, that lead to

women’s criminality. Daly (1994) identifies various categories of women who follow

112

distinct pathways to criminal behavior, including: “street women,” who became involved
in street life (i.e., hustling, prostitution, drug dealing, etc.) often after fleeing a troubled
home, “harmed and harming” women, who act out violently after being abused or
neglected as young girls, “battered women,” who are in violent intimate relationships,
and “drug connected women,” whose drug addiction came via a relationship with a
boyfriend or parent. By distinguishing the various avenues by which women become
involved in offending, Daly aims to “transform the abstraction called ‘the female
defendant’ into a woman with a biography and a set of relation to others. By bringing
some detail of a woman’s life into view,” Daly explains, it is possible to “understand the
conditions and circumstances that spawn violence and illegal forms of economic gain”
(Daly, 1994, p. 21).

Other studies also employ the feminist pathways model. For instance, Richie
(1996) uses a pathways analysis to develop her theory of gender entrapment, designed to
explain offending among Black battered women. Gaarder & Belknap (2003) examine the
life histories of 22 girls incarcerated in an adult women’s prison in order to identify their
pathways to crime and their previous victimization experiences. More recently, Reisig,
Holtfreter, and Morash (2006) explore women’s risk of recidivism across various
pathways to crime, while Wilson and Belknap (in press) conduct a pathways analysis of
the extensive sexual abuse histories among a sample of 391 incarcerated women. As is
clear from these examples, this type of research almost exclusively focuses on offending
behaviors. However, feminist pathways shares similarities with another framework used

to explore offending and other phenomena as well: the life course model.

113

Life Course Model

The life course or developmental model, as its name suggests, examines the
development of human behavior over the course of time and in the context of historical
and situational events. The life course model is characterized by “the notion that
changing lives alter developmental trajectories” (Elder, 1998, p. l), and has been applied
to the study of myriad phenomena ranging from the development of psychiatric disorders
to disease epidemiology. As such, the life course model includes two key concepts:
“trajectories,” defined as pathways of behavior such as education or work, and
“transitions,” or short-term events such as graduation or the birth of a first child that alter
trajectories by acting as “turning points” (Elder, 1998). Thus:

[Life pathways] refer to the social trajectories. . .that are followed by
individuals and groups through society. Life transitions...are always part

of social trajectories that give them meaning and form. The multiple

trajectories of individuals and their developmental implications are basic

elements of the “life course,” as conceptualized in research and theory

(Elder, 1998, pp. 1-2).

Within criminology, the life course model is used to examine patterns of
offending (i.e., trajectories of crime) over time. In particular, life course criminologists
attempt to identify factors that predict the onset of deviance and persistence of criminal
behavior. as well as desistance from crime (Sampson & Laub, 2005). One topic of
particular interest to life course criminologists is stability and change in offending
patterns, or “the question of whether (and why) adolescents persist or desist from crime

as they age across the adult life course” (Sampson & Laub, 2005, pp. 12-13). Here, as

114

with the general body of life course research, transitions or turning points that alter
trajectories of offending are of particular interest.

The last two decades have seen a proliferation of criminological research that uses
the life course model. Perhaps the best known and most influential application of the life
course model in criminology is Sampsonand Laub’s research on juvenile delinquents in
Boston using data collected over the span of nearly 40 years by Harvard researchers
Sheldon and Eleanor Gleuck (see Sampson & Laub, 2005 for a review). In their first
book, Crime in the Making, Sampson and Laub (1993) developed their age-graded theory
of informal social control, which states that social bonds in adulthood strengthened
through transitions such as marriage or employment can disrupt trajectories of offending
begun in adolescence. In their second book, Shared Beginnings, Divergent Lives, Laub
and Sampson (2003) elaborated on their previous work by suggesting that social control,
as exerted through the institutions of work, family, and marriage, is influential in aiding
the desistance process. As with other life course analyses in criminology, the work of
Sampson and Laub primarily is concerned with trajectories and turning points as they
relate to offending and desistance.

The feminist pathways and life course models share many similarities, including a
focus on trajectories of behavior and the role of transitions in altering or shaping those
trajectories, as well as a concern with criminality (or desistance) as an outcome. In other
words, to date almost all feminist pathways and developmental criminological studies
attempt to explain how and why offenders (whether male or female) commence and
continue their behavior, as well as why they cease offending. Though they differ in that

feminist pathways models center on girls’ and women’s offending and specifically

115

examine the role of past victimization experiences, both of these models share a concern
with explaining and predicting offending. However, the results of this analysis suggest
that these models should be extended and applied to non-offending outcomes as well,
including battered women’s help-seeking. I offer three arguments to support the
theoretical extension of feminist pathways and life course models to battered women’s
help-seeking, and each is discussed in turn below.
Extending Feminist Pathways and Life Course Models to Help-Seeking

First, there is significant conceptual overlap between theories of battered
women’s help-seeking and feminist pathways and life course theoretical models. Recall
that the key concepts in these models are trajectories (pathways of behavior) and
transitions (tuming points that can alter trajectories). While used almost exclusively to
understand offending (or desistence), these concepts have corollaries in the help-seeking
literature. For example, at least one scholar has envisioned help-seeking vis-a-vis
women’s decisions to leave their violent partners as a trajectory or “pathway” (Patton,
2003). In her study, Patton (2003, p. 4) defines pathways as “enablers,” or “the public,
private, and community services (formal support) and family, friends, neighbours, work
colleagues, fellow students, and other members of the community (informal support) that
women perceived enabled them to overcome or remove identified barriers to leaving and
starting a new life”. Similarly, Patton (2003, p. 4) defines turning points as “those events
that most influenced the decisions that contributed to a woman being able to leave and
establish a new life, as well as the points at which women made their life changing

decisions”.

116

Indeed, the concept of “turning points” has been used in other analyses to explain
battered women’s help-seeking decisions. For example, Taylor (2002) examines the
“defining moments” that allowed Black battered women to “disengage” from their
abusive relationships, and notes that such moments can include listening to other
women’s stories of abuse, witnessing the abuser’s violence toward others, observing the
impact of the abuse on children, accepting the abuser’s rejection, and receiving
encouragement from other women. Encountering one or more of these defining moments
serves as a turning point that prompts women to leave their partners when they previously
had not been inclined to do so. Similarly, other scholars have examined women’s help-
seeking using the concept of a “threshold,” or a tolerance limit of abuse that once
surpassed prompts women to seek help (Fugate etal., 2005). Actions such as harm to the
children or the perceived threat of death can serve as turning points at which women
decide that “enough is enough” and that action is warranted (F ugate et al., 2005). Data
from this dissertation also support this idea, as over half of the participants suggested that
their help-seeking was prompted by the feeling that they had reached the limits of what
they could endure.

Findings from this analysis suggest that the life course concept of transitions or
turning points, and the concern with prior victimization found in feminist pathways, both
are particularly relevant to help-seeking. In contrast to Patton’s (2003) conceptualization
of pathways as “enablers,” data from this study suggest that help-seeking itself should be
considered a trajectory of behavior, like offending. Specifically, adult battered women’s
inclinations to use or avoid certain help-seeking strategies appear rooted in their

childhood (and other prior) victimization experiences. In other words, childhood

117

victimization experiences can launch long-term help-seeking trajectories that inform the
decisions of adult battered women. Once established, women follow these pathways until
an event or series of events compels them to adopt an alternative help-seeking

trajectory. ’5

For example, when childhood victimization acts as a help-seeking inhibitor, a
woman’s help-seeking trajectory may involve avoidance of outside sources of support
until a particular turning point compels her to adopt an alterative help-seeking trajectory
involving the police or other resources. Both Keira’s and Melanie’s help-seeking fit this
pattern. Both women described “withdrawing” in response to their childhood
victimization, and their help-seeking trajectories as adult battered women involved little
to no utilization of formal avenues of support. For both women, though, a particular
turning point (abuse of her children for Keira, severity of the abuse and “enough is
enough” for Melanie) prompted them to select an alternative help-seeking trajectory that
involved reaching out to formal avenues of support.

Second, use of feminist pathways and life course models improves upon existing
theoretical approaches to help-seeking. As discussed in Chapter Three, existing
frameworks used to theorize about battered women’s help-seeking have shortcomings
that severely limit their usefulness: they do not make sufficient allowances for structural
forces that shape (and often constrain) women’s help-seeking options, they too often rely
upon a pathological view of battered women as helpless and handicapped, they reduce
women’s help-seeking decisions to simplistic (and de-contextualized) “cost-benefit”

analyses, and they are not particularly relevant to the lived experiences of women from

 

'5 These turning points need not be “defining moments” as Taylor (2002) suggests, but also could be “a
succession of choice points” that occur over time (Elder, 1998).

118

marginalized social groups. In contrast, feminist pathways and life course models offer
improvements in many of these regards.

For example, use of feminist pathways and life course models moves beyond
understandings of battered women’s decision-making, such as learned helplessness, that
often focus on pathology in battered women. Moreover, narrow explanations of battered
women’s help-seeking that focus solely “why women stay” often amount to little more
than victim-blaming. Instead, a theoretical framework that views women’s help-seeking
as a culmination of previous life experiences holds greater explanatory power (and thus
has greater utility) than more myopic approaches. As IPV researchers have recognized
the need for theories of help—seeking that are more complex than pathological or victim-
blaming approaches (Gondolf & Fisher, 1.988), feminist pathways and life course models
seem especially worthy of adoption.

Similarly, the life course model in particular improves upon the rational choice
approach by placing human agency (or the ability to choose a particular course of action)
in a historical and sociopolitical context, thereby recognizing the barriers to help-seeking
that exist and acknowledging that women make the best choices they can given their
(often severely limited) options (e.g., see Websdale & Johnson, 1997). Indeed, the
importance of understanding human agency within the confines of historical, structural,
and institutional forces has not escaped life course researchers, who note that “individuals
construct their own life course through the choices and actions'they take within the
opportunities and constraints of history and social circumstances” (Elder, 1998, p. 4).
Similarly, life course criminologists make the same point, arguing that “human agency

cannot be divorced from the situation or context, once again making choice situated or

119

relational rather than a property of the person or even the environment; agency is
constitutive of both” (Sampson & Laub, 2005, p. 38). Thus, feminist pathways and life
course models move beyond narrow examinations of help-seeking to contextualize and
literally broaden our view of battered women’s decision-making processes.

Moreover, feminist pathways and life course models allow for the development of
help-seeking theories that consider how women’s help-seeking behaviors might change
over time. This is a crucial advancement over previous models of help-seeking because
women’s help-seeking varies over time and in response to changing life circumstances.
For example, some women in this study described experiencing both inhibitors and
promoters at different points in their lives or in different abusive relationships. This
observation raises important theoretical questions that are best answered by examining
help-seeking over the life course: how does the influence of childhood victimization on
help-seeking vary at different times in a woman’s life? Might women’s childhood
victimization experiences inhibit certain types of help-seeking but promote others? What
about prior intimate partner victimization experiences? These types of questions are best
answered by conceiving of help-seeking as a trajectory or pathway and by considering
how various events alter women’s help—seeking trajectories.

A related issue is whether it is childhood victimization itself or the resulting
exposure to help-seeking agencies (or some combination of the two) that influences adult
battered women’s help-seeking, as discussed previously. While some of the inhibitors
and promoters identified in this analysis reflect consequences of the victimization itself
(e. g., establishing expectation of abuse, lowering self-worth, promoting attachment to

abusive partners, and encouraging boundary-drawing), others may more accurately

120

reflect the extent to which women had access to (or success with) help-seeking
organizations as children (e.g., learned silence, prompting withdrawal, fostering a
“lighter” mentality, and inspiring determination to end cycle of violence). Thus, it is
likely that both actual victimization experiences as well as prior help-seeking experiences
shape battered women’s help-seeking. Disentangling these influenCes is a difficult task.
Fortunately, feminist pathways and life course models provide a framework for
answering these and other questions about exactly how prior victimization experiences
influence battered women’s help-seeking.

Third, that feminist pathways and life course models allow for inclusion of
context and structure makes them particularly relevant to women who are marginalized
by intersecting systems of power such as race, class, and gender. That is, women do not
make decisions to seek help in a vacuum, or only within the confines of their relationship,
but rather those decisions are made within the influence of historical and social factors.
Elder’s (1998) life course concept of “linked lives” is instructive here. Elder (1998, p. 4)
states that “lives are lived interdependently, and social and historical influences are
expressed through this network of shared relationships”. Thus, not only are battered
women’s help-seeking decisions shaped by prior life events such as childhood
victimization, they also are constrained by “social and historical influences” such as
racism, sexism, poverty, and so on.

If socio-structural forces, for example, limit the accessibility of culturally relevant
services for immigrant women and women of color, then their help-seeking options
necessarily are reduced. Again, Helen’s comments about the lack of help resources for

abused Black children during her youth illustrate the importance of evaluating how

121

social-structural forces shape help-seeking throughout women’s lives. Drawing upon
evidence from sexual assault research which suggests that Black women may not fully
reveal the extent of the harm they experienced to service providers (Hine, 1989), and that
culturally-specific factors influence Black women’s decisions to report their sexual
assaults (Neville & Pugh, 1997), it is clear that a theoretical framework that can situate
marginalized women’s help—seeking decisions in a socio-cultural context is necessary.
As data from this and other studies demonstrate, the lives of marginalized battered
women are linked not only to their own prior experiences, but also to the broader social
structure. Clearly, then, a framework that makes allowances for these forces has
particular relevance for battered women who are marginalized within that structure.
Further, the feminist pathways model is particularly valuable to the study of
marginalized battered women’s help-seeking because it privileges and emphasizes
women’s lived experiences. That is, feminist pathways studies are informed by feminist
standpoint epistemology, an approach to gathering knowledge that asks questions from
the perspective of women’ lives (Harding, 1991). The use of standpoint epistemology is
especially applicable to gathering knowledge about women from marginalized
backgrounds, as this approach assumes that people from oppressed groups have a
particularly acute view of the social world: “[T]he material deprivation of the oppressed
gives them a perspective—an access of knowledge—that the oppressors cannot possibly
have” (Bartlett, 1991, p. 386). According to Standpoint epistemology, every individual
has only a limited view of the social world, yet individuals from oppressed groups whose

daily experiences are marginalized have a more complete view of the social order. Thus,

‘ this approach can be used to “give voice” to women whose experiences are typically

under-represented in claims about knowledge, including marginalized battered women.

Summary

Findings from this analysis suggest that prior life events such as childhood
victimization influence battered women’s help-seeking decisions. In particular,
childhood victimization experiences can either inhibit or promote battered women’s adult
help-seeking. These results suggest that help-seeking theorizing should make use of
feminist pathways and life course models to fully account for the influence of past life
events on later behavior. To date, feminist pathways and life course models in
criminology have focused exclusively on offending outcomes. However, the results of
this dissertation suggest that these models are useful in understanding how battered
women’s “pathways” to help-seeking are shaped by past life experiences such as
childhood victimization. In particular, extension of feminist pathways and life course
models to help-seeking offers an improved theoretical framework for understanding
women’s help-seeking decisions (especially those of marginalized women) that is free
from the shortcomings of existing frameworks. The practical and research implications

of these findings are the subject of the next chapter.

123

CHAPTER SEVEN:
CONCLUSION

The purpose of this dissertation is to broaden our understanding of battered
women’s help-seeking experiences by placing help-seeking into an appropriate
theoretical context. Moreover, this analysis aims to center this understanding on the
experiences of women from marginalized social groups who are especially vulnerable to
IPV and who face additional barriers to help-seeking. In particular, data from this study
offer support for the extension and application of two existing theoretical frameworks—
feminist pathways and life course perspectives—to battered women’s help-seeking.
Indeed, conceptualizing women’s “pathways” to help-seeking as being influenced by
prior life events offers an advancement over previous models of help-seeking that
consider only contemporaneous influences on women’s decisions. After first describing
the limitations of this study, I conclude this chapter by outlining implications of this

dissertation for policy and future research.

Limitations
The chief limitation of this dissertation is that the time allotted for data collection
and coding was truncated, thereby hindering my ability to fully explore the phenomenon
under study. My data collection schedule was guided by practical constraints as well as
by empirical concerns. That is, I set a deadline at which to stop data collection in order to
ensure that I had sufficient time to finish my analyses and complete my dissertation. The
issue here is not that 19 participants is necessarily an insufficient number of cases, as

other similar studies have used a similar number of cases. For example, Lopez and

124

Emmer (2000) conducted in—depth interviews with 24 adolescent male offenders to
generate a theory of delinquent crime contexts, while Wuest and Merritt-Gray (1999)
examine the process by which women successfully leave their abusive intimate partners
using in-depth interviews with 15 IPV survivors. Indeed, I am confident that the sample
in Southeast City was sufficiently large, as many similar themes emerged across
interviews there. However, I am less confident in the completeness of the data from
Midwest Metro, where only four interviews were conducted before my deadline for data
collection was reached.

The small number of participants in Midwest Metro is problematic for another
reason as well. While sample size per se is not a concern as generalizability is not a goal
of this analysis, I had hoped for a more balanced number of participants from each
research site so as to make cross-site comparisons. I was able to make some cursory
cross-site comparisons, including the observation that the role of personal faith in
women’s help-seeking does not appear to be regionally specific. Undoubtedly, though,
conducting more interviews in Midwest Metro would have improved this analysis not
only by promoting data saturation, but also by enabling more thorough data comparisons
between the research sites.

Still, several efforts were made to increase the number of participants from
Midwest Metro. For example, the support group staff spoke about the project at several
meetings and encouraged women to participate in this study, while I was extremely
flexible about interview scheduling and offered additional gas money beyond the
standard $25 to offset transportation costs. However, based on conversations I had with

the key informant there, it is my understanding that the reason for the low turnout was

due to economic disadvantage: it simply was not possible for women in Midwest Metro
to find the time or transportation necessary to make an additional trip to the support
group location in order to be interviewed. That is, undue financial burdens related to
transportation, child care, or employment absence precluded study participation for many
women in Midwest Metro. Although both the support group staff and I worked hard to
accommodate the women at this site, and although many women expressed initial interest
in participating in the study, in the end participation simply was not logistically or
economically tenable for women in Midwest Metro. Of course, it is precisely these
economically marginalized women whose experiences this analysis sought to capture,
further illustrating the limitation presented by the low number of participants in Midwest
Metro.

Despite these limitations, this study makes a significant contribution to the help-
seeking literature by advancing a theoretical understanding of battered women’s help-
seeking that is centered on the experiences of women from marginalized groups. As
such, the results of this analysis have implications both for policy as well as for future

research, which are discussed in turn below.

Implications
Policy Implications
This dissertation suggests several important implications for policy. First, if
childhood victimization influences adult battered women’s help-seeking decisions as this
analysis suggests, then support group staff, counselors, and, therapists who assist battered

women must be trained and prepared to address women’s earlier experiences with trauma

as well as the violence from their intimate partners. That is, rather than focus exclusively
on women’s relationship violence, services for battered women also should provide
strategies for counteracting the negative effect of prior abuse for women with a history of
victimization. As seen in this analysis, childhood victimization experiences can inhibit
women’s help-seeking in several ways. With this knowledge in mind, proactive service
providers can work on altering women’s perceptions of abuse expectations, improving
their self-esteem, addressing their tendency to withdraw, and encouraging them to utilize
both informal and formal help-seeking strategies rather than keeping the abuse to
themselves. In sum, service providers must be prepared to address the full continuum of
violence directed at battered women over the course of their lives.

In the same way, service-providers for victims of child abuse and neglect must be
aware that inhibiting future IPV help-seeking is a potential long-term consequence of
childhood victimization. Among the many deleterious effects of childhood trauma, then,
is inhibition of future help-seeking for girls who go on to experience IPV in later years.
Therapists, counselors, and others who provide support and services to survivors of child
abuse and neglect can use this knowledge to make young girls aware not only of their
elevated risk of IPV victimization, as suggested by the re-victimization literature, but also
of their risk of inhibited help-seeking as suggested by this dissertation. Conversely, girls
can be encouraged to make use of their childhood victimization experiences to facilitate
help-seeking, should they find themselves involved in an abusive intimate relationship.
By encouraging young girls to use their victimization experiences to establish personal

boundaries, develop a self-image as “fighters” or “survivors” of abuse, and commit to

I27

ending the cycle ofviolence, service providers may be able to prevent some of the
enduring emotional and behavioral damage that childhood victimization can cause.

Next, the relevance of women’s previous help-seeking experiences to their
decisions about whether and how to seek help-in the future is of particular importance,
especially where the criminal justice system is concerned. As the statements made by
some of the court-ordered women in Southeast City reveal, it is crucial that the criminal
justice system’s interactions with battered women be responsive, reasonable, and
respectful. At the risk of repeating what has become a de rigeur admonition among
criminologists who study IPV, it is crucial that agents of the criminal justice system
continue to receive training that educates and sensitizes them to the realities of
relationship violence. While police response to IPV has improved greatly over the last
two decades, there is still room for improvement as suggested by continuing evidence of
inappropriate police response to IPV (DeJong, Burgess-Proctor, & Elis, 2007). While
officers may experience understandable fatigue and frustration with IPV calls, and while
this may cause some officers to lash out at the women who place those calls, this analysis
reveals that even one negative interaction with a responding officer can embitter women
to the point that they vow not to involve the police again. Similarly, women in this study
who perceived the judge in front of whom they appeared to be dismissive or unfair
expressed similar resistance to re-using the criminal justice system. As long as the
criminal justice system is positioned as the primary mechanism of help for victims of IPV
(Almeida & Lockard, 2005; Josephson, 2002; Richie, 1996), it is imperative that its
agents strive to have positive and supportive interactions with battered women. If not,

women may continue to be dissuaded from using the very mechanism that they are most

128

expected and encouraged to use, thereby severely limiting avenues of help-seeking
available to them.

However, an altemative approach would be to alleviate some of the tremendous
burden placed on the criminal justice system as a help-seeking mechanism for battered
women by increasing women’s usage of other sources of support. For example, the near
unanimous satisfaction with support group services expressed by the participants in this
study suggests that such services have the potential to be profoundly positive influences
in women’s lives. This finding, coupled with the suggestion that counseling services for
battered women address the prior abuse experiences of those with a history of childhood
victimization, indicates that counseling, therapy, and support groups are particularly
deserving of increased attention. Moreover, the finding that some battered women rely
heavily on their spirituality and personal faith for support in their abusive intimate
relationships indicates that the response of faith groups to IPV should be expanded and
improved. For example, IPV education and training for church leaders iS'an obvious
place to start, while faith-based support groups where women can feel comfortable
voicing their beliefs and are empowered to share the strength of their convictions may be
particularly beneficial for some groups of battered women.

Additionally, the focus of this analysis on women from marginalized social
groups suggests the need for services directed toward battered women that are both
accessible to and relevant for marginalized women. Regarding accessibility, it has been
established that marginalized women face tremendous barriers to help-seeking that can
make it challenging for them to access the criminal justice system, support groups, legal

assistance, and other sources of support. Moreover, as women from marginalized

12.9

backgrounds are particularly vulnerable to IPV, it is essential that accessibility of these
services be improved in order to increase women’s safety. Finally, IPV researchers and
practitioners alike recognize that services for battered women must be culturally
sensitive, so as not to reproduce systems of power that disadvantage and disenfranchise
marginalized women (Donnelly, Cook, Van Ausdale, & Foley, 2005). This study echoes
these suggestions, and provides furtherjustification for enabling access to help-seeking .
resources for those women who are in the greatest need and who face the most significant
challenges to receiving them.

Finally, I ended each interview by asking women what advice they would give to
other women who are in abusive relationships and are thinking about getting help. Aside
from the straightforward command to “get out” no matter what the cost, the most
common response women gave was to “know the signs” of abusive behavior.
Undoubtedly drawing upon the counseling they had received in their support group
meetings, women spoke pointedly about how they had misinterpreted (or simply missed
altogether) their partners’ behaviors that should have served as warning signs. For
example, women frequently commented that they initially considered their partners’
obsessive attention to their attire, their friends, and their interactions as flattery, and only
in retrospect recognized them as tactics of control and manipulation. Thus, many women
concluded that awareness education is crucial; that is, it is imperative to educate all
young people about warning signs of IPV. This emphasis on early awareness is
particularly important given that several women in this study experienced their first
abusive relationship as teens, an age many people assume is too young for IPV to occur.

Thus, it is recommended that all state sex education curricula be required to include a

130

 

. lil Ill Ill

 

module on IPV. Just as American students are educated about the perils of sexually
transmitted diseases in an effort to reduce infection rates, so should students (male and
female alike) be educated about relationship violence so as to reduce the occurrence of
IPV.
Research Implications

This dissertation also suggests several important implications for future help-
seeking research. First, this study has clear implications for the type of research designs
used to study help-seeking. Clearly, in order to adequately assess whether childhood
victimization experiences influence future help-seeking behaviors, it is necessary to seek
out and interview adult battered women who have no history of childhood victimization
in order to compare their help-seeking decisions to those of women who were victimized
as children. Thus, comparisons between women with and without a history of childhood
abuse are required to more fully explore the proposition offered in this analysis that
childhood victimization inhibits and/or promotes help-seeking among adult battered
women. In order to make such comparisons, a broader and more purposeful sampling
strategy than was used in this analysis is required. One strategy would be to sample a
large enough group of battered women so that a sufficient number with no history of
childhood abuse are included. However, given evidence to suggest that prior
victimization is common among adult battered women (Coid et al., 2001; Whitfield et al.,
2003), a purposive strategy in which battered women with no history of childhood
victimization are actively recruited likely is necessary.

Similarly, the focus of this analysis on feminist pathways and life course models

suggests that future help-seeking research should continue to make use of life-history

I31

interviews. As their name implies, life-history interviews are those in which participants
are asked to describe events that happened over the course of their lives. Life-history
interviews have been used in feminist pathways research of battered women (Richie,
1996) as well as of other populations of victimized women and girls (Gaarder & Belknap,
2003), and are particularly useful in exploring battered women’s pathways to help-
seeking. Life-history interviews not only allow researchers to study the influence of
childhood victimization experiences, but also of prior battering relationships as well, an
important point hinted at by the results of this study.

Finally, this dissertation provides justification for continued efforts to understand
the experiences of battered women from marginalized social groups. Marginalized
women are particularly vulnerable to IPV, just as marginalized girls are at higher risk of
child abuse and neglect than their counterparts. Additionally, marginalized women face
significant barriers to getting help beyond those that exist for the entire population of
battered women. Further, this study suggests that marginalized women’s increased risk
of childhood victimization may translate into inhibited IPV help-seeking. It is therefore
recommended that future help-seeking research continue to be anchored in the
experiences of these women, so as to better understand these processes. Of course, one
important goal of help-seeking research should be the improvement of service provision
for battered women. Thus, to improve the safety and well-being of women, it is
important to be especially attendant to the needs of marginalized women and girls who

are most at risk ofvictimization.

132

Conclusion

This dissertation is particularly important for advancing criminological theory
because, unlike much existing help-seeking research, it examines the specific experiences
of battered women who are marginalized by intersecting systems'of power such as
race/ethnicity, class,iand immigrant status. Moreover, this analysis offers insight and
understanding into how and why marginalized battered women choose specific courses of
action in response to their abuse that is missing from existing knowledge. Finally,
because it is anchored in the experiences of marginalized battered women, the findings
can inform important policy strategies for addressing and preventing intimate partner
violence among women who are particularly vulnerable to abuse. Better understanding
of marginalized battered women’s actions allows for more targeted policies for servicing
underrepresented and underserved populations of battered women, which is the ultimate

goal of this research.

133

APPENDICES

134

APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW INSTRUMENT

Introduction

In this interview, I am going to ask you background questions about yourself, questions
about your relationship with your partner, and questions about how and why you decided
to reach out for help. It is possible that some topics may be difficult for you to discuss.
You should not feel pressured to talk about anything that makes you uncomfortable.
However, the more completely you answer the questions, the more we can learn about
women’s experiences with domestic violence. At any time during the interview, please
feel free to take time to collect your thoughts or to ask for a break if you need it.

Before we begin the interview, I want to remind you that nothing that you tell me today
will be traced back to you. To ensure that your responses are anonymous, I would like
you to select a pseudonym for yourself that I will use during the interview and when I
write up the results of this study. This interview will be audiotaped. To ensure that you
feel comfortable speaking freely, I will use this pseudonym when I address you so that
your real name will not be recorded on the tape. _

Background Questions

1. First, why don’t you start by telling me a little bit about yourself — perhaps where you
live or whether you are employed? [Demographics]
Probe: How old are you? Do you have children?

2. Now that I know a little bit more about you, I’d like you to tell me about what your
childhood. Can you describe for me what it was like for you growing up? [Family
context]
Probe: Who did you live with while you were growing up? Where did you live?
Do you have brothers and sisters? (If substance abuse in the home is disclosed,
probe who used drugs and how that affected the participant. Use as a segue for
probing about participant’s substance use.)

3. Did your parent(s) work outside of the home? If so, what did they do? [Cultural
values/social roles]
Probe: What was this situation like for you (and your siblings)?

4. What was your parent’s relationship like? [Prior victimization/exposure to violence]
Probe: Did they seem happy to you? Why or why not? (If abuse is disclosed,
probe who abused whom and for how long. Also, how did the person who was
abused respond?)

5. Can you tell me about any activities that you were involved with outside of your home
— for example, in your school, community, church, etc.? [Community context]

135

Probe: Did you attend community events, know your neighbors well, frequently
interact with other people from your town at community events, and so on? Do
you live now in the same community where you grew up?

6. What, if any, role did the church/organized religion play in your upbringing? [Cultural
values]

7. How aware were you as a child of your race/ethnicity? Your gender? Your class?
Did you share these characteristics with most of your friends and neighbors? [Social
location]

8. How aware are you today of your race/ethnicity, your gender, and your class? Today,
do you share these characteristics with most of your ”friends and neighbors? [Social
location]

Relationslm) Questions

Now that I know a little bit more about you, I’d like to talk about your relationship with
your partner. Here, I’m going to ask you about behaviors that your partner may have
engaged in, including physical abuse (hair pulling, punching, choking, etc.), sexual abuse
(forcing sexual contact, demanding types of sex that you don’t like), verbal abuse (calling
you names), emotional abuse (humiliating you in front of others, threatening you or your
children, injuring pets or cherished possessions), and control tactics (refusing you access
to finances, removing the phone or car keys, or threatening to kill himself, you, or your
children). Your partner may have engaged in one, some, or all of these behaviors. Please
think of all of these types of behaviors when I ask you about “abuse” in your relationship.

1. How did you and your partner meet? How long have you been together? Do you
share children together? [Relationship dynamics]

2. What words would you use to describe your partner? How did/does he relate to your
children (if applicable)? [Relationship dynamics]
Probe: (If partner’s substance use is disclosed, probe for severity, duration,
frequency, and correlation with physical abuse.)

3. In your current relationship, how did/do you think of yourself as a partner? Wife?
Mother? Can you tell me a little bit about how you view your role in the family?
[Cultural values]
Probe: Does your partner view these roles in the same way? If not, how does
your partner view your roles?

4. What is/was your relationship like? [Relationship dynamics]
Probe: Are things different now than when you first met? How?

136

5. If abuse is disclosed: What types of abusive behavior has your partner engaged in?
[A base characteristics]

6. When did the abuse first begin? Can you remember the first time that your partner
was abusive toward you? How about the first time your partner used violence (if
applicable)? [Abuse characteristics]

7. What type of abusive behaviors were most common in your relationship? How
frequently did the abuse occur? [Abuse characteristics]

8. Can you describe for me the most serious incident of violence or abuse that occurred?
Did you ever fear for your own life? Your children’s lives? Your partner’s life? [Abuse
characteristics/comml]

9. Were your children ever targets of abuse? If so, did how did this make you feel? Did
it influence your decision whether or not to reach out for help? [Control]

10. For many women with abusive partners, being isolated is a serious problem. Did
your partner do or say things to make you feel isolated, or to actually isolate you, from
your friends, family, or community? [Control/isolation]

Probe: Can you give me an example?

1 1. What were your initial reactions to the abuse? Did they change over time? How so?
[Response to abuse]

12. Even though domestic violence is a crime, some abused women never really think of
themselves as “victims”. Can you tell me a little bit about how you thought about
yourself in terms of the abuse that you experienced? (Examples: As a victim? A
survivor? An outcast? A strong woman who could keep things together?) Did this
influence your decision whether to reach out for help? If so, how? [Self-definition]

Help-Seeking Questions

Now that I know more about what your relationship with your partner was like, I’d like to
ask you some questions about how and why you decided to reach out for help.

1. Did you do something to try to stop the abuse or to get help? What did you do?

2. If help-seeking is disclosed: Do you recall when you first told someone about the
abuse? Who was that person? How did that person react? How did their reaction make
you feel? [Initial H—S/influence of others]

3. Do you remember when you decided to get help? Was there one particular event that

changed your mind (“enough is enough”), or was it a slow build-up of events?
[Threshold]

137

4. Can you tell me more about how you decided to reach out to these outlets? How did
you reach that decision? [H-S motivators]
Probe: Did anyone help you make that decision? If family only — why did you
chose not to use a formal outlet? What about the criminal justice system?
Medical facilities such as going to the emergency room or talking with your
doctor? -

5. How would you describe your social supports — friends, relatives, or co-workers, or
other people who offered to help you? What about formal agents — social workers,
attorneys, police officers, victim advocates, etc. Did you have people like this who
offered to help you? [Social support]

6. What did you expect from the outlet that you reached out to? In other words, what
was the outcome that you were looking for? [H-S expectations]

7. Were you satisfied with that outlet? In other words, did you feel like you got the
support that you needed or the outcome that you wanted? Why or why not? [H-S
satisfaction]

Probe: Can you give me an example?

8. Did you know other women in abusive relationships? Did their experiences with
reaching out for help affect your decision? [Influence of others/barriers]
Probe: For example, do you have a friend or relative who had a very positive or
a very negative experience with the justice system, the shelter, and so on?

9. What about family or friends? How did your relatives or friends respond to your
decision to get help? [Cultural values]
Probe: Can you give me an example?

10. Now I want to ask you about some possible outlets that you have chosen not to use.
Can you tell me about why you chose not to use this outlet for help? Did you consider it
and then decide against it? Or did it not really ever cross your mind? [H-S barriers]

1 1. Did anything about the idea of reaching out for help worry or scare you? [H-S
barriers]
Probe: Can you tell me more about this? What specifically worried you?

12. Many women are particularly concerned that, while they want the abuse to stop, they
do not want for their relationship to end. Can yOu tell me about what you wanted in
terms of your relationship with your partner? [H—S barriers]
Probe: Did your desire affect your decision about reaching out for help? If so,
how?

13. Is there anything else that you want to tell me? Advice you have for other women

who are abused by their partners? Something you want to tell people who might read this
research about your experiences? [Other]

138

 

 

m 38232 039% 2 :38 SEE 5an 38qu a

 

 

 

A35 m

2.3 w

axe 2 Bob

 

35 e
x

9.5 2

3.5 i

We: 2

_ .25

c 2

. ease

 

X

NEH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

kaxx

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

vitae

 

 

 

 

 

.. . UUHOWHOIEIOU

 

 

‘><..

._,

:8 m

.. . Baa .

 

..._

20:8on

. .gz

 

><><l

_

whom
saggy”

 

><><><><

XX XXX

'><><><><:><g'

L

2580

 

><

><

><><><><><><><><><><

xxxxxxxxgx}

xxxxXxxxxxf

_

...Nafiem
new?

 

 

coco—:Oéieu BZ

 

>H—U hmflwflfiDOm

 

omaa<
E25 230

 

 

3.5a»
:3me

«2:?
Ear:
9.3mm

 

332 1.3%.:
83252

 

«2:?
8533.5
$5.3m

353,—.
—O..=:OU
Ease

 

,. «25¢.
72:52.5—

hues,

 

can Z

 

 

 

EImZOErafimim \

 

rZ< Z~ MmDmE m0 mmUZmamme

m EQmenfim

 

.mHEEUHHgm

139

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

U XHQZmAan.

New: m 3a: m imflv a 88v m 3.5 h mac n 6.5 e 3.; z .33
x
x x x- . x.
x x
on Name
93202
filfi L
Baggage—30
x x x as
x , x Ea:
VA VA QOSOHOQO
x N . .. 5.2
x x 83
x x x x magma
258
x magnum
x x x x Naaeom
x N . Ema.
UGhQUHO-ehflco «Oz
58 Slamming .
thDn— moz —0= haw UO aflo UO>OE Hahn—EU Uflvth awn—ham
arena 3:2...— BEE Bissaew 25: BE 2.822% 2.; 25
azmzofifimm >72 2. ammo maofléem ozgmaeam: 438E .mezfiaofixfi

140

 

 

6...: N

as: N 86.8 m. .. .

N .,

 

, x

X

 

Asyzaefi.

 

N

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

33

 

. Baum

 

 

39202

 

xNNa

 

 

 

 

omega

 

 

ensue—0-230

 

seem

 

«H303

 

 

E5380

 

v32

 

whom

 

N
N><><><><

 

mwnonm
2580

 

gees

 

X

323

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, Em<

 

 

tououccéusou .ez

 

  

“ES—$3.81—
cow—:26

   

 

EUPmaa—Eom .. .. .
5.25:6 b 9:53 a ”5:2 85.223

 

 

.8.“ uexm< oucaEe>< Bang—Au “Enos—rough $2280 Roam EMEE

 

 

oEa Z

 

 

$529535 >z< z_ ammo maomfififim ozEmmmeamm 435th .mefiaoimé
Emazfizoov 0 x52???

 

 

141

 

 

 

8a: m are _ 8.me : see a 8.3 m $.va a SE 3 ex; z 3.;

 

 

N. . . . . .. cm... was... .. m... N ”.3. .j X . . , “fig—O

 

 

 

 

 

 

030.3.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

><><><P¢

. NANNW

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

XX

32.89

 

toga—...O-t=co

 

 

 

x . x x can

 

533

 

5:320

 

xx"

v32

 

whom

 

X . . «6:23

 

><><><><><><><
><><

2380

 

mangm

 

xamnaom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

><><
><
N><P<><

mum<

 

coho—choitan 3 Z

 

FED HmdfilfifiOm

 

 

 

9:on _r .3533. 3:25 0.: 2.80 . moan—EU m8; @315

2.52
..8 2:- 9:: SEE EaEO E hatch 352.33 30 33.50

 

 

 

EImZOF/xifim >Z< 7: QmmD meOmH/xmhm OEMmmm-mqu 430m .mHEAU~Hm<m
Q Ema/Em:

142

 

AEHZV 5an uoHoEofisoo 82:85 + assume: 9 M02 Satan *

 

2.5 v

 

N3: m 3.5 v , . , ,8."va

5g

 

 

 

7‘ 7‘7

 

><

 

 

 

GEES bmgeg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U. “0.

 

 

 

 

3.55.5 ...on

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2980
IIFIIL

 

«£53m

 

 

 

 

 

 

u

 

 

>.=U Pm<H=HDOm

 

_«:o_mm8c.§
1550 =orr

BEBE?— ?zmmo: 5:26 ta am

3:32 a; 3 5 zoom

«as Z

 

 

Ermzopximm >Z< Z~ QumD wEOflHéHm 0235mequ 430m

AQmDZHHZOUv Q XHQZMAE<

 

.wHZ<mU_HM<m

 

 

143

 

dewm mg

A33 v

A3: m

$3 a

m5 2

 

8.3 r

. Av..,..¢ a

«3:0

 

X

EEmH

 

X

852mm

 

><><><><

 

 

 

 

X
OMB; Emma; ..

 

 

 

 

0222

 

 

 

was

 

22am

 

. £5202

 

><><><><

Mamm—

 

0:280

 

uoHoEOJEoU

 

 

:8 m

 

56m

 

><><><

3:820

 

Biz

 

><><

><><><><

who!

 

saga

 

2580

 

N

N N><><

dfififiam

 

Namfium

 

><><><><

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

X

 

Ema»

 

 

3.520-230 B Z

 

E—U hm¢§lhb¢m

 

“55:335—
9:25.55
3320

 

 

350
3 83,2
z=a=xom

3:53. E
com—:2 3.35m

 

3523”.
3 32:2
382.:

«2:?
3533.5
.aunoham

85?;
.82.:
REP—ah

touahmem
EuBSE
$53k

 

«Euz

 

 

w _HZV mmozamn—Xm ZO~H<N~EHHU~> QOOIQAE

 

 

m KHQZmaEat

 

 

O .mHZ<&U:m<m

144

REFERENCES

Abel, E. M., & Suh, E. K. (1987). Use of police services by battered women. Social
Work, 32, 526-528.

Abraham, M. (2000). Speaking the unspeakable.“ Marital violence among South Asian
immigrants in the United States. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Allen, M. D., & Austin, R. L. (2000). Racial disparity in arrest rates as an explanation in
racial disparity in committment to Pennsylvania's prisons. Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency, 3 7(2), ZOO—220.

Almeida, R. V., & Lockard, J. (2005). The cultural context model: A new paradigm for
accountability, empowerment, and the development of critical consciousness
against domestic violence. In N. Sokoloff & C. Pratt (Eds.), Domestic violence at
the margins: Readings on race, class, gender, and culture (pp. 301-320). New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the
inner city. New York, NY: Norton.

Anderson, M. A., Gillig, P. M., Sitaker, M., McCloskey, K., Malloy, K., & Grigsby, N.
(2003). "Why doesn't she just leave?": A descriptive study of victim reported
impediments to her safety. Journal of Family Violence, 18(3), 151-155.

Bacchus, L., Mezey, G., & Bewley, S. (2003). Experiences of seeking help from health
professionals in a sample of women who experienced domestic violence. Health
and Social Care in the Community, 11(1), 10-18.

Bartlett, K. T. (1991). Feminist legal methods. In K. T. Bartlett & R. Kennedy (Eds),
Feminist legal theory: Readings in law and gender (pp. 370-403). Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.

Belknap, J. (2007). The invisible woman: Gender, crime, andjustice (3rd ed.). Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth.

Berg, B. L. (2004). Qualitative research methodsflir the social sciences (5th ed.).
Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Bhuyan, R., & Senturia, K. (2005):-Understanding domestic violence resource utilization
and survivor solutions among immigrant and refugee women: Introduction to the

speical issue. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(8), 895-901.

Bowker, L. H. (1983). Beating wife-beating. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

145

Bowker, L. H. (1984). Battered wives and the police: A national study of usage and
effectiveness. Police Studies, 7, 84-93.

Browne, A., Salomon, A., & Bassuk, S. S. (1999). The impact of recent partner violence
on poor women's capacity to maintain work. Violence Against Women, 5(4), 393-
426. -

Bui, H. N. (2001). Domestic violence victims' behavior in favor of prosecution: Effects of
gender relations. Women & Criminal Justice, 12(4), 51-76.

Bui, H. N. (2003). Help-seeking behavior among abused immigrant women: A case of
Vietnamese American women. Violence Against Women, 9(2), 207-239.

Bui, H. N. (2004). In the adopted land: Abused immigrant women and the criminal
justice system. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Burgess-Proctor, A. (2003). Evaluating the efficacy of protection orders for victims of
domestic violence. Women & Criminal Justice, 15(1), 33-54.

Buzawa, E. S., & Austin, T. (1993). Determining police response to domestic violence
victims: The role of victim preference. American Behavorial Scientist, 36, 610-
623.

Campbell, J. C., Rose, L., Kub, J ., & Nedd, D. (1998). Voices of strength and resistance:
A contextual and longitudinal analysis of women's responses to battering. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 13(6), 743-762.

Chatzifotiou, S., & Dobash, R. (2001). Seeking informal support: Marital violence
against women in Greece. Violence Against Women, 7(9), 1024-1050.

Child Maltreatment 2004. (2006).). Washington, DC: US. Department of Health &
Human Services: Administration for Children, Youth, & Families.

Choice, P., & Lamke, L. K. (1997). A conceptual approach to understanding abused
women's stay/leave decisions. Journal of Family Issues, 18(3), 290-314.

Coid, J ., Petruckevitch, G. F ., Chung, W.-S., Richardson, J ., & Moorey, S. (2001).
Relation between childhood physical and sexual abuse and risk of revictimisation
in women: A cross-sectional survey. The Lancet, 358, 450-454.

Coker. D. (2000). Shifting power for battered women: Law, material resources, and poor
women of color. UC. Davis Law Reivew, 33, 1009-1055.

Coulter, M. L., Kathryn, K., Byers, R., & Alfonso, M. (1999). Police-reporting behavior

and victim-police interactions as described by women in a domestic violence
shelter. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(12), 1290-1298.

146

Crenshaw, K. (1991). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist
critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics In
K. Bartlett & R. Kennedy (Eds), Feminist legal theory (pp. 57-80). Boulder, CO:

Westview Press.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cupchik, G. (2001). Constructivist realism: An ontology that encompasses positivist and
constructivist approaches to the social sciences [Electronic Version]. Forum:
Qualitative Social Research, 2. Retrieved October 9, 2005 from
http://www.qualitative-research.neUfgs-texte/1 ~01 /l -O 1 cupchik-e.htm.

Cutcliffe, J. R., & McKenna, H. P. (1999). Establishing the credibility of qualitative
research findings: The plot thickens. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 30(2), 374-
380.

Daly, K. (1994). Women's pathways to felony court: Feminist theories of lawbeaking and
problems of representation. Southern California Review of Law & Women '5
Studies, 2, 11-52.

Das Dasgupta, S. (1998). Women's realities: Defining violence against women by
immigration, race, and class. In R. K. Bergen (Ed.), Issues in intimate violence
(pp. 209-219). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

DeJong, C., Burgess-Proctor, A., & Elis, L. (2007). Police officer perceptions of
domestic violence: An analysis of observational data.

Donnelly, D. A., Cook, K. J ., Van Ausdale, D., & Foley, L. (2005). White privilege, color
blindness, and services to battered women. Violence Against Women, 11(1), 6-37.

Duncan, M. M., Stayton, C. D., & Hall, C. B. (1999). Police reports on domestic
incidents involving intimate partners: Injuries and medical help-seeking. Women
& Health, 30(1), 1-13.

Dutton, M. A. (1993). Understanding women's responses to domestic violence: A
redifinition of Battered Woman Syndrome. Hofstra Law Review, 21, 1 191-1242.

Dutton, M. A., Hohnecker, L. C., Halle, P. M., & Burghardt, K. J. (1994). Traumatic
responses among battered women who kill. Journal ofTraumatic Stress, 7(4),

549-564.

Elder, J ., Glen H. (1998). The life course as developmental theory. Child Development,
69(1), 1-12.

147

Erez, E., & Belknap, J. (1998). In their own words: Battered women's assessment of the
criminal processign system's responses. Violence and Victims, 13(3), 251-268.

Fernandez, M., Iwamoto, K., & Muscat, B. (1997). Dependency and severity of abuse:
Impact on women's persistence in utilizing the court system as protection against
domestic violence. Women & Criminal Justice, 9(1), 39-63.

Few, A. L., & Bell-Scott, P. (2002). Grounding our feet and hearts: Black women's
coping strategies in psychologically abusive dating relationships. Women &
Therapy, 25(3/4), 59-77.

Fine, M., Roberts, R. A., & Weis, L. (2005). Puerto Rican battered women redefining
gender, sexuality, culture, violence, and resistance. In N. Sokoloff & C. Pratt
(Eds), Domestic violence at the margins: Readings on race, class, gender, and
culture (pp. 272-292). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Fischer, K., & Rose, M. (1995). When "enough is enough": Battered women's decision
making around court orders of protection. Crime & Delinquency, 41(4), 414-429.

Fleury-Steiner, R. E., Bybee, D., Sullivan, C. M., Belknap, J ., & Melton, H. C. (2006).
Contextual factors impacting battered women's intentions to re-use the criminal
legal system. Journal of Community Psychology, 34(3), 327-342.

Fleury, R. E., Sullivan, C. M., Bybee, D., & Davidson, W. S. (1998). "Why don't they
just call the cops?": Reasons for differential police contact among women with
abusive partners. Violence and Victims, 13(4), 333-346.

Ford, D. A. (1983). Wife battery and criminal justice: A study of victim decision-making.
Family Relations, 32, 463-475.

Ford, D. A. (2003). Coercing victim participation in domestic violence prosecutions.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(6), 669-684.

F risch, M. B., & MacKenzie, C. J. (1991). A comparison of formerly and chronically
battered women on cognitive and situational dimensions. Psychotherapy, 28(2),
339-344.

Fugate, M., Landis, L., Riordan, K., Naureckas, S., & Engel, B. (2005). Barriers to
domestic violence help-seeking: Implications for intervention. Violence Against ' '

Women, 11(3), 290-310.

Gaarder, E., & Belknap, J. (2003). Tenuous borders: Girls transferred to adult court.
Criminology, 40(3), 481-517.

Gondolf, E. W., & Fisher, E. R. (1988). Battered women as survivors." An alternative to
treating learned helplessness. Lexington, MA: Lexington.

148

Goodkind, J. R., Gillum, T. L., Bybee, D., & Sullivan, C. M. (2003). The impact of
family and friends' reactions on the well-being of women with abusive partners.
Violence Against Women, 9(3), 347-373.

Goodman, L., Bennett, L., & Dutton, M. A. (1999). Obstacles to victims' cooperation
with the criminal prosecution of their abusers: The role of social support. Violence
and Victims, 14(4), 427-443.

'Grigsby, N., & Hartman, B. R. (1997). The barriers model: An integrated strategy for
intervention with battered women. Psychotherapy, 34(4), 485—497.

Hagan, J. (2000). Research methods in criminal justice and criminology (5th ed.).
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Haj jar, L. (2004). Religion, state power, and domestic violence in Muslim societies: A
framework for comparative analyses. Law & Social Inquiry, 29(1), 1-3 8.

Hamby, S. L. (2000). The importance of community in a feminsit analysis of domestic
violence among American Indians. American Journal of Community Psychology,
28(5), 649-669.

Harding, S. (1991). What is feminist epistemology? In S. Harding (Ed.), Whose science?
Whose knowledge?: Thinking from women 's lives (pp. 105-137). Ithaca, NY:

Cornell University Press.

Hartsock, N. (1998). T he. feminist standpoint revisited and other essays. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.

Hine, D. C. (1989). Rape and inner lives of Black women in the Middle West:
Preliminary thoughts on the culture of dissemblance. Signs, 14(4), 912-920.

Hirschel, D., & Hutchinson, I. W. (2003). The voices of domestic violence victims:
Predictors of victim preference for arrest and the relationship between preference

for arrest and revictimization. Crime & Delinquency, 49(2), 313-336.

Horsburgh, B. (1995). Lifting the veil of secrecy: Domestic violence in the Jewish
community. Harvard Women '5 Law Journal, 18, 171-217.

Hoyle, C. (1998). Negotiating domestic violence: Criminaljustice and victims. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

Hoyle, C ., & Sanders, A. (2000). Police response to domestic violence: From victim
choice to victim empowerment? British Journal of Criminology, 40, 14-36.

149

Hutchinson, I. W., & Hirschel, D. (1998). Abused women: Help-seeking strategies and
police utilization. Violence Against Women, 4, 436-456.

Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of
violence against women. Journal Of Marriage and the Family, 5 7, 283-294.

Josephson, J. (2002). The intersectionality of domestic violence and welfare in the lives
of poor women. Journal of Poverty, 6(1), 1-20.

Kaschak, E. (Ed.). (2001). Intimate betrayal: Domestic violence in lesbian relationships.
New York, NY: Haworth.

Kaukinen, C. (2002). The help-seeking decisios of violent crime victims: An examination
of the direct and conditional effects of gender and the victim-offender
relationship. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17(4), 432.

Kingsnorth, R. F., & MacIntosh, R. C. (2004). Domestic violence: Predictors of victim
suport for official action. Justice Quarterly, 21(2), 301-328.

Krishnan, S. P., Hilbert, J. C. & VanLeeuwen, D. (2001). Domestic violence and help-
seeking behaviors among rural women: Results from a shelter-based study.
Family & Community Health, 24(1), 28- 38.

Kurz, D. (1996). Separation, divorce, and woman abuse. Violence Against Women, 2(1),
63-81.

Langan, P. A., & Innes, C. A. (1986). Preventing domestic violence against women. In U.
S. D. 0. Justice (Ed), Crime and justicefacts, 1985. Washington, DC: Bureau of
Justice Statistics Special Report.

Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent
boys to age 70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lempert, L. B. (1996). Women's strategies for survival: Developing agency in abusive
relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 11(3), 269-289.

Levendosky, A. A., Bogat, G. A., Theran, S. A., Trotter, J. 8., von Eye, A., & Davidson,
W. S. (2004). The social networks of women experiencing domestic violence.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 3 4(1-2), 95-109.

Liang, B., Goodman, L., Tummala-Narra, P., & Weintraub, S. (2005). A theoretical
framework for understanding help-seeking processes among survivors of intimate
partner violence. American Journal of Community Psychology, 3 6( 1 -2), 71-84.

150

Lopez, V., & Emmer, E. T. (2000). Adolescent male offenders: A grounded theory study
of cognition, emotion, and delinquent crime contexts. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 27(3), 292-31 1.

Macy, R. J., Nurius, P. S., Kernic, M. A., & Holt, V. L. (2005). Battered women's
profiles associated with service help-seeking efforts: Illuminating opportunities
for intervention. Social Work Research, 29(3), 137-150.

Maeve. M. (1998). Methodologic issues in qualitative research with incarcerated women.
Family & Community Health, 21 , 1-16.

Mahoney, M. R. (1991). Legal images of battered women: Redefining the issue of
separation. Michigan Law Review, 90, 1-94.

Malterud, K. (2001). Qualitative research: Standards, challenges, and guidelines. The
Lancet, 358, 483-488.

Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. A. (1993). American apartheid: Segregation and the
making of the underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Mitchell, R. E., & Hodson, C. A. (1986). Coping and social support among battered
women: An ecological perspective. In S. E. Hobfoll (Ed.), Stress, social support,
and women: The series in clinical and community psychology (pp. 153-169). New
York, NY: Hemisphere.

Moe, A. M. (2007). Silenced voices and structured survival: Battered women's help-
seeking. Violence Against Women, 13(7), 676-699.

Morash, M. (2005). Understanding gender, crime, andjustice. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Morrison, K. E., Luchok, K. J ., Richter, D. L., & Parra-Medina, D. (2006). Factors
influencing help-seeking from informal sources of support among African
American victims of intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
21(11),1493-1511.

Morrow, S. L., & Hawxhurst, D. M. (1989). Lesbian partner abuse: Implications for
therapists. Journal of Counseling and Development, 68, 58-62.

Neville, H. A., & Pugh, A. O. (1997). General and culture-specific factors influencing
African American women's reporting patterns and perceived social support
following sexual assault: An exploratory investigation. Violence Against Women,
3(4), 361-381.

151

O'Campo, P., McDonnell, K., Gielen, A., Burke, J., & Chen, Y.-h. (2002). Surviving
physical and sexual abuse: What helps low-income women? Patient Education
and Counseling, 46, 205-212.

Pagelow, M. D. (1981). Woman-battering: Victims and their experiences. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.

Patton, S. (2003). Pathways: How women leave violent men. Hobart, Tasmania: W omen
Tasmania, Deparment of Premier and Cabinet.

Peckover, S. (2003). "1 could have just done with a little more help": An analysis of
women's help-seeking from health visitors in the context of domestic violence.
Health and Social Care in the Community, 11(3).

Petersen, R., Moracco, K. B, Goldstein, K. M., & Clark, K. A. (2004). Moving beyond
disclosure: Women's perspectives on barriers and motivators to seeking assistance
for intimate partner violence. Women & Health, 40(3), 63-76.

Potter, H. (2007). Black battered women's use of religion and spirituality for assistance in
leaving abusive relationships. Violence Against Women, 13(3), 262-284.

Purvin, D. M. (2007). At the crossroads and in the crosshairs: Social welfare policy and
low income women's vulnerability to domestic violence. Social Problems, 54(2),
188-210.

Raj, A., & Silverman, J. (2002). Violence against immigrant women: The roles of culture,
context, and legal immigrant status on intimate partner violence. Violence Against
Women, 8(3), 367-398.

Rasche, C. E. (1988). Minority women and domestic violence The unique dilemmas of
battered women of color. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 4, 150-171.

Reidy, R., & Von Korff, M. (1991). Is battered women's help seeking connected to the
level of their abuse? Public Health Reports, 106(4), 360-364.

Reisig, M., Holftreter, K., & Morash, M. (2006). Assessing recidivism risk across female
pathways to crime. Justice Quarterly, 23(3), 384-405.

Rennison, C. M., & Welchans, S. (2000). BJS Special report: Intimate partner violence.
Washington, DC: US. Departmet of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Richie, B. E. (1996). Compelled to crime: The gender entrapment of Black battered
women. New York, NY: Routledge.

Richie, B. E. (2000). A black feminist reflection on the antiviolence movement. Signs,
25(4),1133-1137.

Robinson, A. L., & Chandek, M. S. (2000). Differential police response to black battered
women. Women & Criminal Justice, 12(2/3), 29-61.

Rogers, 8., McGee, G., Vann, A., Thompson, N., & Williams, 0. J. (2003). Substance
abuse and domestic violence: Stories of practitioners that address the co-
occurrence among battered women. Violence Against Women, 9(5), 590-598.

Roodman, A. A., & Clum, G. A. (2001). Revictimization rates and method variance: A
meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 21(2), 183-204.

Rosenblatt, P., & Fischer, L. (1993). Qualitative family research. In P. G. Boss, W. J.
Doherty, R. La Rossa, W. R. Schumm & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds), Sourcebook on

family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 167-177). New York,
NY: Plenum.

Sampson, R. J ., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points
through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Sampson, R. J ., & Laub, J. H. (2005). A life-course view of the development of crime.
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 602, 12-45.

Smith, A. (2005). Looking to the future: Domestic violence, women of color, the state,
and social change. In N. Sokoloff& C. Pratt (Eds), Domestic violence at the
margins: Readings on race, class, gender, and culture (pp. 416-434). New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Smith, C., Sikkink, D., & Bailey, J. (1998). Devotion to Dixie and beyond: A test of the
"Shibley Thesis" on the effects of regional origin and migration on individual
religiosity. Journal for the Scientific Study 0 Religion, 3 7(3), 494-506.

Snow, D. A. (2004). Thoughts on alternative pathways to theoretical development:
Theory generation, extensions, and refinement. In C. C. Ragin, J. Nagel & P.
White (Eds), Workshop on Scientific Foundations of Qualitative Research (pp.
133-136). Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

Sokoloff, N. J. (2004). Domestic violence at the crossroads: Violence against poor
women and women of color. Women ’s Studies Quarterly, 32(3/4), 139-147.

Sokoloff, N. J ., & Dupont, I. (2004). Domestic violence at the intersections of race, class,
and gender. Violence Against Women, 11(1), 38-64.

Sokoloff, N. J ., & Dupont, I. (2005). Domestic violence: Examining the intersections of
race, class, and gender -- An introduction. In N. Sokoloff & C. Pratt (Eds),
Domestic violence at the margins: Readings on race, class, gender, and culture
(pp. 1-13). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

153

Sokoloff, N. J ., & Pratt, C. (Eds). (2005). Domestic violence at the margins: Readings on
race, class, gender, and culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Spohn, C. ,& Holleran, D. (2000). The imprisonment penalty paid by young, unemployed
black and Hispanic male offenders Criminology, 38(1), 281- 306. .

Steffensmeier, D., Ulmer, J ., & Kramer, J. (1998). The interaction of race, gender, and
age in criminal sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, black, and male.
Criminology, 36(4), 763-793.

Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.

Taft, C. T., Resick, P. A., Panuzio, J ., Vogt, D. S., & Mechanic, M. B. (2007). Examining
the correlates of engagement and disengagement coping among help-seeking
battered women. Violence and Victims, 22(1), 3-17.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and
quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Taylor, J. Y. (2002). "The straw that broke camel's back": African American women's
strategies for disengaging from abusive relationships. Women & Therapy, 25(3/4),
79-94.

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed
methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In C. Teddlie & A. Tashakkori
(Eds), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tj aden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, nature, and consequences of intimate partner
violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey.

Washington, DC: US. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Van Hook, M. P. (2000). Help seeking for violence: Views of survivors. Afiilia, 15(3),
390-408.

Violence Against Women Act, 18 USCS 2261 et seq. (1994).

Violence Prevention and the Girl Child. (1999).). London, Ontario: Alliance of Five
Research Centres on Violence.

W aldrop, A. E., & Resick, P. A. (2004). Coping among adult female victims of domestic
violence. Journal of Family Violence, 19(5), 291-302.

Walker, L. (1979). The battered woman. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

154

Websdale, N. (1998). Rural woman battering and thejustice system: An ethnography.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Websdale, N. (2001). Policing the poor: From slave plantation to public housing.
Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

Websdale, N., & Johnson, B. (1997). Reducing woman battering: The role of structural
approaches. Social Justice, _ 24(1 ), 54-81.

West, C. M. (2002). Battered, black, and blue: Violence in the lives of Black women.
Women & Therapy, 25(3/4), 5-27.

West, C. M., Kaufman Kantor, G., & Jasinski, J. L. (1998). Sociodemographic predictors
and cultural barriers to help-seeking behaviors by Latina and Anglo American
battered women. Violence and Victims, 13(4), 361-375.

Whitfield, C. L., Anda, R. F., Dube, S. R., & Felitti, V. J. (2003). Violent childhood
experinces and the risk of intimate partner violence as adults: Assessment in a
large health maintenance organization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(2),
166-185.

Widom, C. S. (1989). The cycle of violence. Science, 244(4901), 160-166.

Wilson, C. M., & Belknap, J. (in press). The extensive sexual violation and sexual abuse
histories of incarcerated women. Violence Against Women, aorthcoming).

Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public
policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Wolf, M. E., Ly, U., Hobart, M. A., & Kernic, M. A. (2003). Barriers to seeking police
help for intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 18(2), 121-129.

Wuest, J ., & Merritt-Gray, M. (1999). Not going back: Sustaining the separation in the
process of leaving abusive relationships. Violence Against Women, 5(2), 110-133.

Wyatt, G. E., Axelrod, D. C., Carmona, J. V., & Loeb, T. B. (2000). Examining patterns
of vulnerability to domestic violence among African American women. Violence
Against Women, 6(5), 495-514.

Zoellner, L. A., Feeny, N. C., Alvarez, J., Watlington, C., O'Neill, M. L., Zager, R., et a1.
(2000). Factors associatied with completion of the restrating order process in
female victims of partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15(10),
1081-1099.

155

 

11111111131111ij1511