Drawing on an adapted excerpt from the VAW Project Inception Report we now introduce you to two contrasting approaches that have been applied to analysing violence against women. These are now briefly explained:
Universality versus context specificity
Universality
In the 1970s and 80s, VAW was analysed through relatively blinkered theoretical lenses. The perspectives of criminology, sociology, psychology and feminist theory led to single-factor explanations of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) as socio-economic disadvantage, social learning from parents, psychopathology and patriarchy (Heise 2011), with fierce debates about what the ‘real’ cause of violence actually is. In the 1990s, however, it was increasingly recognised that violence – as a manifestation of women’s disempowerment – is multifaceted, resulting from the interaction of various social, economic and political factors.
Nonetheless, some theorists do argue that universal (cross-cultural) risk factors for VAW can be identified. Based on the findings of multiple VAW studies in different communities, Heise (1998) identifies numerous so-called universal indicators for IPV, including (but not limited to) witnessing domestic violence as a child, male alcohol consumption, low socioeconomic status and ‘hypermasculinity’. However, this review is problematic in that it generalises findings from numerous studies conducted in singular locations (many of them in the developed world): to assume that something found to be a risk factor in one setting is also a risk factor in another is certainly ill-advised.
Notably, other research that has tried specifically to uncover universal triggers for violent behaviour through direct comparison of multiple contexts has had mixed results. For instance, Hindin et al (2008) studied ten countries’ Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS), and found only two universally relevant risk factors for IPV: a man’s excessive alcohol consumption and exposure to inter-parental violence. However, it has since been suggested that their lack of success in locating universal factors may be attributable to the DHS’ non-standardised data collection/measurements. While we cannot generalise from studies of individual locations, nor can we reliably compare locations using data from studies that use different parameters and methods.
Abramsky et al (2011), on the other hand, had substantially more success when using standardised data about VAW produced by the WHO Multi-Country Study (2005). Their bivariate and multivariate analyses identified several factors that appear to impact upon the likelihood of IPV across settings. Secondary education, high socioeconomic status and formal marriage were found to be protective against IPV. Meanwhile, universal risk factors were found to include: alcohol abuse, cohabitation, young age, women’s attitudes supporting wife beating, external sexual relations (‘cheating’), experiencing childhood abuse, growing up with domestic violence and experiencing other (non-IPV) forms of violence in adulthood (Abramsky et al (2011).
Recognising the importance of contextual particularities
The results of the studies mentioned above point to specific issues for project/research design. The importance of standardisation is underscored, and the WHO (2005) study in particular can provide a baseline or guiding mechanism for general understanding of factors likely to contribute to VAW. However, it is crucial that a project maintains focus on the culturally specific structures and institutions that shape violence differently in different places. While considering universal factors (like alcohol abuse) may be helpful, their intersection with diverse features of different sociocultural environments will create contextual particularities that must be understood if interventions are to succeed (e.g. Neville et al 2014).
‘Evidence on the influence of male alcohol consumption on the frequency and severity of violence perpetuated against female partners could suggest that alcohol is a cause of violence against women and girls. However, not all men who consume alcohol are violent against women and girls and not all men who are violent against women and girls consume alcohol. This suggests that the effect of alcohol consumption on the prevalence, incidence, frequency and severity of violence against women and girls by men is context-specific, even in the case of intimate partner violence for which this risk factor is most established…It should be considered on a context by context basis and in conjunction with a thorough assessment of all relevant risk factors’ (DFID 2012: 6).
< Previous Page] Page 4 of 8 [Next Page >