Blog

If you only have a hammer...

If you only have a hammer...

10th February 2014

If you only have a hammer: Thinking about gender inclusive research in intimate partner violence and abuse

In November of 2013 I spoke at an open seminar in South East Ireland organised by Men Ending Domestic Violence (MEND).

I was asked to be the keynote because my training as a psychotherapist, Chartered forensic psychologist and Motivational Interviewing practitioner, was felt to give me a unique combination, able to talk meaningfully about risk and change and effective practice, from an evidence-informed base.

In addition, both MEND and I have promoted the value of considering what a therapeutic perspective can bring to this work, often against opposition claiming there is no support for such an approach, or that it in some way betrays victims or colludes with abusers.

This sense is still very strong, as only last week a colleague attending some training given by a major counselling agency was told explicitly that ‘you never thank a man for his honesty’. My response would be – why not?

If you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail

Research from social psychology demonstrates that how we understand a problem affects what we do about it – hence, if we see all intimate partner violence and abuse as being about a deliberate, intentional male use of violence or the threat of violence to assert power and control over women, rooted in our sexist and patriarchal society, then we are likely to come to a particular conclusion about how to tackle the problem. This is a very broad description of a feminist or pro-feminist analysis, and is where I started nearly twenty years ago.

Equally, if we understand the above description as describing only a part – but a harmful part – of a much wider continuum, where low-level chronic abusive and even violent behaviour is present as part of the relationship structure, with fluid victim and perpetrator roles and a high level of bi-directionality, then we are likely to come to a different understanding of what to do. This is a very broad description of a gender inclusive perspective that takes account of the feminist analysis above, but does not see it as an entirely sufficient explanation.

This analysis matters, because I would strongly suggest that proceeding only from the former has led to a block on innovation of practice, and even to dangerous and punitive practice which risks being abusive in itself, ‘holding men to account’ instead of doing so by facilitating change.

Causes of intimate partner violence and abuse

Sexism and misogyny towards women clearly exists in our society: witness the internet ‘trolls’ who attack and abuse any woman daring to campaign for female figures on banknotes. Some of these abusive attitudes and behaviours are acquired through our societal context and social learning mechanisms: I would certainly support feminist arguments against ‘lads’ mags, gendered toys and Page 3.

But there is simply too much research showing the picture behind intimate partner violence and abuse to be more complicated than this. The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge (PASK)  is a large scale US-led meta-survey which from early 2010 looked at 12,000 studies since 1990, covering 17 major topics of interest to intimate partner violence and abuse. The headline findings were:

Rates of male & female victimisation (Desmarais et al 2012a)

  •  One in four women, one in five men = symmetry, gendered effects

Rates of male & female perpetration (Desmarais et al 2012b)

  • Overall prevalence 24.5%, pooled prevalence = women slightly more likely to use violence

Bi-directionality (Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al 2012a)

  • Almost 60% - going both ways

Risk factors (Capaldi et al 2012)

  • No major evidence of gender difference

How does this make sense?

At first sight, this seems entirely counter to experience on the ground: there is no male parallel to the numbers of women murdered by male partners or ex-partners, and we know that violence outside the home is very much a male phenomenon.

But we need to be aware of subtlety and nuance in understanding this research: some of it is because feminist arguments have tended to look at crime surveys, which naturally predispose results towards a higher or more serious end of physical violence. Equally, if you ask women in a refuge about their experience of men, you are likely to get a particular response. That does not mean their experience is not true, but it does mean you are dealing with a ‘skewed sample’.

By contrast the gender inclusive research looks at family studies, where participants do not conceptualise their experience as a crime – it’s just the fabric of relationships and family life, however dysfunctional. Gender plays a role, but is not a determining factor in the ways previously suggested.

The main point here is that such a vast amount of research cannot simply be discounted because we do not agree with it, or put aside because of ‘methodological’ concerns – on the Executive Committee of Respect  I always argued for an engagement with such research, to inform what was essentially a feminist analysis and which might benefit from the critical debate, whatever the outcome.

Where do we go from here?

In future posts I’ll return to the idea of therapeutically informed work, to think more about issues including:

  • Personality and psychological factors in domestic abuse
  • Suggestions that the ‘Duluth’ psycho-educational model has failed
  •  What we can learn from work with sexual offending
  • The arguments for therapeutically informed working
  • Why a strengths-based approach is so effective in child protection