Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T01:22:54.244Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intersections and Multiple ‘Candidacies’: Exploring Connections between Two Theoretical Perspectives on Domestic Abuse and Their Implications for Practicing Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2014

Mhairi Mackenzie ,
Ellie Conway ,
Annette Hastings ,
Moira Munro  and
Catherine A. O’Donnell
Mhairi Mackenzie
Affiliation:
School of Social and Political Sciences/Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow E-mail: mhairi.mackenzie@glasgow.ac.uk
Ellie Conway
Affiliation:
Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow E-mail: ellie.conway@glasgow.ac.uk
Annette Hastings
Affiliation:
School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow E-mail: annette.hastings@glasgow.ac.uk
Moira Munro
Affiliation:
School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow E-mail: moira.munro@glasgow.ac.uk
Catherine A. O’Donnell
Affiliation:
Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow E-mail: kate.o’donnell@glasgow.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Domestic abuse policy increasingly uses language which indicates that abuse is patterned according to structural factors. However, practicing according to these structural accounts of abuse is problematic because of the policy and organisational contexts that practitioners work within and, we argue, because the implications of the structured nature of victims’ experiences is not fully understood by all practitioners.

We ask whether women's differential use and experiences of services with a remit to address abuse can be illuminated using two theoretical perspectives – ‘candidacy’ and intersectionality. We report the findings of a literature synthesis that investigates how these improve our understanding of women's help-seeking and service utilisation and of the responses that they receive. Both concepts were highly congruent with the literature and we conclude that, together, candidacy and intersectionality offer a means of enhancing knowledge of how the political becomes enacted in the personal. Embedding such knowledge within practice repertoires offers the potential to develop more nuanced structural understandings of women's experiences and constraints.

Keywords

Domestic abusecandidacyintersectionalitypolicypractice
Type
Articles
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , January 2015 , pp. 43 - 62
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baachus, L., Mezey, G. and Bewley, S. (2002) ‘Women's perceptions and experiences of routine enquiry for domestic violence in a maternity service’, BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 109, 1, 9–16.Google Scholar
Browne, I. and Misra, J. (2003) ‘The intersection of gender and race in the labor market’, Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 487–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burman, E. and Chantler, K. (2005) ‘Domestic violence and minoritisation: legal and policy barriers facing minoritized women leaving violent relationships’, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 28, 1, 59–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carlyle, K. E., Slater, M. D. and Chakroff, J. L. (2008) ‘Newspaper coverage of intimate partner violence: skewing representation of risk’, Journal of Communication, 58, 1, 168–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cavanagh, K. (2003) ‘Understanding women's responses to domestic violence’, Qualitative Social Work, 2, 3, 229–49.Google Scholar
Cole, P. (2001) ‘Impoverished women in violent partnerships’, Violence against Women, 7, 2, 222–33.Google Scholar
Cramer, E. P. and Plummer, S. B. (2009) ‘People of color with disabilities: intersectionality as a framework for analyzing intimate partner violence in social, historical, and political contexts’, Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 18, 2, 162–81.Google Scholar
Crenshaw, K. (1991) ‘Mapping the margins: intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color’, Stanford Law Review, 43, 6, 1241–99.Google Scholar
Davis, K. (2008) ‘Intersectionality as buzzword: a sociology of science perspective on what makes a feminist theory successful’, Feminist Theory, 9, 1, 67–85.Google Scholar
Davis, L. V., Hagen, J. L. and Early, T. J. (1994) ‘Social services for battered women: are they adequate, accessible, and appropriate?’, Social Work, 36, 6, 695–704.Google Scholar
Dixon-Woods, M., Kirk, D., Agarwal, S., Annandale, E., Arthur, T., Harvey, J., Hsu, R., Katbamna, S., Olsen, R., Smith, L., Riley, R. and Sutton, A. (2005) Vulnerable Groups and Access to Health Care: A Critical Interpretive Review, London: National Coordinating Centre for the Service Delivery and Organisation (NCCSDO) Research Programme.Google Scholar
Dixon-Woods, M., Kirk, D., Agarwal, S., Annandale, E., Arthur, A., Harvey, J., Hsu, R., Katbamna, S., Olsen, R., Smith, L., Riley, R. and Sutton, A. J. (2006) ‘Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups’, BMC Medical Research Methodology, 6, 35.Google Scholar
Eastman, B. J. and Bunch, S. G. (2007) ‘Providing services to survivors of domestic violence’, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 4, 465–73.Google Scholar
Fischer, F. (2003) Reframing Public Policy, Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practice, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Garcia-Moreno, C. (2002) ‘Dilemmas and opportunities for an appropriate health-service response to violence against women’, Lancet, 359, 9316, 1509–14.Google Scholar
Grossman, S. F., Lundy, M., George, C. C. and Crabtree-Nelson, S. (2010) ‘Shelter and service receipt for victims of domestic violence in Illinois’, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 11, 2077–93.Google Scholar
Hague, G. and Mullender, A. (2005) ‘Listening to women's voices: the participation of domestic violence survivors in services’, in Skinner, T., Hester, M. and Malos, E. (eds.), Researching Gender Violence, Feminist Methodology in Action, Devon: Willan Publishing, pp. 146–66.Google Scholar
Hamby, S. (2013) Battered Women's Protective Strategies, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harwin, N. (2006) ‘Putting a stop to domestic violence in the United Kingdom: challenges and opportunities’, Violence Against Women, 12, 6, 556–67.Google Scholar
Hearn, J. and McKie, L. (2010) ‘Gendered and social hierarchies in problem representation processes: “domestic violence” in Finland and Scotland’, Violence Against Women, 16, 2, 136–58.Google Scholar
Humphreys, C. and Thiara, R. (2003a) ‘Mental health and domestic violence: ‘I call it symptoms of abuse’, British Journal of Social Work, 33, 2, 209–26.Google Scholar
Humphreys, C. and Thiara, R. (2003b) ‘Neither justice nor protection: women's experiences of post-separation violence’, Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 25, 3, 195–214.Google Scholar
Knoepfel, P., Larrue, C., Varone, F. and Hill, M. (2007) Public Policy Analysis, Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, M., Conway, E., Hastings, A., Munro, M. and O’Donnell, C. (2013) ‘Is “candidacy” a useful concept for understanding journeys through public services? A critical interpretive literature synthesis’, Social Policy and Administration, 47, 7, 806–25.Google Scholar
McKie, L., Fennell, B. and Mildorf, J. (2002) ‘Time to disclose, timing disclosure: GPs' discourses on disclosing domestic abuse in primary care’, Sociology of Health and Illness, 24, 3, 327–46.Google Scholar
Mullender, A. (1996) Rethinking Domestic Violence, The Social Work and Probation Response, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mullender, A. and Hague, G. (2005) ‘Giving a voice to women survivors of domestic violence through recognition as a service user group’, British Journal of Social Work, 35, 8, 1321–41.Google Scholar
Nash, J. C. (2008) ‘Rethinking Intersectionality’, Feminist Review, 89, 1, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nixon, J. and Humphreys, C. (2010) ‘Marshalling the evidence: using intersectionality in the domestic violence frame’, Social Politics, 17, 2, 137–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Connor, M. (2002) ‘Consequences and outcomes of disclosure for abused women’, International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 78, Suppl.1, S83–89.Google Scholar
Payne, B. and Triplett, R. (2009) ‘Assessing the domestic violence training needs of benefits workers’, Journal of Family Violence, 24, 4, 243–53.Google Scholar
Peckover, S. (2003) ‘“I 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, 275–82.Google Scholar
Petersen, R., Kathryn, E., Moracco, K. E., Goldstein, K. M. and Clark, K. A. (2005) ‘Moving beyond disclosure: women's perspectives on barriers and motivators to seeking assistance for intimate partner violence’, Women and Health, 40, 3, 63–76.Google Scholar
Price, S., Baird, K. and Salmon, D. (2007) ‘Does routine antenatal enquiry lead to an increased rate of disclosure of domestic abuse? Findings from the Bristol Pregnancy and Domestic Violence Programme’, Evidence Based Midwifery, 5, 3, 100–6.Google Scholar
Ramsay, J., Richardson, J., Carter, Y. H., Davidson, L. L. and Feder, G. (2002) ‘Should health professionals screen women for domestic violence? Systematic review’, British Medical Journal, 325, 314–18.Google Scholar
Sen, R. (1999) ‘Between a rock and a hard place: domestic violence in communities of color’, Colorlines, 2, 1.Google Scholar
Smye, V., Browne, A. J., Varcoe, C. and Josewski, V. (2011) ‘Harm reduction, methadone maintenance treatment and the root causes of health and social inequalities: an intersectional lens in the Canadian context’, Harm Reduction Journal, 8, 17.Google Scholar
Sokoloff, N. J. and Dupont, I. (2005) ‘Domestic violence at the intersections of race, class, and gender’, Violence Against Women, 11, 1, 38–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stark, E. (2007) Coercive Control: The Entrapment of Women in Personal Life, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Starmer, K. (2011) ‘Domestic violence: the facts, the issues, the future’, International Review of Law, Computers and Technology, 25, 1–2, 9–15.Google Scholar
Ulbrich, P. M. and Stockdale, J. (2002) ‘Making family planning clinics an empowerment zone for rural battered women’, Women and Health, 35, 2, 83–100.Google Scholar
Walby, S., Armstrong, J. and Strid, S. (2012) ‘Intersectionality: multiple inequalities in social theory’, Sociology, 46, 2, 224–40.Google Scholar
Weisz, A. N. (2005) ‘Reaching African American battered women: increasing the effectiveness of advocacy’, Journal of Family Violence, 20, 2, 91–9.Google Scholar
World Health Organisation. Violence against Women (n.d.) http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/violence/en/ (accessed 5 February 2012).Google Scholar
Yuval-Davies, N. (2006) ‘Intersectionality and feminist politics’, European Journal of Women's Studies, 13, 3, 193–209.Google Scholar
Zweig, J. M., Schlichter, K. A. and Burt, M. R. (2002) ‘Assisting women victims of violence who experience multiple barriers to services’, Violence Against Women, 8, 2, 162–80.Google Scholar