Although empirical, theoretical, and policy work on violence against women in adult intimate relationships has advanced significantly in the past 40 years, feminist scholars, practitioners, and activists in the field continue to face many challenges, especially those generated by a growing legion of people fundamentally opposed to gendered social scientific analyses. The main objective of this article is to suggest means of effectively dealing with attempts to marginalize feminist scholarship. The approaches suggested include revisiting some major contributions from the past, including using broad and gender-specific definitions, local community surveys, and multiple methods.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrienesW, GordonL. (1983). The new scholarship on family violence. Signs. 8, 490–453.
2.
DeKeseredyWS. (2011a). Violence Against Women: Myths, Facts, Controversies. (University of Toronto Press, Toronto.)
3.
DeKeseredyWS. (2011b). Feminist contributions to understanding woman abuse: Myths, controversies, and realities. Aggress Violent Behav., 16, 297–302.
4.
DeKeseredyWS. (2015). New directions in feminist understandings of rural crime. J Rural Stud. 39, 180–187.
5.
DeKeseredyWS, DragiewiczM. (2013). Gaps in knowledge and emerging areas in gender and crime studies. In The Routledge International Handbook of Gender and Crime Studies. RenzettiCM, GloverSL, GoverAR, eds. (Routledge, London) pp. 297–307.
6.
DeKeseredyWS, SchwartzMD. (2013). Male Peer Support and Violence Against Women: The History and Verification of a Theory. (Northeastern University Press, Boston.)
7.
DobashRE, DobashR. (1979). Violence Against Wives. (Free Press, NY.)
8.
DragiewiczM. (2008). Patriarchy reasserted: Fathers' rights and anti-VAWA activism. Fem Criminol. 3, 121–144.
9.
DragiewiczM, DeKeseredyWS. (2012). Claims about women's use of non-fatal force in intimate relationships: A contextual review of the Canadian research. Violence Against Women. 18, 1008–1026.
10.
DuttonDG. (2006). Rethinking Domestic Violence. (University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, BC.)
11.
DuttonDG. (2010). The gender paradigm and the architecture of antiscience. Partner Abuse. 1, 5–25.
12.
HammerR. (2002). Antifeminism and Family terrorism: A Critical Feminist Perspective. (Roman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD.)
13.
JordanCE. (2009). Advancing the study of violence against women: Evolving research agendas into science. Violence Against Women. 15, 393–419.
14.
MillsCW. (1959). The Sociological Imagination. (Oxford University Press, NY.)
15.
OakleyA. (2000). Experiments in Knowing: Gender and Method in the Social Sciences. (Polity Press, Cambridge, UK.)
16.
RenzettiCM. (1997). Foreword. In Woman Abuse: A Sociological Story. DeKeseredyWS, MacLeodL, eds. (Harcourt Brace, Toronto) pp. v–vii.
17.
SmithMD. (1987). The incidence and prevalence of woman abuse in Toronto. Violence Vict. 2, 173–187.
18.
SmithMD. (1994). Enhancing the quality of survey data on violence against women: A feminist approach. Gend Soc. 8, 109–127.
19.
StankoEA. (2006). Theorizing about violence: Observations from the Economic and Social Research Council's violence research program. Violence Against Women. 12, 543–555.
20.
StrausMA. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics (CT) scales. J Marriage Fam. 41, 75–88.
21.
StrausMA. (2014). Addressing violence by female partners is vital to prevent or stop violence against women: Evidence from the multisite batterer intervention evaluation. Violence Against Women. 20, 888–899.
22.
TjadenP, ThoennesN. (2000). Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. (U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.)
