`Real' violence?: Gender and (male) violence — an Australian perspective
| Date | 01 March 2009 |
| Author | Kate Seymour |
| DOI | 10.1177/0264550508099714 |
| Published date | 01 March 2009 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
‘Real’ violence?: Gender and (male) violence –
an Australian perspective
Kate Seymour, Charles Sturt University, Australia
Abstract Based on the findings of an exploratory study this article focuses on the
ways in which a group of South Australian practitioners, engaged in work with
men who are violent towards their female partners, construct and understand male
violence. Evident in the participants’ understandings of violence is a tendency, firstly,
to dichotomize violence into two ‘types’ – that directed towards other men and
that directed at women; and, secondly, to categorize violence as either ‘normal’/
unremarkable (male-to-male violence) or gendered (‘domestic’ violence). In dis-
tinguishing between gendered violence and ‘other’ violence, such as that between
men in the public sphere, the latter is constructed as ‘ordinary’ violence, worthy of
intervention in only certain, ‘extreme’ or excessive, circumstances. It is argued that
these understandings, based upon a conflation of masculinity and violence, reflect
the broader context of gendered power, disciplinary knowledge and expertise,
and have significant implications for the ways in which male violence is explained
and addressed, and, in the Australian context, the associated marginalization of
domestic violence as an area of professional intervention.
Keywords domestic violence, gendered violence, male violence, masculinity,
violence intervention
Introduction
This article is based on the findings of an exploratory pilot study undertaken to
investigate the beliefs, attitudes and professional practice of South Australian men
and women engaged in work with men who are violent towards their female
partners. A primary aim of the study was to investigate the proposition that gender
is a substantial and highly significant factor for workers in the violence interven-
tion field, in terms of their practice; the ways that they ‘do’ their work; and their
personal/professional identity. Whilst a number of themes emerged during the
29
Probation Journal
The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
Copyright © 2009 NAPO Vol 56(1): 29–44
DOI: 10.1177/0264550508099714
www.napo.org.uk
http://prb.sagepub.com
Article
course of the research interviews, this article focuses in particular on the ways in
which the participants understand and construct violence, specifically the tendency
to categorize violence as either gendered (that perpetrated by men against women)
or ‘generic’/non-gendered (such as that between men). It is argued that this
reflects the broader context of gendered power, disciplinary knowledge and
expertise, and has significant implications, in the Australian context, for the ways
in which male violence is conceptualized, explained and addressed.
The study
For this relatively small study, data was collected using open-ended questions, via
semi-structured interviews, in order to obtain qualitative data. Participants were
provided with an explanatory statement outlining the aims and process of the
project including an assurance of confidentiality and anonymity. Questions focused
on individuals’ perceptions of the nature of violence, their experience of the work,
and its impacts, with particular reference to gendered subjectivity. Each interview
was audio-taped. Transcribed interview data was coded inductively, using NVIVO
computer software, with a focus on identifying ‘analytical categories’ as these
emerge from the data (Pope et al., 2000: 114). Key themes and patterns were
thus identified, consistent with a grounded theory approach to qualitative research.
Grounded theory, as the name suggests, involves a process of building theory ‘from
the ground up’. Because its aim is to generate, rather than test, hypotheses, ‘sample
selection, data collection, and data analysis occur simultaneously rather than in a
pre-established sequence’ (Yegidis and Weinbach 2006: 173), thus enabling the
‘progressive identification and integration of categories of meaning from the data’
(Willig, 2001: 33).
Snowball sampling, a method of non-random sampling in which ‘the sample
is compiled as the research progresses’ (Yegidis and Weinbach, 2006: 205), was
used to identify and solicit participants for the study. As noted by Yegidis and
Weinbach (2006: 203, 205), snowball sampling is often used in exploratory studies
in which the aim is to learn more about the ‘nature and impact’ of an issue, from
the perspective of those who have extensive experience or an ‘in-depth under-
standing’ of it. Potential participants, initially identified through the author’s own
connections within the Department for Correctional Services in South Australia,
were contacted and asked to suggest other possible contributors to the research.
In this way, use was made of professional networks to gain access to ‘information-
rich’ (Patton, 1990) participants. Research participants (four women and six men),
all of whom are involved in domestic violence work, include social workers and
allied professionals employed in a range of organizations including government
(the Department for Correctional Services1) and non-government sectors (such as
community health and related agencies). Thus a diverse range of workplaces
(seven in total, including distinct units, both custodial and community-based, within
the Department for Correctional Services) and professional groups are included in
this study. The interviews were conducted with the approval of the Department for
Correctional Services, via their Research Management Committee. The age range
Probation Journal
30 56(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial