Bridging Disciplinary Boundaries (January 11 - 14, 2007)

Disclosure of intimate partner violence (IPV) is complex and fraught with numerous difficulties, yet very little research has been conducted in the area of disclosure specifically (Gerbert, Abercrombie, Caspers, Love, & Bronstone, 1999; Kelly & McKillop, 1996; Paine & Hansen, 2002; Rhodes & Levinson, 2003). Few empirical investigations have been undertaken to understand under what circumstances victims and survivors of abuse and violence disclose, and studies that exist present contradictory information. On the one hand telling can sometimes stop the progression of victimization, alleviate stress and associated symptoms, prevent hyper-vigilance, and may create opportunities to receive help abuse (Alaggia, 2005; Arata, 1998; Lutenbacher, Cohen, & Mitzel, 2003; Henry, 1994). In contrast, investigations of disclosures involving victimization and abuse reveal that telling may lead to negative consequences such as the person being blamed and/or accused of fabricating allegations, experiencing withdrawal of support and/or increase in victimization. Issues of safety are paramount when IPV is involved and control over their situation is crucial for victims of violence.

This research used a participatory action approach combined with grounded theory method to answer the following: 1)What impedes or facilitates disclosure of IPV from the womens' perspective? 2) What do helping professionals identify as barriers or facilitators for women in disclosing IPV? 3) What are the experiences of women after they disclose IPV? Reliability issues were addressed through credibility, dependability, confirmability and transferability. Strategies to ensure trustworthiness and authenticity of the data included prolonged engagement, persistent observation, thick description, and negative case analysis. Specifically this was achieved through: 1) investigator's years of experience in the field of violence against women and children; 2) establishing connections with stakeholders; 3) member checking and peer de-briefing; 4) detailed researchers notes, memos, and an audit trail and; 5) methodological triangulation. Finally, thematic analysis and “constant comparison” was used to analyse these data. The use of a computerized data analysis system, N*Vivo, and independent coders increased dependability and reduced researcher bias.

Based on focus group data and in-depth interviewing of over 80 participants, findings indicate that specific policies and practices may in fact impede disclosure of woman abuse. Child welfare legislation, mandatory charging practices by police, and immigration policies figured prominently in the narratives of women and helping professionals as impacting on women's disclosure of abuse and their access to services. For example, in the jurisdiction studied, mandatory charging policies by the police were cited as impeding womens' reporting. Despite strides made by health care providers to develop and implement screening instruments for detecting domestic abuse, these same health care providers are mandated to report battered women with children to child welfare services. Immigrant women and helping professionals also cited fears around deportation if sponsors were arrested for domestic assaults. It is necessary to understand the interaction between all services that respond to IPV, and the policies under which they must respond, so that they do not inadvertently act to undermine each other or disclosures. Facilitators and strategies for safe disclosure and accessing services are also identified.