Abstract
Many theoretical frameworks have been suggested for practice with survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV) with very little verification of application. This study uses data from qualitative interviews with 22 IPV advocates to assess what constructs guide practice. What theories and philosophies guide advocacy practice? The findings revealed that empowerment, feminism, and strengths-based perspective are dominant lenses for practice but that hope theory and emerging clinical models are beginning to be adopted by advocates. Implications are discussed.
Keywords
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey estimates that one in three American women will experience some sort of intimate partner violence (IPV) in her lifetime and one in two women will experience some sort of sexual violence, including a one in five chance for rape (Black et al., 2011). To address the experience and consequences of IPV and sexual violence in the lives of American women, shelters and supportive agency service networks have been built to help survivors of violence.
There is a plethora of interventions for survivors of IPV, ranging from crisis hotlines to transitional housing and long-term therapy (Bennett, Riger, Schewe, Howard, & Wasco, 2004). These services are guided by certain theoretical frameworks about service provisions or beliefs about the way direct services should be provided.
Direct services are typically called advocacy services and are defined by micro and macro characteristics. Those who work in the field may be committed to not only micro individual concerns that are the normal focus of mental health but also address more macro social and community culture and norms that perpetuate violence (Davies & Lyon, 2014; Lehrner & Allen, 2009; Pence, 2001). Current tensions in the movement to end partner violence mean that a variety of approaches to practice are used in both micro- and macro-level interventions (Goodman & Epstein, 2008; Lehrner & Allen, 2009). Although many research studies have applied practice models to IPV services or tested theoretically grounded interventions, little is known about what constructs actually guide advocates in practice. What theories are currently being used by advocates in practice, either explicitly or implicitly? The purpose of the current research study is to explore the theoretical constructions that guide how advocates deliver interventions in IPV-focused agencies through a series of qualitative interviews with over 20 advocates working in the field.
Literature Review
Several theoretical frameworks have influenced interventions with survivors of partner violence and provided insight into the experience of abuse. Feminist and critical theories are most prevalent in academic literature as models for advocacy interventions with survivors of IPV (Lockhart & Mitchell, 2010), along with empowerment approaches and the strengths-based perspective (Black, 2003; Busch & Valentine, 2000), but these by no means provide an exhaustive list. Other brief forms of intervention have been used successfully including clinical therapeutic models such as cognitive–behavioral therapy (CBT; Petrectic-Jackson, Witte, & Jackson, 2002; Roberts, 2007). A brief review highlights why and how these theories have been used in practice.
Empowerment
This approach has several key assumptions, that is, the client is the expert on their own lives, the advocate is a collaborative partner, and programs should be based on a client’s expressed needs. Empowering practice shapes programs by drawing from the needs of clients, builds on strengths of people, revises intervention, and pays ongoing attention to power differentials (Simon, 1994). The empowerment perspective is the foundation for advocacy services in many shelters (Goodman & Epstein, 2008). The experience of domestic violence is understood as fundamentally disempowering for survivors. Women are stripped of their personal agency and freewill by the abusive partner and then forced to enter uncharted territories of services (Busch & Valentine, 2000). Personal power is restored by encouraging and creating avenues for women to make decisions about their own lives (Kallivayalil, 2007). Shelters and agencies often do this by creating safe spaces to give survivors the time to make their own choices without fear or punishment (Clevenger & Roe-Sepowitz, 2009).
Feminism
Feminist theories focus on experiences of oppression and privilege, using a gendered lens. Feminist theoretical perspectives are often used in interventions with female survivors of partner violence (Dominelli, 2002; McNamara, Tamanini, & Pelletier-Walker, 2008; Petrectic-Jackson et al., 2002; Tutty & Rothery, 2002). It is probably more accurate to say feminist theories rather than feminist theory, given the diverse range of perspectives in the feminism umbrella (Payne, 2005). The close link between the feminist movement and the increase in focus on domestic violence has influenced the theoretical orientation of shelter services (Tutty & Rothery, 2002).
Feminist interventions often seek to empower clients (Dominelli, 2002; Petrectic-Jackson et al., 2002). Dominelli (2002) and Payne (2005) summarized some of the major elements of feminist social work practice, including analysis of power, focus on the personal experience in the public context (the personal is political), the de-emphasis on blame and pathology of women, consciousness raising, reflexivity, and egalitarian relationships and attention to issues of process. IPV agencies often strive to use the nonhierarchical structures and consensus-making models central to some feminist theories (Bennett et al., 2004). McNamara, Tamanini, and Pelletier-Walker (2008) measured the life functioning and coping abilities before and after an eclectic feminist-based therapy intervention at an IPV shelter. In the study of 119 women, 70% obtained significantly higher levels of functioning and coping after the intervention. Kallivayalil (2007) studied the use of feminist therapies with South Asian immigrant survivors of IPV. The therapists perceived this approach to be helpful in their work with clients.
Cognitive–Behavioral theories
Cognitive–behavioral theory is most associated with CBT. Jackson, Petretic-Jackson, and White (2002) assert that because partner violence can lead to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), it should be treated as a trauma in social work and clinical interventions. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has affirmed that CBT is the most evidence-based practice for trauma interventions (Lowery, 2008). Although a meta-analysis of research revealed that up to 80% of female survivors of IPV meet criteria for PTSD, many interventions with this population do not use CBT (Jones, Hughes, & Unterstaller, 2001). Petrectic-Jackson, Witte, and Jackson (2002) note that CBT skills help address some of the most common treatment issues with IPV survivors, that is, anger, manipulation, denial, dissociation, self-blame, emotional (affective) distress, and trust. Iverson and colleagues (2011) found that CBT therapy with IPV survivors could be useful in preventing future violence. In a sample of 150 women with PTSD who were survivors of abuse, treatment groups who underwent a CBT intervention experienced less violence than a control group. Diagnosis of PTSD can help to externalize symptoms and reduce self-blame among survivors of IPV (Jones et al., 2001).
Strengths-Based Perspective
In conjunction with feminist theories and empowerment, a strengths perspective is often employed in partner violence advocacy (Black, 2003). The strengths perspective rejects the view of people in need of services as victims and asserts, instead, that everyone has inherent strengths and resourcefulness. By listening, asking questions, and pointing out themes, social workers can help clients to discover these strengths (Howe, 2009). Saleeby (2002), an architect of this approach to practice in social work, explains that a strengths perspective shuns the concentration on problems and looks at possibilities. It is a step away from a medical model of disease and pathology to a search for the strength and resources in all clients (Saleeby, 2002). It is in this spirit that advocates often refer to those who have experienced intimate violence as survivors and not victims. Strengths-oriented practitioners empower the people they work with by highlighting these strengths and using a future orientation to apply skills toward current problems (Howe, 2009). Black (2003) assessed the strengths-based perspective as being interwoven with feminist and empowerment models and a common tool in working with partner violence survivors. Her study of domestic violence court advocates confirmed that they use a strengths orientation to practice (Black, 2003).
Since the feminist movement in the 1960s and 1970s turn attention to the violence experience by women and girls, advocates have been increasingly conflicted about the push to move away from a feminist-based approach of survivor-led services to a social service model, reflecting a mental health perspective (Wies, 2008). There has been an ongoing concern that the movement did not address and include the voices of people at the margins: the poor; women of color; those in rural areas; and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals (Bogard, 1999; Danis & Bhandari, 2010). Some advocates may use a human service model, that is, atheoretical and based on more of a case management approach (Wies, 2008). The literature reveals the suggested use of empowerment, strengths perspective, CBT, and feminism theories in interventions with survivors of IPV. Other theories are in use with survivors, such as crisis intervention (Roberts, 2007). Despite these applications and suggestions, little is known about what constructs actually influence and motivate practice among people practicing in IPV-focused agencies. What theoretical lenses are actively used in work with survivors? This study aims to investigate what theories influence advocacy practice from the perspective of advocates.
Method
This study stemmed from a larger project aimed at learning about the advocacy process in IPV agencies. The larger analysis revealed important information about theoretical constructs, meriting a more focused analysis about theory. Then, a more focused analysis with the core research question for this study is what constructs inform the delivery of direct services to survivors of IPV from shelter and nonresidential service advocates? This analysis took place as a part of a larger project about the process of partner violence advocacy using the grounded theory method. For the purpose of this research, advocate was defined as anyone working in a paid or volunteer position working with or on behalf of a survivor in an agency focused on IPV.
Sampling
The sampling approach for this study is a purposive one, based on who might be closest to the advocacy process and who can provide information that will lead to theory construction as advocated by the grounded theory method (Charmez, 2006). To this end, advocates working in an IPV shelter, nonresidential agency, or housed in a legal setting but working specifically with survivors of IPV were asked to participate. Shelters and agencies were located through the state coalitions. Agency directors and management were asked to forward information about the study to potential participants. People who had been working in direct services a year or more and were currently in a direct service position were eligible to participate. The researcher conducted primary data collection in one Midwestern state and secondarily in one Southwestern state.
Data Collection and Analysis
The data collection method for this study was in-depth, face-to-face interviews. The data were transcribed verbatim from recordings. The interview method was that of a guided conversation, which explored topics and gathered participants’ interpretations of their experiences (Charmez, 2006). The constructivist grounded theory method was used for the research study. This method allowed for a feminist model of research interested in sharing participant voices and also allowed for construction of theory, with the hopes of improving practices and working for increased social justice. In order to construct theory about the process of advocacy, participants were asked to describe and explore their work. Questions asked in interviews included what is your approach/philosophy in providing services to survivors of IPV?; How did you come to have this perspective? What do you think is the cause of IPV?; and How has this changed over the course of your work in this field? The subsequent grounded theory of advocacy process is detailed in Wood (2014). The grounded theory coding process revealed several additional issues of merit, including the use of theory in advocacy practice.
Grounded theory allows for several layers of coding and three were used in this study, that is, open or line by line, axial or relationship building, and advanced or theory construction (Charmez, 2006; Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Coding is a circular process in many ways. The data are coded, new questions are asked, the data are coded again, and still more questions are asked (Charmez, 2006). The data were coded with Atlas.ti software (Muhr & Friese, 2004).Coded transcripts were reviewed by two colleagues with expertise in qualitative methods. The data were analyzed using grounded theory coding methods to find emergent themes on the use of theory among IPV advocates. Data analysis and the construction of theory are reflective of the researcher and participant and the context in which they live (Mills, Bonner, & Francis, 2006). The researcher has been a practitioner in the field in the state where primary data collection took place. In order to maintain transparency and safeguard against bias from previous relationships, the researcher did not interview anyone with whom she has previously worked. More interpretive methods of feminist, constructivist research do not necessarily employ the technique of bracketing, asserting that is not possible to escape the subjective stance of the researcher (Finlay, 2009). Bracketing was not employed in this study.
Quality Criteria
In their foundational work, Fourth Generation Evaluation, Guba and Lincoln (1989) outline two major constructs of quality criteria that are applicable to qualitative research, namely, authenticity and trustworthiness. These criteria established standards for documentation, honoring the voices of participants, checking interpretations with members of the group under study, and assessing the possible transferability of findings (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). Reflexivity represents a way to instill authenticity and trustworthiness in this study. To increase awareness in this process, regular memo writing and discussion of analysis with other researchers helped to uncover implicit assumptions. As another way of increasing reflexivity, the researcher borrowed from Charmez (2006) and Corbin and Strauss (2008) and asked herself: How do I know this? Is this similar to other events I have experienced? How are my perceptions and beliefs impacting this analysis? It is important to let the words of the participants guide analysis and to present their dialogue verbatim to ensure a level of thick description, ensuring that theory construction matches the voices of participants (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). The presentation of findings given subsequently is thick with participant voices to verify theory. These quality criteria helped to establish practices that rooted the data in the voices of participants and provided emergent themes about the constructs that inform IPV advocacy.
Findings
Advocate Characteristics from Sample.
Theoretical or Philosophical Approach Guiding Services
Data analysis to answer the research question what constructs inform the delivery of direct services to survivors of IPV from shelter and nonresidential service advocates revealed several and often overlapping philosophical or theoretical approaches guided advocacy work with survivors of violence. Advocates in this sample were asked about guiding influence of their practice at work and some participants named specific theoretical models. Others described beliefs that matched, to a large extent, existing frameworks. The most commonly referenced guiding philosophy or theories for practice were empowerment and strengths-based perspective. Hope and feminism also emerged as important constructs for IPV advocacy.
Theoretical Themes
Empowerment
Far and away, the empowerment model was the most used or referenced perspective for advocacy practice. Empowerment meant that the advocate provided support for the client, but the survivor is “in charge” of the types of services she used and when she used them. This is guided by the idea that survivors are the experts on their own lives and understand what they need when they present for services. Rachel emphasized this perspective when discussing her client-driven approach. Yeah, is that you’re—that the whole word “help” to me is—I try to take that out of staff’s vocabulary and—because it’s not about us doing something for someone else—it’s about us doing it with them and being a resource to them when they’re taking on—living their life and it’s just like nobody can help me achieve something I want to do, I have to be the driver in the seat and doing it, so for me, I think that’s the most important reality check. Technically, we don't empower them. We help them find their own empowerment and help them empower themselves to see that they have choices and to expand those choices. If we've done that and they choose to stay with an abusive person, then they've made that choice or they choose to keep using drugs or whatever. Well I want to empower them. I want them to know that there are shelters out there, that there are people who care. Even just educating them, that a lot of people feel that they have no rights. Especially with the undocumented population; you know, batterers will sometimes use that against them like, “If you leave me, I’m going to deport you or I’m going to deport your family and I know where you live” and it’s just fear. You know, and just letting them know that fear is very valid and real but there are different resources that they can access to try to get their documents in order and do things legally. Again, just being able to help them and meet them where they’re at. Being patient and I think that that is crucial to empowerment. A lot of times I will, in the back of my head, I’ll just be, “Let me just do this, I can do this, I can do this faster than you,” but that is just the absolute wrong approach for a survivor. They need to do this themselves, they are perfectly capable, they know that, they can do it and I’m not there to make things move faster or make everything to be just right. Patience and also just kind-of embracing not being in control, that’s another very important thing.
Strength-based perspective
As a second theory closely linked to empowerment, advocates overwhelmingly endorsed a strengths-based perspective in their work with survivors. A strengths-based perspective meant drawing on the natural abilities of survivors and focusing interventions on their expressed needs. Justine described how this perspective fits nicely with other models in the assessment of client needs. We really need to follow their needs. So there’s lots of feminist theory that goes into the work that we do. We’ve just been influenced by so many different philosophies. I think a lot of our work is focused on strengths-based work; finding out the strengths that the clients have and kind of building on that. With folks who start up in the first evening where I can do kind-of a foundational workshop, for me it’s really important outside of explaining what the program is and all that, it’s really important to—how should I say this—to welcome them and to how, really how honored I am that they’re there, how—I try to share some praise with them about being brave enough to (A) come to seek help at our agency, to realize that they deserve more, to have left whatever situation they left or that whatever reason they’re here and to have taken that extra step to come to this workshop and to say that “I deserve more and I want more”—whatever that looks like. Or it’s about telling them, you know, “I see how strong you are and I see that you have the strength to make it through this; I see creativity in you and I want to encourage you to dream and to believe in your own self and believe in those dreams. And if you want to share them with me, I’m here to listen.” It’s kind of just taking the steps that the client wants you to take with them, and going with them on that journey.
Feminism and interlocking oppressions
Belief in social change and eliminating oppression, particularly based on gender, was a guiding belief for practice in some agencies, as Renee stated, “Well, the philosophy at our agency is very much one of social change, social justice and empowerment of survivors.” Participants endorsed feminist beliefs, especially in relationship to perceived causes of partner violence. Overwhelmingly, participants attributed the cause of partner violence as, in part, a desire for power and control. Many participants expressed that violence stemmed from cultural gender roles that contribute to a need for power and control or at least allow it to thrive. Morgan outlined the connection she saw between patriarchy and IPV. … I really felt like it was about male domination—the fact that men still make more money today than women do and all those things and I believe that’s a huge factor, and maybe that is, maybe that has everything to do with it, we’ve never had a female president in this country—all of those kinds of things I think definitely plays a role in the world of male power and control. I am not a top-down or a bottom-up kind of person. I believe that the best way to understand is through an intersectional approach where we are looking at all of these different axes of identification like race, class, gender, sexuality, religion, ability, on and on. All of these things come together to form an individual or whatever. And all of these things are being fed by the rape culture we live in. Oh, gosh—we’re in the south part of the state, good ole’ boy, she’s my woman, do what I say kinda thing. Religion wise, we have a lot—this community right here is a pretty Catholic community, but moving out into the county and the surrounding counties, that’s where you get into the Amish, you get into the 7th Day Adventists, the Jehovah’s Witness, we struggle a lot with Jehovah’s Witness and the whole mind-frame of ‘we keep everything in the church, don’t you dare go out and talk to those people because we deal with everything here in the church,’ ya know and stuff. So that’s a huge struggle—dealing with the religion and the values. I think it’s mainly economic barriers. Honestly, it’s mainly economic because like you said with the demographics, the majority will be low-income families and families that need some public assistance or make $10.00 over the amount, or $1.00 over the amount of what you can make in order to get some services, but they need the services so bad, but they can’t get it. It’s frustrating sometimes, frustrating for them, for me, for everybody. So we get that woman started, but then we send her out there into a very hostile economy. So we're really also talking about economics here and to be able to provide that, I mean the bigger stroke of the wand makes it a more equitable economy that's based on supporting the needs of everybody in that society and not making a few people rich … I try to tell them that they do have rights, and a lot of them don’t believe you [laugh] when you start talking about it. Like “No, that’s my husband, I should have sex with him” or you know, “He’s the man of the house and I should do whatever he tells me to do.” And just discussing what a healthy relationship is like and what equality is like. It’s kind of an eye opener for them and I think the more they hear that they have rights and things like that, they shouldn’t be abused, and call it abuse, because some of them don’t, because like I said, I didn’t know it was abuse until I came to the States.
Hope
Hope has many dimensions in partner violence advocacy. Hope was represented in these data as a wish or desire for the future based on hope or desire for change was perceived as a way to endure when the relationship becomes abusive. Advocates attributed hope for change in the context of a cycle of violence may cause a person to return to the violent relationship. Advocates in the sample largely anticipated that a person might leave services to return to the relationship. When people leave services, participants discussed having a sense of hope for the outcome. Hoping for a better outcome for clients is a frustrating experience for some advocates, as Michelle discussed. I mean, I guess sometimes I’m sad for them, depending on how severe the abuse has been, sometimes I’m scared for them, like, are you really sure you’re going to go back, because they always think it’s going to be different and I think very rarely is it different and so I just get scared for them and I always try to make them feel like, just know that you don’t have to feel embarrassed ever, the door’s always open, you can come back at any time if something happens again or whatever. Don’t feel like just because you left three times that you can’t come back, no—you can keep coming back as many times as it takes, so—but yeah, I don’t know, it’s hard because I worry about them and there’s some people that even stick with you in your mind a lot, like you think, ‘where are they now? I hope they’re ok and that they haven’t been hurt or anything else has escalated or anything else bad has happened,’ but … I don’t know where it stems from and how it continues and if individuals can truly change—if batterers can truly change—those are all things that I’m really trying hard to learn about and trying hard to I guess not put it in a box. Me as a person—I don’t want to believe that nobody can ever change, but I know the research, of course, on domestic violence. So that’s a challenge for me. A hope structure is when I get up in the morning I think it’s gonna be an ok day and I’m gonna be able to do stuff and I’ve got confidence that this is gonna work out and if I can figure out a way to solve this, by God, it’s gonna work … My clients are vulnerable—they don’t have that, ok? Because you have to have had some positive experiences that led you to believe that you’re capable and that things work out for you to have that hope structure. Abuse kills it, ok? So most of our clients don’t have that, you have to build that in them that it will work and that they’re capable. They have to have the experiences and they need a lot of reassurance and then they will, it will grow, but that’s really important, but a lot of it has to do with you have to be nurtured so you feel safe enough to try, see, so I think that’s what we try to do and our counseling center has always told us that we’re a very therapeutic environment because we work with affirmations and we work with self-esteem building and we try to give them positive feedback when they’re making little steps because that does matter because it builds the hope structure. It builds it up. And I think now that the way it affects my work with clients is probably in the most positive way. I truly can identify with the idea that anybody can become a victim and that it’s not their fault and that what we are fighting to end every day is domestic violence and sexual assault because it in itself is the problem and an epidemic I think, especially in our society right now. And so I think I have clients that are, throughout our work together, they get to a point where there is shame or guilt or blame or whatever, and just realizing that I can say to them “It can happen to anybody. It can happen to you now and ten years from now you may be helping somebody else.” And just kind of giving them my hope. It makes you very humble. And as you come out of it, you’re like, ok I get it now. So anyway, so hope keeps me going but there are those sometimes stark reminders that it’s not so simple. And that’s actually taught me a lot because when I’m training volunteers and talking, I do some volunteer training, I will tell people kind-of the stark truth, I mean, it’s wonderful that you’re here, you are going to help people, but we don’t make miracles here.
Discussion
Several constructs guide advocacy practices. These included empowerment, strengths-based perspective, feminism, the intersectional lens, and hope theory. Although referenced in other literature, psychoanalytic models and crisis intervention were not endorsed directly or indirectly. There were no direct mentions of cognitive–behavioral or crisis intervention models, although some advocates referenced therapeutic work focused on thinking. Most advocates in the sample designated their approach to work as being survivor centered or as a collaborative other, indicating the importance of letting survivors has control over services and interactions. This mirrors the transition in other forms of feminist social work practice and theory, where increasingly “third-wave” ideas about positionality and intersecting oppressions have been embraced in models for services (Kemp & Brandwein, 2010). It is not surprising that the most commonly used practice theories are empowerment and strengths perspective. Advocates in this sample viewed an empowering approach as a mediator against the abuser’s power and control and necessary to increasing client buy-in for services. When empowerment is partnered with a strong rapport and client-led services, advocates felt that survivors were able to make goals that mattered to them and built a more positive sense of self. Highlighting strengths and using them as a means for goal planning was a natural extension of this perspective. This finding is especially important, given this centrality of empowerment to social work practice and the seemingly lacking understanding of the best methods to approach IPV intervention in social work education. In one study of master of social work students, feminist or power-related causes of violence were only minimally endorsed, and empowerment-based interventions were scarcely recognized (Black, Weisz, & Bennett, 2010).
Evidence of empowerment-influenced services came not only from direct references but also from statement of actions undertaken in advocacy practice. In this research, participants discussed their desire to educate clients about societal forms of oppression, provide information gained at increasing personal power and resource acquisition, and encourage clients to build supportive networks with other survivors. This theme also marked a transition in feminist social work to looking at intersecting oppression and privilege (Kemp & Brandwein, 2010). These ideas complement the notions expressed by participants Alma and Rachel that advocates do not help or give empowerment to survivors but rather facilitate a process by which survivors are able to empower themselves. Use of empowerment and the strengths perspective in advocacy has also been acknowledged in other literature. Black (2003) discovered in an analysis of survivor experiences with court advocates that strengths perspective and feminist approach were most often used. Zosky (2011) interviewed 161 survivors about shelter stays and found that services provided by programs helped survivors find strengths and increase safety. Davies and Lyon (2014) promote the efficacy of victim-defined advocacy with the focus of understanding the perspective, experience, and impact of culture and oppression on each individual survivor.
Hope Theory
One of the most compelling aspects of the data set was the role of hope, expressed as a sense of expectation and desire, not just as a guiding construct but as part of advocacy practice. Advocates were not directly asked about their experiences or use of hope but it emerged as a dominant theme. Advocates seek to instill hope in their clients and also try to maintain a personal sense of optimism about their work. Advocates’ belief in the ability of the survivor to make a self-driven change, and to possibly even live a life free from violence, was a source of motivation. There is also a dark side to hope. Hoping is also wishing for a different outcome, especially for survivors who may have returned to abusive partners or exhausted their time limit at shelter. For many advocates in this sample, following a client-driven model based on empowerment also carried a risk of worrying and wondering about the people who returned to violent homes, called on the crisis line but didn’t make it in, or moved away to another shelter.
Hope theory and hope therapy have become an aspect of therapeutic practice in the last 30 years (Lopez, Floyd, Ulven, & Synder, 2000). Hope theory asserts that all people have the capacity for hope. Benefits to increasing hope included more agency and motivation to achieve both short- and long-term goals. Many factors influence the amount and capacity for hope an individual has, including experiences, social support, and therapeutic connection. (Lopez et al., 2000). Clients in this model learn how to construct a “Hope House” that is formed by identifying times of hopeful thinking, bonding with the therapist and supportive others, learning skills to maintain and remain hopeful, and being able to anticipate and manage setbacks that may occur (Lopez et al., 2000). The hope house is similar to the study participant Gretchen’s notion of a “Hope Structure,” or the expectation that even if things don’t work out, they can improve in the future. In hope therapy, clients are encouraged to create positive goals and pursue alternatives if they encounter road blocks (Lopez, et al., 2000). Advocates in this sample helped to build a hope structure or house by affirmations aimed at positive self-perception, increased sense of personal agency and ability to problem-solve, and, importantly, the anticipation of setbacks.
Other studies have highlighted the importance of hope for IPV advocates. In a phenomenological exploration of six partner violence advocates, Crain and Koehn (2012) explored the role of feeling of hope in sustaining work. Their findings indicate that hope is visceral, contextual, mutual, and a journey that develops over time (Crain & Koehn, 2012). Similar to this study, past client successes and examples of positive outcomes were sustaining to advocates. Advocates expressed a desire to share with clients a sense of hope about their ability to achieve goals (Crain & Koehn, 2012). Further inquiry should be directed toward exploring the use of hope in IPV work and toward a constructed grounded theory for advocacy practice.
IPV advocates are not the only helping professionals who view hope as important in order to increase motivation and work satisfaction. Westburg and Guindon (2004) surveyed 94 HIV/AIDS health care workers about their feelings of hope. They found workers to have higher than average levels of hope. Workers reported feeling empathic, sympathetic, frustrated, sad, and fulfilled when working with patients (Westburg & Guindon, 2004). This is similar to the reports of advocates in this sample. Empathic connection and sympathy about the experience of violence were common emotions expressed by advocates, as were feelings of sadness and frustration about societal norms and expectations, resources, and client outcomes. Much like a health care provider working with people with chronic illness, advocates have very little control over the abusive partner. This makes hope of central importance to maintaining motivation to remain in this stressful line of work, even with little control over outcomes.
Implications
Feminist and empowerment theoretical approaches are still very much in use in IPV agencies, despite disagreements over practice models and organizational structure (Davies & Lyon, 2014; Goodman & Epstein, 2008; Lehrner & Allen, 2009; Wies, 2008). Although clinical theories may have a place in IPV advocacy, the default setting in many agencies is still a feminist empowerment approach that intends to be client driven and build on strengths. The mutual emphasis of empowerment and strengths based on social work practice and IPV intervention creates a natural link to better prepare students and early-career practitioners about the connections between theory and practice. The findings of this research support the assertions of Arnold and Ake (2013) that the movement to end IPV is not necessarily in decline but rather in a careful evolution that is blending grassroots, political, and clinical strategies to address violence and trauma from the standpoint of survivors.
With a wide agreement in the literature about a focus on empowerment and strengths, there needs to be more discussion and clarification about what empowerment is and how it is used as a practice model (Kasturirangan, 2008). Researchers like Zosky (2011) have advocated for an empowerment approach that draws on survivors and their help-seeking skills. In this sample alone, there was a vast array of explanations of empowering practice, some of which were empowerment in name only and more closely matched a case management model. Confusion over the meaning of empowerment was indicated by statements which suggested that clients gained empowerment by following the directives of agency protocol. Further exploration into how empowerment is translated from a perspective to a practice with survivors of violence is needed to enhance the role of this perspective in the field. This could entail evaluation work to assess the fidelity of empowerment and strengths-focused models in practice as well as training for new and seasoned advocates. In addition, social work education and leadership can continue to improve educational practices about IPV and efficacious interventions and theoretical constructs (Black et al., 2010). This might take the form of education about not just the constructs but the real-life implementation of theory for social work practice with IPV survivors. In light of the emerging evidence that hope is important for work with IPV survivors, greater exploration and application of hope theory in practice in IPV and social work with survivors of trauma may be necessary to further explore the potential benefits and dynamics of hope theory in advocacy practice. This could extend on the exploration by Crain and Koehn (2012) and look at how hope is applied in practice.
Limitations
This research has a several important limitations of note. The first is that the small and exploratory nature of the study makes it difficult to extend findings beyond this sample. Larger scale quantitative and qualitative exploration is needed to understand more about constructs in more diverse settings and samples. This research is limited in scope because of the focus on workers and not on the people receiving services. It is likely that survivors and advocates do not perceive that the same constructs are being used in services. Information from survivors would greatly enhance the information about theories used. This analysis was conducted as part of a larger study and did not fully focused on building a model of theory use. A grounded theory study focused on the process of using theory in IPV practice would be an important next step. Finally, this study did not seek to assess efficacy. The implementation of a theoretical model does not necessarily mean success.
Conclusion
Historically, feminist and empowerment-based approaches have inspired and guided the movement to end IPV. This research revealed that they still do, to a large part. However, the fidelity of these practice models needs improvement as does the training and implementation of theory at the agency level. Newer theoretical applications, such as hope theory, offer insight into guide advocacy practice. Future research should focus on ensuring fidelity to existing models and assessing efficacy of all practice theories. The grassroots, survivor-driven roots of the movement, are still very much thriving but need additional support and evaluation to adapt to the best benefit to survivors of violence.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank Dr. Carol Hostetter for her assistance.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.