Diversity in Interpersonal Violence Research

Abstract

This article examines the role of diversity in interpersonal violence research as it relates to race and ethnicity. The importance and need for diversity in interpersonal violence research is discussed. Three phases of the research processed are discussed: conceptualization, implementation, and interpretation. Specific strategies are discussed on how to include and bolster interpersonal violence research in partnership with diverse communities of color.

Keywords

sexual assault cultural contexts domestic violence

In 2016, the Journal of Interpersonal Violence took an important step in advancing knowledge in interpersonal violence (IPV) research by creating a policy on addressing diversity in papers: “Effective January 2016, JIV will require that every manuscript include a discussion about the implications of the study questions, underlying research literature, methodology, and analysis or results in terms of diversity” (Conte, 2016). In doing so, the idea was to print research that could expand knowledge of diverse populations, uncover culturally specific and indigenous approaches, and share effective practices in the reduction and elimination of IPV for multiple populations. While the goal is to have more research that is culturally responsive and inclusive of diverse populations to help in the reduction and response to interpersonal violence in long ignored communities, more broadly JIV seeks to assist the field in expanding knowledge by questioning and pursuing the limits of current findings in research or the cumulative knowledge base by a deeper understanding of human behavior and violence in its many iterations.

Following implementation of this policy, understanding how to include and think about diversity in interpersonal violence (IPV) research may need further elaboration. The purpose of this article is to understand the implications of diversity as it relates to racial and ethnic groups in IPV research. It is recognized that diversity goes beyond racial and ethnic groups and persons with differing abilities, sexual orientation, age, or class; however, each area could not be comprehensively covered and given its due attention in this one article. Therefore, the article will explore what is meant by diversity and culture among racial and ethnic groups, how it expands knowledge, and how culture causes variation in responses to research questions, the literature, methodology, and interpretation of findings.

Diversity and How It Expands Knowledge

JIV understands diversity to include all aspects of human differences such as socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, language, nationality, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, geography, ability, age, and culture: “Diversity as a core value embodies inclusiveness, mutual respect, and multiple perspectives and serves as a catalyst for expanding knowledge and practice with all human beings. While science seeks knowledge that can be generalized, it must appreciate that specific findings, while important in understanding the unique experiences of individuals or groups, are not necessarily applicable to all” (Journal on Interpersonal Violence, 2018). The challenge of the researcher is made more difficult when there is a lack of consideration of diversity in interpersonal violence research. The task then is for the researcher to consider the following question: Are my research questions, methods, and interpretations resulting in knowledge that is generalizable to multiple human beings or is it limited by failing to include diverse populations? The culture of a population has implications for understanding how that community perceives and experiences interpersonal violence. “Cultural factors can filter and shape the reasons that people engage in certain behaviors. Culture encompasses a group’s history, values and knowledge, as well as behavioral norms that are explicit or implicit in social interactions” (NIMH Multislice HIV/STD Prevention Trial for African American Couples Group, 2008, p. 5). Culturally responsive research then broadens, expands, and strengthens knowledge development. In fact, “diversity, it turns out, goes to the heart of how to do research and innovation effectively” (Guterl, 2014, n.p.). The JIV policy is based on a belief that active consideration of diversity in research is the first step in developing a knowledge base that is generalizable or is recognized as lacking generalizability.

Diversity and Research Questions

Identifying the research question is an important first step in designing a study. The research question informs the methodology, the data collection process, and even how one analyzes information. It speaks to how the problem is defined and understood. Based on the researcher’s understanding of a problem, research questions emerge. However, if the researcher does not understand the population’s priorities or understandings of an issue, the identified research questions could miss the relevance for the population. If such information is present, then the questions should build on the existing knowledge. The researcher should ask the following questions: (1) Are the research questions reflective of the concerns of diverse populations? (2) Is diversity an important aspect of the research questions? (3) Am I seeking answers to research questions that are generalizable to diverse populations? For example, if someone is conducting IPV research in the Black community it would be important to consider the within-group experiences and variance to formulate the research question. Recognizing that there are differences within groups is vital to developing research that is reflective of the needs of diverse populations (Cho et al., 2014). Too often, racial and ethnic groups are lumped together, resulting in information that is illusive and not useful to crafting relevant research questions for those communities. In a study exploring differences between African Americans and Caribbean Americans experiencing domestic violence, it was found that the lack of understanding of subpopulations within domestic violence in these communities is impactful (Stockman et al., 2014). There was a greater perception of community acceptance of IPV among Caribbean versus African American women, creating greater stigma for seeking support. Caribbean women also had a greater sense that IPV was an acceptable part of being in an intimate relationship. Creation of a research question would need to be framed with an understanding of the different notions of the problem and the associated stigma within these diverse groups in the Black community.

Literature Review and the Importance of Worldview

Next, the researcher should review the knowledge base which informs research questions and ask how diverse populations have been reflected or what scholars are saying from within that community in prior research. Researchers should consider: (1) Is the literature reflective of the population being studied or included in the study? (2) Has literature been included that has been written by persons from within the community and reflective of the diverse populations being studied? One way to better understand the worldview that shapes research projects is to have a sense of the literature that has been written about the population, especially by scholars reflective of that community. Researchers should conduct a broad search and identify knowledge of the literature on and from diverse populations in their IPV area(s). Both seminal and contemporary publications, such as journal articles and research reports, that have been written by persons reflective of the community should be reviewed as part of the literature review. Thus, broadening understanding can, in part, be done by understanding the literature and knowledge being published from persons of the community being considered.

In conducting the literature review, researchers can become aware of the worldview and lived experiences of diverse populations. But how does knowledge of worldview inform the identification of research questions? Worldview acknowledges that “…. women’s experience of abuse does not work independently but function as interlocking phenomena. Such…traditional beliefs, values, norms and context influence their thoughts and actions and how they respond to domestic violence” (Tonsing, 2016, p. 19). Being able to understand the worldview of the group allows you to build more accuracy to determining problem definition (Burnette, 2016). For example, it is important to understand that when working with Black women who have experienced domestic violence, they may be concerned with how reporting domestic violence makes Black men vulnerable to criminal justice intervention (Bent-Goodley, 2013). In addition, Black women have been socialized to protect Black men as a part of a survival tradition in the Black community (Richie, 1995). This phenomenon has been termed racial loyalty. Racial loyalty is defined as when “the African American woman may withstand abuse and make a conscious self-sacrifice for what she perceives as the greater good of the community but to her own physical, psychological and spiritual detriment” (Bent-Goodley, 2001, p. 323). This worldview is important to understand for Black women. It is also important to note the worldview and lived experiences of one group of color may be different for another. For example, acculturation and acculturation stress are important parts of the lived experiences within the Latino community. Lower acculturation is positively associated with higher acculturation stress which in turn increases risk for domestic violence in the Latino community (Caetano et al., 2007). In addition, higher acculturation has also been linked to a greater likelihood to seek help and report domestic violence (Garcia et al., 2005). Further, in South Asian communities it has been found that low acculturation, traditional gender roles, stigma about divorce, and high acculturation are considerable risk factors for this community and also part of how the group formulates thinking about interpersonal violence (Rai & Choi, 2018). Families of origin and in-laws may also play a role in furthering domestic violence within South Asian communities (Ahmad-Stout et al., 2018). In a study comparing Somali, Vietnamese, and Latino immigrant refugee communities, it was found that each group had a different worldview that was helpful in understanding experiences with interpersonal violence (Pan et al., 2006). For example, acculturation resulted in increased conflicts in the Somali community whose members also viewed violence as acceptable to maintain patriarchal structures; economic stressors and immigration status were identified as the significant issues for the Vietnamese community; and fear of deportation, language and cultural differences with providers, and barriers to services were identified as the primary issues for this Latino community (Pan et al., 2006). These ideas have been affirmed in another research. For example, the culture of honor among Latinos has been found to be a key area to understand. The culture of honor denotes that women are expected to sacrifice themselves and put their family first while also being morally and sexually pure while manhood is captured in the ability of a man to protect his woman, manhood must be proven, and physical aggression is an acceptable response if manhood is challenged (Vandello & Cohen, 2008; Vandello et al., 2009). Shared across these groups are feelings of cultural mistrust of formal system providers and historical trauma nuanced by each racial and ethnic group’s experiences that result in reduced reporting (Bloom et al., 2009; Gone, 2009; Gracia & Herrero, 2007). Native American communities have documented persistent feelings of loss and intergenerational pain that has been captured in studies on the impact of colonization and historical trauma (Finfgeld-Connett, 2015; Matamonasa-Bennett, 2014). Having to deal with the violence associated with being stripped of land, community, and culture from generation to generation has been a critical lived experience and worldview of the Native American community that must be examined and understood from the literature. Creating research that is devoid of the realities and worldviews of these groups neglects an important part of how these communities view and experience interpersonal violence. Awareness of these worldviews may allow a researcher to design interventions that take these lived experiences and perceptions into account, augmenting the possibility of more effective research. As one examines the literature the question would arise how the research demonstrates knowledge of the communities’ lived experiences, historical context, and worldview.

Measures and Diversity in IPV Research

Thinking about the measures and instruments that researchers select is also important and flows from the research questions and literature review. Often research instruments have not been tested within diverse communities nor have they been put into the language of those communities. This reality means that these measures can be limited in validity or ability to explain experiences or understandings of diverse populations because some of the terminology and language used may not be reflected within that community. So, it is very important to rethink the measures and tools being used and how to adapt or create instruments that better reflect diverse communities. For example, in a study examining Black women’s perceptions of domestic violence, it was found that domestic violence and abuse were defined differently from the measure proposed for the larger study. When asked to review a measure often used in IPV research, respondents shared that the language used was not connected to their definition. One participant, for example, stated that beatings and abuse are two separate things: “A beating is when someone breaks your bones or puts you in the hospital or if you’re bleeding really bad. Abuse is like pushing shoving, slapping and verbal abuse”. They asserted that beatings and abuse are different. Consequently, the instrument they reviewed would have suggested the women were not experiencing domestic violence because of their definition of domestic violence. It is vital, therefore, to review how the measures may or may not capture identified expectations and experiences among diverse populations.

It is also key to understand the cultural validity or “the effectiveness of a measure or the accuracy…to address the existence and importance of essential cultural factors” (Leong & Kalibatseva, 2016, p. 58). Leong and Kalibatseva (2016) identify five threats to cultural validity in research: (1) the concept of pathoplasticity, (2) cultural factors impacting symptom expression, (3) bias of the practitioner, (4) language capability of the client, and (5) inappropriate use of clinical and personality tests. The concept of pathoplasticity speaks to the ways in which symptoms and features of disorders vary according to different ethnic groups. Without having measures that speak to these various forms of severity, content, frequency and expression, the researcher may not have the validity necessary to draw inferences for diverse groups. It is also acknowledged that culture impacts symptom expression. What may be perceived as anger in one group may actually be an expression of depression in another. Without having instruments that measure the different manifestation of symptoms the researcher may not be identifying a condition properly—reducing the strength of the research. It is assumed that randomized clinical trials reduce bias in research. However, bias can occur in the conceptualization, the types of questions or the inferences made as to the findings of a study. Again, these issues impact the strength of the research and viability for diverse populations. The language capability of the participant would also be relevant in that instruments may not be written in the original language of the participant—and therefore may miss key meanings and nuances. The language used in the community being studied may not be captured in the study instruments. Consequently, language is broader than speaking the same words and is much more fluid and dynamic to include nuances of language and expression. Again, these issues impact the quality of the data being received. Finally, many of the measures utilized in research have been or have been primarily normed on White samples, thereby reducing the predictive value of the measure for racial and ethnic groups. It is unclear if there is metric equivalence with these measures in diverse communities and that is often not tested or determined prior to implementing research. All of these issues are important to consider as they relate to the use of measures and instruments in research.

Measurement and Data Collection

Measurement also includes the data collection process and how one connects with the phenomena being studied in a way that reflects the worldview of participants. Oftentimes the measurement and data collection processes utilized are insufficient in capturing the lived experiences of people of color (Garcia-Leeds & Schneider, 2017; Zane et al., 2016). The data collection process requires that researchers consider questions, such as (1) Who has been identified to participate in the study? Is the study solely focused on poor women, for example? If so, does this mean the findings are only general to that population of survivors? (2) Where are the study participants coming from? For example, are the study participants coming from public venues only, such as health clinics, and thus securing one perspective on the issue? If one is aware and understanding of the experiences of diverse populations is there a better opportunity to engage these participants, build access to them and strengthen the study? (3) How were the study participants secured? Too often, participant recruitment targets White populations, college students, and the poor due to the convenience of these populations to the researcher (Medin & Lee, 2012; Richmond et al., 2015). It is important that recruitment efforts are culturally responsive such that they encourage participation of diverse participants and communities and thus engage a broader population by growing representation. One might look at efforts exhausted, in collaboration with the community, to best develop and design recruitment materials, where to focus recruitment effort, and the language needed to encourage participation. (4) Where is the study being conducted? One would examine if the study is in an agency setting, for example, as opposed to within the of the community, such as in a faith-based organization. (5) Finally, were the study materials accessible to diverse populations? One would look to see that the study materials, instruments, and recruitment tools were readily accessible to the participants to include, for example, language accessibility and use of language familiar to the population.

Cultural adaptations of evidence-based models provide a means to address some of these considerations (Bernal & Rodriguez, 2012; Hwang, 2016; Zane et al., 2016). Using cultural adaptation allows a researcher to address “community-specific cultural contexts of risk and resilience that influence disorders” (Nagayama Hall et al., 2016, p. 1). Such an approach allows researchers to test the translation of interventions for different populations and adapt interventions to increase the number of culturally informed evidence-based practices (Leong & Kalibatseva, 2016). One strategy to conduct a cultural adaptation is identified as the Formative Method for Adapting Psychotherapy (FMAP) (Hwang, 2009). FMAP is a bottom-up approach to culturally adapting an intervention that includes five phases from target selection to reformulating theory modifications. This approach provides a mechanism with which to conduct cultural adaptations in a systemic manner. Another way to address measurement and data collection issues is through conducting community-based research.

Conducting research that is inclusive of diverse populations requires that one rethink how he/she conducts research and who is partnered with to conduct it. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) provides a useful framework to aid researchers in understanding ways to advance understandings of diverse populations in IPV research (Belone et al., 2016). Specific strategies to conduct CBPR in domestic violence includes researchers partnering with the community through shared decision making throughout the research process, recognizing strengths and assets within the community, centering community investment in the research, and the interpretation of data (Goodman et al., 2018). The approach emphasizes equity between the researcher and the community.

Another approach, the Community-Centered Evidence-Based Practice Model (Serrata et al., 2017), is a culturally centered model to conduct research. This model emphasizes the importance of recognizing the expertise of community members as opposed to simply asking about needs in the community to generate the research focus and implementation. It spotlights the importance of obtaining cross documents from persons grounded in conducting research with the population as a means of ensuring that the research is truly centered in a community perspective. The model highlights steps that can be taken to ensure that research is being conducted from this perspective.

One example of a study that incorporates a CBPR approach is Project EBAN. Project EBAN is a HIV/STD risk reduction intervention designed specifically for African Americans (NIMH Multislice HIV/STD Prevention Trial for African American Couples Group, 2008). The intervention is rooted in social cognitive theory, the ecological framework, and Afrocentric theory. It uses an eight-week, two-hour session mixed modality approach with an African American male and female co-facilitator. The intervention breaks down the principles of the Nguzo Saba, an Afrocentric ideology and practice, and applies them to different areas of risk reduction determined in collaboration with the community (El-Bassel et al., 2010). Taking the Nguzo Saba principles and applying to risk reduction centers the worldview of the participants within the research and allows for a greater degree of connectedness to the study population.

Another example is the S.T.A.R.T. intervention. The S.T.A.R.T. Education and Intervention model is an example of implementing research in partnership with the community (Brade Stennis et al., 2015). This model has been utilized within diverse communities of faith and diverse racial/ethnic groups. It is rooted in the empowerment approach and is conducted in faith-based communities using a five-step approach. Working in partnership with the community, the researchers conducted their research within local churches, conducted recruitment within these groups, deciphered the most effective way to get the message out, and then fine-tuned an approach that was specific to the community. This intervention research is an example of how to recruit and conduct research in diverse communities to create research that is responsive and centered in the lived experiences of diverse groups.

Interpreting Findings and Diversity in IPV Research

Interpretation of data is a key aspect of the research process. How data is interpreted and how one brings meaning to what has been found also requires a culturally responsive approach. How one brings meaning to and interprets findings is based on the individual researcher’s experience, worldview, life stressors, and understanding of the issue which recognizes the importance of sharing the process of how diversity is reflected in the interpretation of findings (Henderson et al., 2016). Understanding the importance of this part of the process requires that there is cultural humility. Cultural humility allows the researcher to understand that there is something to learn from the experiences of diverse groups and thus honors the knowledge that comes from within the community as indispensable to knowledge development. In doing so, cultural humility allows for “…a clear understanding of strategies for tapping into the community strengths such as resiliency, strong religious orientations, and community interdependence” (Mose & Gillum, 2016, p. 59).

It is critical that the interpretation of findings is crafted with knowledge of the experience of diverse populations. Persons with knowledge of these communities understand the nuances of the information obtained, what is said, what has not been said, and what may be missing. Therefore, being aware if the study included community-led research or the nature of community participation could assist the researcher in bringing meaning to the interpretation of the findings (Goodman et al., 2018). It is important to reflect how researchers partnered with the community and if it was done through a shared decision-making process with equity between the researcher and the community on the interpretation of the data. It should also be examined if feedback was obtained from key informants from the community or persons with experience from the racial/ethnic group to recognize the expertise of community members as opposed to simply asking about needs in the community to generate the research focus and implementation (Serrata et al., 2017). Thus, it is vital to consider how the population was included in bringing meaning to the interpretation of the findings. For example, it is important to consult with study participants on the findings and the interpretation of the data (Belone et al., 2016). It could also be examined if there was collaboration with researchers from the community that have the awareness and understanding of the community experience (Yuan et al., 2015). Having a single person on a team to represent the diverse experiences of populations or having someone who is from a racial/ethnic community may not be sufficient, and therefore, this identification should be done in a comprehensive way. “Representation does not mean mere numbers or even a quota. It means having qualified individuals from various backgrounds, perspectives, and influences to strengthen our ability to solve complex scientific problems. In doing this, diversity is not just a feel-good issue or simply the right thing to do; it benefits everyone through improved outcomes” (Drew, 2010, p. 1). Thus, having several ways to include diverse voices at the table in a way that values representation and partnerships allows for alternate perspectives to be offered throughout the research process and to help bring meaning to the interpretation of data. These are all things that can be looked for when reviewing the interpretation of data in a study.

An example of how community members participated in the interpretation of an intervention research project can be found in the In Circle intervention. In Circle is an intervention designed to promote healthy relationship education, domestic violence prevention, and HIV-risk behavior reduction for African American couples (Bent-Goodley, 2014). The intervention was community-led and is rooted in a culturally-based worldview through the Principles of Ma’at. The Principles of Ma’at, an Afrocentric worldview, was operationalized for each of the seven weeks of the intervention. The community was engaged throughout the research process including the interpretation of findings:

The CAB reviewed different iterations of the intervention offering feedback and thinking about the intervention strengths and weaknesses. The content, structure, and delivery methods were reviewed and discussed with the CAB along with determining appropriate recruitment and retention methods to support the intervention. The CAB members reviewed the evaluation mechanisms to help assess the curriculum and participated in the final event of the intervention to hear directly from the participants about their experience. Feedback was also obtained from two experts around marriage education and cultural competence to ascertain their feedback and recommendations regarding the curriculum. (Bent-Goodley, 2014, p. 107)

This study demonstrates use of different ways to include diverse voices in interpreting findings, helping to make the explanations, and understanding more transparent and reflective of the population. The idea of including persons reflective of diverse communities in the interpretation of data can be invaluable for a researcher to bring more accurate meaning to data.

Implications

The focus of this article is understanding implications for diversity in research with a focus on how one can conceptualize, implement, and interpret research for diverse populations. Several examples have been offered as to how research can include this thinking in the development of research questions, with respect to identifying literature and worldview, within measures and data collection, and finally as it relates to the interpretation of data. In doing so, interpersonal violence research can advance and progress. Here are some key questions that researchers can ask as it relates to understanding and evaluating IPV research: (1)

How were the research questions developed using the voices and expertise of diverse groups?

(2)

How is the worldview of the population reflected through conceptual and theoretical frameworks from within diverse groups?

(3)

How are measures and instruments selected? Do the measures evidence cultural validity?

(4)

How were the study documents and materials developed to be culturally and linguistically accessible to diverse populations?

(5)

What strategies were utilized to conduct recruitment in diverse communities? Who was accessed? How do they represent the same samples we see in research or are they from different parts of these communities?

(6)

How was the community involved in the research process?

(7)

How were diverse voices engaged in shaping and determining the interpretation of findings?

Conclusion

It is hoped that the field will conduct more proportional research that reflects the great diversity across communities. Having such research is critical. With women of color being more likely to be victimized and killed due to domestic violence (Bent-Goodley, 2013; Smith et al., 2017; Violence Policy Center, 2017), the need for having effective interventions rooted in the realities of these communities could not be more important. Scholars have an enormous responsibility to get this right to advance IPV knowledge generation and to move the science forward. With more research that examines or is inclusive of diverse populations, there are increased opportunities to create interventions that have a greater reach to prevent and respond to interpersonal violence in more effective ways for all communities.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Tricia Bent-Goodley

Author Biography

Tricia Bent-Goodley, PhD, LICSW, LCSW-C, is a professor emeritus, Howard University and graduate professor in the Department of Public Health at Howard University. Her research focus on intersections of culture and domestic violence, community- and faith-based intervention research in domestic violence, and domestic violence homicide prevention. She has also created interpersonal violence prevention campus programs and chairs the Prince George’s County Domestic Violence Fatality Review Team.

References

Ahmad-Stout

, Nath

S. R.

, Khoury

, & Huang

(2018). Experiences of intimate partner violence: Findings from interviews with South Asian Women in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 36(3-4), NP1941-1964NP.

Belone

, Tosa

, Shendo

, Toya

, Straits

, Tafoya

, Rae

, Noyes

, Bird

, & Wallerstein

(2016). Community-based participatory research for cocreating interventions with Native communities: A partnership between the University of New Mexico and the Pueblo of Jemez. In Zane

, Bernal

, & Leong’s

F. T. L.

, Evidence-based psychological practice with ethnic minorities: Culturally informed research and clinical strategies (pp. 199-220). American Psychological Association.

Bent-Goodley

T. B.

(2004). Perceptions of domestic violence: A dialogue with African American women. Health and Social Work, 29(4), 307–316.

Bent-Goodley

(2014). In circle: A healthy relationship, domestic violence, and HIV intervention for African American couples. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment , 24(2), 105-114.

Bent-Goodley

(2013). Domestic violence fatality reviews and the African American community. Homicide Studies , 17(4), 375-390.

Bent-Goodley

T. B.

(2001). Eradicating domestic violence in the African American community: A literature review and action agenda. Trauma, Violence & Abuse , 2(4), 316-330.

Bernal

, Rodriguez

M. D.

(Eds.). (2012). Cultural adaptations: Tools for evidence-based practice with diverse populations (1st ed.). American Psychological Association.

Bloom

, Wagman

, Hernandez

, Yragui

, Hernandez-Valdovinos

, Dahlstrom

, & Glass

(2009). Partnering with community-based organizations to reduce intimate partner violence. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences , 31(2), 244-257.

Brade Stennis

, Fischle

, Bent-Goodley

, Purnell

, & Williams

(2015). The development of a culturally-competent intimate partner violence intervention—S.T.A.R.T.: Implications for competency-based social work practice. Social Work & Christianity , 42(1), 96-109.

10.

Burnette

C. E.

(2016). Historical oppression and Indigenous families: Uncovering potential risk factors for Indigenous families touched by violence. Family Relations , 65(2), 354-368.

11.

Caetano

, Ramisetty-Mikler

, Caetano Vaeth

P. A.

, & Harris

T. R.

(2007). Acculturation stress, drinking and intimate partner violence among Hispanic couples in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 22(11), 1431-1447.

12.

Cho

, Velez-Ortiz

, & Parra-Cardona

J. R.

(2014). Prevalence of intimate partner violence and associated risk factors among Latinos/as: An exploratory study with three Latino subpopulations. Violence Against Women , 20(9), 1041-1058.

13.

Conte

(2016). JIV Policy on addressing diversity in manuscripts. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31, 3.

14.

Drew

S. R.

(2010, January). Promoting diversity in research: Championing an inclusive scientific workforce. American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology . Retrieved May 10, 2018, from http://www.asbmb.org/asbmbtoday/asbmbtoday_article.aspx?id=5018

15.

El-Bassel

, Jemmott

J. B.

, Landis

J. R.

, Pequegnat

, Wingood

G. M.

, Wyatt

G. E.

, Bellamy

S. L.

, & Group.

the NIMH Multisite HIV/STID Prevention Trial for African American Couples

(2010). National Institute of Mental Health Multisite Eban HIV/STD prevention intervention for African American HIV serodiscordant couples: A cluster randomized trial. Archives of Internal Medicine , 170(17), 1594-1601.

16.

Finfgeld-Connett

(2015). Qualitative systematic review of intimate partner violence among Native Americans. Issues in Mental Health Nursing , 36(10), 754-760.

17.

Garcia-Leeds

C.B.

& Schneider

(2017). Systemic approach in Latino families surviving domestic violence in the United States of America. Journal of Educational Psychology – Propositos y Representaciones , 5, 277–319.

18.

Garcia-Leeds

, & Schneider

(2017). Systemic approach in Latino families surviving domestic violence in the United States of America. Journal of Educational Psychology , 5(2), 277-319.

19.

Garcia

, Hurwitz

E. L.

, & Kraus

J. F.

(2005). Acculturation and reported intimate partner violence among Latinas in Los Angeles. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 20(5), 569-590.

20.

Gone

J. P.

(2009). A community-based treatment for Native American historical trauma: Prospects for evidence-based practice. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 77(4), 759-762.

21.

Goodman

L. A.

, Thomas

K. A.

, Serrata

J. V.

, Lippy

, Nnawulezi

, Ghanbarpour

, Macy

, Sullivan

, & Bair-Merritt

M. A.

(2017). Power through partnerships: A CBPR toolkit for domestic violence researchers . National Resource Center on Domestic Violence.

22.

Goodman

, Thomas

, Nnawulezi

, Lippy

, Serrata

, Ghanbarpour

, Sullivan

, & Bair-Merritt

(2018). Bringing community based participatory research to domestic violence scholarship: An online toolkit. Journal of Family Violence , 33(2), 103-107.

23.

Gracia

, & Herrero

(2007). Perceived neighborhood social disorder and attitudes toward reporting domestic violence against women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 22(6), 737-752.

24.

Guterl

(2014, October 1). Diversity in science: Why it is essential for excellence. Scientific American . https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/diversity-in-science-why-it-is-essential-for-excellence/

25.

Henderson

, Acquaye-Doyle

L. A.

, Waites

, & Howard

(2016). Putting principles into practice: Addressing historical trauma, mistrust and apprehension in research methods courses. Journal of Social Work Education , 52(1), 69-78.

26.

Hwang

W. C.

(2016). Culturally adapting evidence-based practices for ethnic minority and immigrant families. In Zane

, Bernal

, & Leong’s

F. T. L.

, Evidence-based psychological practice with ethnic minorities: Culturally informed research and clinical strategies (pp. 289-308). American Psychological Association.

27.

Hwang

W. C.

(2009). The Formative Method for Adapting Psychotherapy (FMAP): A community-based developmental approach to culturally adapting therapy. Professional Psychological Research , 40(4), 369-377.

28.

Journal on Interpersonal Violence. (2018). Journal policy on addressing diversity in manuscripts . Retrieved May 10, 2018, from https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/journal/journal-interpersonal-violence#submission-guidelines.

29.

Leong

, & Kalibatseva

(2016). Threats to cultural validity in clinical diagnosis and assessment: Illustrated with the case of Asian Americans. In Zane

, Bernal

, & Leong

(Eds.), Evidence-based psychological practice with ethnic minorities: Culturally informed research and clinical strategies (pp. 57-74). American Psychological Association.

30.

Matamonasa-Bennett

(2014). “A disease of the outside people”: Native American men’s perceptions of intimate partner violence. Psychology of Women , 39(1), 20-36.

31.

Medin

D. L.

, & Lee

C. D.

(2012 April 27). Diversity makes better science. Association for Psychological Science . Retrieved May 10, 2018, from https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/diversity-makes-better-science

32.

Mose

G. B.

, & Gillum

T. L.

(2016). Intimate partner violence in African immigrant communities in the United States: Reflections from the IDVAAC African women’s round table on domestic violence. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma , 25(1), 50-62.

33.

Nagayama Hall

G. C.

, Ibaraki

A. Y.

, Huang

E. R.

, Marti

C. N.

, & Stice

(2016). A meta-analysis of cultural adaptations of psychological interventions. Behavior Therapy , 47(6), 993-1014.

34.

NIMH Multislice HIV/STD Prevention Trial for African American Couples Group. (2008). Project Eban: An HIV/STD intervention for African American couples. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome , 49(Suppl. 1), S15-S27.

35.

Pan

, Daley

, Rivera

, Williams

, Lingle

, & Reznik

(2006). Understanding the role of culture in domestic violence: The Ahimsa Project for Safe Families. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health , 8(1), 35-43.

36.

Rai

, & Choi

Y. J.

(2018). Sociocultural risk factors impacting domestic violence among South Asian immigrant women: A scoping review. Aggression & Violent Behavior , 38, 76-85.

37.

Richie

(1995). Compelled to crime: The gender entrapment of battered, Black women . Routledge.

38.

Richmond

A. S.

, Broussard

K. A.

, & Sterns

J. L.

(2015). Who are we studying? Sample diversity in teaching of psychology research. Teaching of Psychology , 42(3), 218-226.

39.

Serrata

J. V.

, Macias

R. L.

, Rosales

, Hernandez-Martinez

, Rodriguez

, & Perilla

J. L.

(2017). Expanding evidence-based practice models for domestic violence initiatives: A community centered approach. Psychology of Violence , 7(1), 158-165.

40.

Smith

S. G.

, Chen

, Basile

K. C.

, Gilbert

L. K.

, Merrick

M. T.

, Patel

, Walling

, & Jain

(2017, April). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010-2012 state report . National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

41.

Stockman

J. K.

, Lucea

M. B.

, Bolyard

, Bertand

, Callwood

G. B.

, Sharps

P. W.

, Campbell

D. W.

, & Campbell

J. C.

(2014). Intimate partner violence among African American and African Caribbean women: Prevalence, risk factors, and the influence of cultural attitudes. Global Health Action , 7. https://doi.org/10.3402/gha.v7.24772.

42.

Tonsing

J. C.

(2016). Complexity of domestic violence in a South Asian context in Hong Kong: Cultural and structural impact. Social Work Education , 35(1), 18-30.

43.

Vandello

J. A.

, Cohen

, Grandon

, & Franiuk

(2009). Stand by your man: Indirect prescriptions for honorable violence and feminine loyalty in Canada, Chile and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 40(1), 81-140.

44.

Vandello

J. A.

, & Cohen

(2008). Culture, gender and men’s intimate partner violence. Social and Personality Psychology Compass , 2(2), 652-667.

45.

Violence Policy Center. (2017). When men murder women: An analysis of 2015 homicide data . Violence Policy Center.

46.

Yuan

N. P.

, Belcourt-Dittloff

, Schultz

, Packard

, & Duran

B. M.

(2015). Research agenda for violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women: Toward the development of strength-based and resilience interventions. Psychology of Violence , 5(4), 367-373.

47.

Zane

, Bernal

, & Leong

F. T. L.

(2016). Evidence-based psychological practice with ethnic minorities: Culturally informed research and clinical strategies . American Psychological Association.