What Can We Do? Social Workers in Trinidad Discuss Intimate Partner Violence Against Women

Introduction

Violence against women at the hands of a male with whom they are or were in an intimate relationship is a universal problem, and the degree of the violence and society’s attitudes toward the act vary greatly. Social workers are often among first responders in cases of intimate partner violence against women, providing assistance in hospitals, protective shelters, police stations, and in victims’ homes. Therefore, the views of intimate violence against women held by social workers can have significance for victims and perpetrators, as well as for society’s response and treatment of this issue. Their approach to the client can be influenced by numerous factors including their own views and knowledge of the social problem and the professional practice environment.

This article presents the findings of a study conducted on the island of Trinidad in the English-speaking Caribbean with male and female practicing social workers. The purpose of this study was to explore social workers’ views of intimate partner violence against women. Interest in this topic was stimulated by the findings of an EU-funded research project (None In Three) in Barbados and Grenada in 2016, and published in the report “21 lessons—Preventing Domestic Violence in the Caribbean” (Jones et al., 2017). One of the “lessons” (number 14) posited that survivors of intimate partner violence against women expressed little confidence in professional services; their direct experiences with police, social workers, and the justice system eroded their trust in formal human services. This finding seemed to reflect an indictment against social workers (and others), and presented an opportunity for exploratory discussions among social workers to appreciate their views, to reflect on the implications for practice with clients, and to generate ideas for further research and continuing professional development.

The conceptual framework for this article is premised on a position that, at the most basic level, the behaviors of helping professionals, including social workers, are partly founded on practitioners’ self-awareness, and perspectives on and knowledge of social problems and client populations. Urdang (2010) suggests that the professional self comprises own feelings and attitudes, and ability to relate with clients. This author agrees with this perspective, and sees professional attitude and principled action on the part of the social worker (in intimate partner violence and other social problems) as functions of emotional intelligence and professional self-efficacy. Emotional self-regulation and self-awareness are central to emotionally intelligent practice particularly in emotionally laden social work practice situations such as intimate partner violence against women (Knott & Scragg, 2016). The extent to which social workers’ emotionally intelligent practice abilities influence their views of intimate partner violence against women is not in question for this article. Emotional intelligence is highlighted here as a conceptual underpinning to strengthen the author’s position that self-awareness plays a significant role in perspective development, and suggests that emotional intelligence can facilitate self-monitoring, -awareness, and -regulation skills.

Neal and Neal (2013) discuss how numerous microsystems (e.g., family, school, community, church, peers, and workplaces) interact and impact each other to create potential and actual effects for the individual. Therefore, the views and behaviors of social workers working with clients in difficult circumstances are often products of their own contexts, personal (including emotional intelligence) and professional. Darling (2007) talks about the active person in the ecology who makes sense of their experiences and so shapes their environments by their responses. Social workers are also active players in the ecological contexts of clients, that is, workers in human service agencies are their clients’ microsystems, which interact/impact each other directly through networking and referrals, and indirectly through the clients’ experience with each agency. Individually and collectively, social workers and agencies can have a significant impact on client experiences and outcomes. Therefore, it is also important to take an ecological perspective in acknowledging not only the micro-level effects of individual worker attitudes, views, and approaches, but also the meso- and macro-level impacts that collectively shape social work practice in intimate partner violence against women.

This exploratory study examined social workers’ views of intimate partner violence against women using guided focus groups to generate dialogue among male and female social workers from different settings (e.g., prison, hospital, and police service). The main research question for this study was “how do social workers in Trinidad view intimate partner violence against women?” The study posed the following questions for discussion in the focus groups: How do social workers understand intimate partner violence against women; what do social workers identify as factors contributing to the escalation of intimate partner violence against women; and what measures can be put in place to help or support men/women? These were regarded as stimulating questions for determining social workers’ views and attitudes within this field of practice.

Literature Review

The review of the literature highlights scholarship about social workers’ views of intimate partner violence against women and factors that may shape them. No material was found that looked at social work practice in intimate partner violence against women in the Caribbean. Efforts were made to draw on studies from different parts of the world. Scholarly literature on views and attitudes on intimate partner violence identified personal histories, gender sensitivity, and worker self-efficacy as significantly influencing social workers’ professional responses to intimate partner violence. These three factors also play pivotal roles in the formation of the professional self that is reputed to be the main tool in social work practice (Ferguson, 2018).

Professional self-efficacy is understood as confidence in one’s knowledge, skills, and ability to assess and intervene with high-risk cases, which can be a direct product of self-awareness and self-regulation skills, all important nonacademic traits in professional development (Holden et al., 2017). Tower (2006) and Warrener et al. (2013) found that high/low levels of professional self-efficacy significantly predicted tendency/reluctance to enquire (about intimate partner violence), blaming the victim, fear of offending (the victim), vigilance/inattention to safety, and perceived system support or lack thereof. Danis (2004) and Warrener et al. (2013) show, unsurprisingly, that professional self-efficacy was significantly higher among social workers who had more professional experience working with intimate partner violence against women, and specific education and/or training in this area.

Pecnik and Bezensek-Lalic (2011), in a study in Slovenia, explored the relationship between social workers’ personal history of childhood abuse and witnessing intimate partner violence against women between their parents, and their responses to case vignettes of intimate partner violence against women. The researchers found a positive correlation with safeguarding instincts for children, but a negative correlation with referrals to police and shelters for victims. These findings clearly show how personal histories can influence views and responses to intimate partner violence, and require awareness and reflectivity on the part of the worker to mitigate any negative impact on practice. However, Warrener et al. (2013) posit that personal experiences of abuse were unrelated to professional self-efficacy, which seems to challenge the findings from the Slovenian study above showing a correlation between personal histories and practitioners’ responses. While neither study is conclusive, it is noteworthy that a study looking at actual responses (to vignettes) showed correlation with personal histories, but when social workers were asked to self-assess their capabilities and confidence in practice, no relationship was found. The question of awareness of own vulnerabilities may be raised here as a factor in perspective-formation, use of self, and professional practice in cases of intimate partner violence against women.

Gender sensitivity refers to awareness of the ways people think about gender, so that individuals rely less on traditional and outdated assumptions about the roles of men and women (Leung, 2011). Scholars have established a link between awareness and perspectives of gender and gender roles, and social workers’ attitude and approach to cases of intimate partner violence. Gender insensitivity is found to be related to the tendency to blame victims, sympathize with abusers, and focus on family unification in cases of intimate partner violence (Ah Hahn & Scanlon, 2016; Leung, 2011). Black et al. (2010) note the tendency of practitioners to take a mental health (micropractice) approach to intimate partner violence against women, in which they emphasize individual pathology, such as women’s low self-esteem, and they find intimate partner violence against women explainable. This outlook, they suggest, can be attributed to gender insensitivity in two ways—by introducing gender bias and by ignoring the impact of gender norms and other structural issues. The potential effects of gender insensitivity on worker response are noteworthy as they seem to speak directly to competence and trustworthiness in practice; it is conceivable that if confronted with the attitudes highlighted in the literature, victims can have low confidence in formal services.

Methodology

This qualitative study explored social workers’ views of intimate partner violence against women. This was a small-scale qualitative study using guided focus groups with male and female social workers from a range of social work settings. As an exploratory study, the researcher did not reach for representativeness, transferability of findings, or saturation as a desirable outcome. While the small scale of this study is a limitation as it is not possible to generalize the findings to all social workers in Trinidad and Tobago, Crouch and McKenzie (2006) suggest that representativeness and sample size may be of little consequence when studies are more concerned with specific aspects of an issue or situation (as perceptions or viewpoints), than with establishing relationships between them and with some larger phenomenon. Given the severity of the problem, any insights into factors that can affect practice can contribute to improving service delivery. The aim was to record views of intimate partner violence against women which could impact practice (positively and negatively) and to use findings to build knowledge, suggest implications for practice, and inform continuing professional education and further research, as needed.

The study explored the topic of intimate partner violence against women with groups of social workers to create a dialectic through which prevailing views emerged. In this study, the researcher valued the sharing, challenging, and combining of ideas and viewpoints that focus groups can generate. This was regarded as important for this topic as participants came from different settings with a range of experiences that informed their individual viewpoints and which could also influence others’ points of view.

The study used an expert sample of social workers from state agencies that frequently dealt with cases of intimate partner violence against women. The study does not purport to have used a representative sample but one in which the participants had specific knowledge and work experience to answer the research questions. Letters of invitation were circulated through the national professional association, specifically targeting social workers in medical social work, victim support services, children and family services, and psychiatric social work as these are frontline agencies in intimate partner violence matters in Trinidad. Male and female social workers were targeted separately in an effort to get two groups of equal number for the discussions. All participants possessed at least a Bachelor’s degree in social work and 3 years’ direct practice experience. The study involved one male social workers’ group and one female social workers’ group of six participants each. The study satisfied all requirements to the approval of the University research ethics committee. The participants were not compensated for their participation and gave written consent to participate. At the end of the focus group discussion, researchers conducted a short seminar on the experiences of persons affected by intimate partner violence and the impact of intervention informed by the work of Jones et al. (2017) on preventing domestic violence in the Caribbean.

The focus group discussions were guided by broad interview questions to generate views on intimate partner violence against women from social work professionals. Questions addressed understandings of intimate partner violence against women, the impact on victims and perpetrators, reasons for seeming escalation, specific needs of men/women, support systems for men/women, and suggestions for how the rate of violence could be reduced. The questions for each group differed slightly; because the study was concerned with intimate partner violence against women, the questions for the female group focused on women’s needs and concerns and the male group focused on the needs of male abusers. This is not to deny that intimate partner violence against men is a serious concern and a topic for further study, but this was not discussed in these groups. In addition, the literature suggests that personal histories of intimate partner violence can factor into practitioners’ views and attitudes; however, the research design did not allow for exploration of this aspect.

Each focus group had a facilitator/interviewer and a rapporteur and the discussions lasted 2 hours, were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The data were analyzed in the aggregate using content analysis in a line-by-line open process with color coding to highlight emerging themes. Three independent coders analyzed the data to ensure consistency and trustworthiness of reported findings. The findings are reported under three broad emerging themes that highlight clear discourses across the two focus group discussions, rather than distinct reporting of what was said by each group.

Findings

The participants varied in ethnicity, age, and level of work experience, but no one had less than 3 years’ experience in direct practice that included cases of intimate partner violence against women. None of the participants had received any special training for working with intimate partner violence against women. This was their first opportunity to formally discuss intimate partner violence against women broadly with social work colleagues.

In analyzing the data from the two focus groups, three discourses were evident. However, it is apposite here to highlight the trends that were evident in the individual focus group discussions. First, in both groups intimate partner violence against women was discussed in a vague and abstract way. In both groups, discussions seemed informed by personal opinions and selected anecdotes for the most part. For example, in the male group, one participant spoke strongly about noticing a pattern of single-parent families of origin among young men in the local prison on charges for violence (all forms), from which he concluded that men raised by single mothers are more prone to violence toward women in their intimate relationships. That group also talked about social drinking among men as their way of coping with frustration, concluding that both abuse of alcohol and poor coping skills contribute to intimate partner violence against women. In the female group, a link was made between girls’ negative school experiences and low self-esteem, which they suggest leads to acceptance of abuse into adulthood. They also opined that social media is destroying family interaction and contributing to poor socialization of children. In both groups, there seemed to be leaps in logic informed by selected limited information.

Three main themes emerged from the data from the focus groups with male and female social workers: (1) Victim behaviors contribute to victimhood; (2) Societal norms and attitudes contribute to intimate partner violence against women; and (3) Inadequate responses from allied professionals contribute to intimate partner violence against women. It is noteworthy that in both groups, the conversation revolved mainly around the source of intimate partner violence against women, and so the first two of the three themes reflect participants’ ideas about why women are victimized by their intimate partners. The third theme addresses contributing factors to the persistence of the problem.

Discussion

The purpose of the study was to uncover views in an attempt to understand social workers’ perspectives and approaches to intimate partner violence against women. The findings seemed to reflect attempts at explaining the prevalence of intimate partner violence against women based on selected observations, conjecture, and opinion. This may be attributed to exposure to informal knowledge from personal history, public commentary, and stereotyping which prevail in Trinidad; social workers themselves may relate to ideas espoused in the public arena. Of note is a seeming deterministic approach to this issue, implying that certain social circumstances naturally lead to adverse outcomes such as intimate partner violence. It is important to be aware of prevailing ideas and ways of thinking among practitioners as this provides a context for understanding emerging themes, and further, to consider how these can affect practice.

The findings show that social workers paid particular attention to victim behavior, sociocultural factors including lack of resources, and the responses of allied professionals in their discussions of intimate partner violence against women. Participants in both groups spoke extensively about how the actions of women themselves contribute to intimate partner violence against women. The term “victim-blaming” has been frequently used in the literature to describe this phenomenon (Bryant & Spencer, 2003; Flood & Pease, 2009; Gracia & Tomás, 2014; Henning & Holdford, 2006; Valor-Segura et al., 2011), and there are many examples in the data that could be categorized as such. Valor-Segura et al. (2011) discuss victim-blaming as a function of exoneration of perpetrators; the data reflected an attempt by male social workers to understand men’s circumstances and express empathy by answering the “why” question of intimate partner violence, but their approach also seemed to place responsibility for abuse on female victims.

Participants also displayed frustration with working in this field of practice, and their frustrations seem to play a significant role in their view of victims. Darling (2007) reminded us about the centrality of the person in environment who makes sense of their experiences, and these female social workers could be seeing victims’ reluctance or ambivalence as hindering their effectiveness, causing frustration and apathy toward all cases. Holden et al. (2017) discuss self-efficacy as “belief in one’s ability to perform” (p. 2), and these data also suggest that for these female social workers, their self-belief/self-efficacy has been challenged by their frustrating experiences with victimized women. Victim-blaming may be their reaction to their reduced sense of self-efficacy with cases of intimate partner violence. The insights shared seem to give some credence to the experiences of the female victims in the None in Three project in Barbados and Grenada as reported by Jones et al. (2017), who expressed lack of confidence in professional services; social workers themselves allude to reduced confidence in their own abilities and those of allied agencies, and if not careful, this uncertainly could be transferred to clients.

Views of intimate partner violence against women appear to be associated with these social workers’ knowledge and understanding of the issues, practice experiences, their degree of empathy, and the party (man or woman) with whom they can identify; discussions seemed to hone in on either the victim (reasons for their abuse) or the perpetrator (the circumstances surrounding their behavior) and, from both angles, the result seemed to reflect “victim-blaming.” Leung (2011) and Ah Hahn and Scanlon (2016) attribute these ways of thinking to gender insensitivity, which also underpins victim-blaming, and the data seem to suggest that these social workers may not fully recognize the ways that societal beliefs and norms around gender roles and behaviors influence their perspectives. The specifics of gender socialization were not explored in this study but have utility as an area for further research.

While these findings may not be generalizable to all social workers in Trinidad or in other contexts, they do offer valuable knowledge from the perspective of these first responders about the dynamics of service delivery in cases of intimate partner violence against women. In addition, given the centrality of social workers’ use of self in practice and its documented links with personal histories and professional self-efficacy, the knowledge generated here can be useful so that social work supervision, education, and training can address potentially harmful ways of thinking and support holistic professional development.

The findings showed that social workers’ views were informed by personal knowledge and opinion and did not reflect compelling depth of knowledge of the complexities of the situations of victims of intimate partner violence. A sense of futility in practice was also evident, suggesting that social workers think that their “hands are tied” because of the numerous micro-, meso-, and macro-level factors discussed. Future research could explore the extent to which other factors may have mitigated this perception–for example, intimate partner violence–specific training, clinical supervision, and policy and program reform. Nonetheless, these findings suggest that social workers’ viewpoints, observations, and experiences can undermine self-efficacy and threaten effective use of self; therefore, self-development education specific to intimate partner violence against women requires attention.

Social blaming and culture blaming have been used in the literature to describe the tendency to place responsibility for problems on sociocultural processes (Brewer & Venaik, 2015; Malle et al., 2014; Volpp, 2000). Volpp (2000) asserts that in a multicultural society, we must be cautious about attributing selected undesirable behaviors to culture, as to do so might imply that cultural differences equate to moral differences. Brewer and Venaik (2015) present culture as an amorphous concept that is widely misunderstood and warn that culture blaming distracts attention from the real root causes of problems and could undermine professional confidence and meaningful attempts at problem resolution.

A major risk of blaming culture for social problems is that the task of problem-solving, in this case requiring cultural shifts and major social transformation, can seem arduous and impossible, and could bypass real causes and more achievable goals and objectives (Brewer & Venaik, 2015). This could pose a further threat to professional self-efficacy. In addition, these findings present intimate partner violence as a macro-issue, while Theme I presented it as a micro-issue, but there is a connection between the two: If the macro-view frames the problem as insurmountable because of deep-rooted cultural factors, then a practitioner may resort to micro-level intervention focusing on individual responsibility and pathology, which from earlier findings has attendant frustrations. The data suggest that both levels create a sense of futility for social workers.

The cultural diversity described earlier may be seen as a risk factor for culture blaming in Trinidad and Tobago. When serious social problems arise, greater emphasis can be placed on perceived differences and create divisions, as has happened in the political arena regarding corruption. Perceptions of intimate partner violence against women have been highly contextualized by these focus group participants to the social environment in which these acts occur. The sociocultural context seems to have been used as a frame for participants’ thinking about intimate partner violence. In light of the vast range of social, cultural, and environmental issues cited, they give the impression that the problem is virtually insurmountable unless certain personal, social, cultural, and systemic issues are resolved. It is conceivable that this could also have contributed to the sense of uncertainty as social work professionals that was detected in these discussions. Attention needs to be redirected from generic conceptions of society and culture to more concrete social facts such as gender socialization, rules of law, administration of justice, community behavior, and religious education, as they impact approaches to and incidence of intimate partner violence against women.

In addition, when a social problem is widespread and pervasive as the statistics show, it may not be surprising to find persons in social work classrooms and agencies with personal experiences of intimate partner violence against women that mirror those of clients. While Pecnik and Bezensek-Lalic (2011) suggest that a seeming “disengagement strategy” could reflect practitioners’ struggles with their own histories, this study did not provide opportunities for participants to disclose these. Darling (2007) observed that at the micro-level, persons make sense of their experiences and shape environments through their actions and interactions, and a link can be made between practitioners’ perceptions of futility in practice, their consequent frustrations, and their views of victims and victimization. Danis (2004), LeGeros and Savage (2012), and Peled-Avram (2017) advocate for individual clinical supervision for social work students and practitioners to help them work through possible personal sensitivities, conflicts and barriers to empathy, and appropriate attitude development for working with intimate partner violence against women. This will be key to fostering emotionally intelligent practices and practitioners and building self-strengths and -efficacy.

While there may be room for exploring the historical, ethnic, and racial bases of intimate partner violence against women in Trinidad and Tobago, doing so could have undesirable consequences for this society. Historically, interactions between the different ethnic groups in Trinidad and Tobago have been strained by political party lines, socioeconomic stratification, and religious traditions, and in times of crisis have resulted in suspicion, stereotyping, and “othering” between ethnic groups. The findings show evidence of social/culture blaming that locates intimate partner violence in selected social phenomena and religious and cultural beliefs. Malle et al.’s (2014) discussion of the dangers of moral criticism that proceeds from blaming culture for social problems is instructive; the divisiveness that can result when blame is directed at particular ethnic groups may be counterproductive for this multicultural society at this time. While it may be instructive to re-examine the intersections between ethnicity and intimate partner violence in Trinidad, timing is of the essence. In light of the ethnic sensitivities that currently prevail alongside the alarming statistics that are ethnically nonspecific, it may be more useful to see intimate partner violence against women as a whole-society problem, and to treat cross-cultural issues such as those highlighted in these discussions (e.g., interpersonal skills, gender socialization, family life education, and the legislative framework).

It is evident in these findings that social workers are acutely aware of structural problems at the macro-level, and the ways that agency practices impact interventions in intimate partner violence at the micro-level. The meso-level forces of weak interagency networks, and the influence of religion and the Law on personal and family life seem, to be particularly impactful in limiting the options for women in these circumstances. Furthermore, these participants seem to regard intimate partner violence against women as a function of the responses (or lack thereof) of state and other agencies, registering intimate partner violence against women as a very challenging field of practice for social workers. The overarching message in the data seems to be that there are limited possibilities for remediation and restoration for victims of intimate partner violence; therefore, concerted attention should be paid to prevention through early intervention through education and sociocultural change.

Although participants asserted that specialized training was not necessary, the literature is clear that social workers who are trained and experienced in working with intimate partner violence exhibit more appropriate attitudes and responses for working in this field (Leung, 2011; McClennen et al., 2016; McMahon, 2013; Tower, 2006; Warrener et al., 2013). The seeming lack of awareness about their learning needs can be linked to their lack of exposure to relevant knowledge for this field of practice as they admitted that their degree programs did not include specific training for working on this problem. Simply put, they may not know what they need to know; especially if they have personal histories of family or intimate partner violence, these can blur insight into the range of possibilities, perspectives, and experiences that exist. Intimate partner violence–specific content in social work education can help fill knowledge gaps of the complexities involved in this field of practice.

Conclusion

Isaac (2015) suggests that social work interventions in intimate partner violence against women need to take a multisystem approach. At the individual level, workers need to be trustworthy and able to balance ensuring safety for women and children with empowerment practice. At the micro level, a preventive approach can be useful in promoting healthy intrapersonal and interpersonal development, and in addressing deficits in systems’ responses to individual needs. The findings of this study suggest the need for deliberate attention to perspective and attitude development for social work practitioners with respect to intimate partner violence against women. This could be addressed through curriculum development and continuing education. Exploring existing policies and best practice options for micro-practice interventions to promote culturally appropriate interactions in direct practice, and meso-level review of the interactions between clients and agencies and interagency collaboration are also recommended. Social workers working in highly sensitive fields of practice like intimate partner violence require stronger systems of organizational support; therefore, greater attention to skilled clinical supervision specific to this field of practice is needed. At the exo- and macro-systems levels, Isaac (2015) observes that U.S. services have become increasingly bureaucratic and punitive. Similarly, human service professionals in Trinidad and Tobago have lamented the lengthy procedures and complex service structures that can place vulnerable clients at increased risk; therefore, attention should be paid to the administration of social services, legal frameworks, and interagency coordination to support effective practice and assist both victims and perpetrators of intimate partner violence against women. Macro-practice interventions are needed to reconstruct societal norms and gender attitudes that may place women at risk. The data also raise a critical question for further consideration and research; in light of the severity and sociocultural complexities of intimate partner violence against women in Trinidad, the vague sense of self-efficacy among the social workers in this study, and the challenges faced with allied services, what is the actual process and outcome of intimate partner violence intervention in Trinidad and Tobago?

The position taken in this article is that experiential and social knowledge, views, and possibly personal histories may knowingly or inadvertently influence approaches to practice with clients who have experienced intimate partner violence. The findings suggest that professional self-efficacy for working with intimate partner violence was not convincingly high among these male and female social workers. Furthermore, there was a tendency to lay blame on victims, culture/society, and other professionals for the persistence of this serious problem without conviction about the role of social work in addressing some of the deficiencies identified. Frustrations experienced in this area of practice were evident and seemed to underpin their “blameful” responses, and these may be addressed through regular access to mandatory professional clinical supervision, specific education and training, strengthening interagency collaboration, and legislative and judicial reform.