Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Scholars widely acknowledge that women oppose male violence and control in intimate relationships. Yet there is limited comprehensive knowledge of how resistance features in intimate partner violence (IPV) research across the social sciences. Our scoping review helps fill this gap, analyzing and synthesizing 74 research articles published in English-language scholarly journals between 1994 and 2017. Our review is guided by the following questions: (1) How is research on IPV and resistance designed and executed? (2) How do IPV researchers define the term resistance? (3) What specific types of resistance do IPV researchers discuss in their work? (4) What policy and practice implications are provided by current literature on women's resistance to IPV? We find that scholarship on resistance to IPV is varied, spanning 10 scholarly disciplines with research samples drawn from 19 countries. Studies overwhelmingly used qualitative data, gathered through a range of techniques. The 42 articles that explicitly or implicitly defined resistance either conceptualized the term in the context of power relations, defined it as a form of agency, or understood resistance as a mechanism of physical, economic, and existential survival. Articles also identify several subtypes of resistance strategies including avoidance, help-seeking, active opposition, violent action, and leaving a violent relationship. In terms of practice and policy, articles identify several ways in which institutions fail to meet women's needs, and recommend training so providers and legal personnel may better assist IPV victims.
Rajah et al. (Fri,) studied this question.