Domestic Violence: Methodologies in Dialogue

Commentary, Critical-Thinking Questions, and Advanced Questions

Commentary Chitra Raghavan and Shuki J. Cohen Dating Violence among Sexual Minority youth In this section, we focus on the methodological challenges associated with the study of dating violence in sexual minorities. The scientific study of dating violence in these populations has historically been slower, largely because same-sex relationships have not enjoyed the same cultural and legal legitimacy as their heterosexual equivalents. This legal and social marginalization has simultaneously hampered acknowledgement of violence in same-sex relationships and, accordingly, slowed research, prevention, and intervention. Apart from these external constraints, the marginalization and stigma associated with belonging to a sexual minority increase the vulnerability to partner abuse from within the community in the form of denial and minimization of violence, reduced resources for support, and culturally specific tactics such as one partner outing the other, thus exposing them to a hostile community. Because of these sociopolitical concerns, the methodological challenges to dating violence research are considerably heightened where sexual minorities are concerned. The first fundamental problem is in the definition of the population itself. Should we investigate partner violence as a phenomenon that occurs between anyone engaged in an intimate relationship whether queer or straight? Or should we use sexual preference as a criterion that defines this population category in empirical research? Is the definition of a group by sexual preference alone a reflection of societies’ obsession with sexual behavior? And if we assume sexual preference to be a legitimate research criteria, can we equate male same-sex violence with female same-sex violence and transgendered violence? A second fundamental problem is what represents abuse. Most partner violence research has assumed that there is both functional and behavioral equivalence in violent tactics across gender and cultural contexts. However, a few research158 Commentary | 159 ers have argued that this universalism fails to capture the contextualized nature of abuse and therefore the meaning and consequences of the abuse, whether the context is male to female (Stark, 2006) or male to male (Raghavan et al., 2011). Finally, the methodological focus on young adults introduces several additional complexities to the study of intimate partner and dating violence among sexual minorities. Studies suggest that sexual orientation among young adults today is experienced and expressed as more fluid and relies less on secret communities , which typified older models of sexual minority socialization habits. As such, the paucity of research in this field may reflect either a true lack of established and reproducible models or the fact that youth perceptions and behavior often exhibit a level of fluidity and novelty that established models cannot yet capture. Both chapters in this section respond to some of these intellectual challenges, albeit using different methodological positions. Jones, a doctoral candidate in social policy in the United Kingdom, grapples with these questions by introducing sociological and neighborhood measures into the conventional quantitative methods of studying individual victims. In contrast, Gillum and DiFulvio use focus groups to understand what sexual minorities themselves think is partner violence and why it happens. Gillum and DiFulvio’s approach suggest that different models may be warranted for sexual minorities and that insider perspective is important. However, both authors separate male and female same-sex groups, suggesting that gender and sexual orientation should not be conflated. Jones’s correlational study rests on the premise that intimate partner violence in sexual minorities is embedded within the exposure of LGBT individuals to general violence in their environment and important peer relations. This framework, as she notes, has been routinely used to explain both IPV and dating violence in heterosexual populations. Her model suggests that while sexual orientation is important in determining the substance of peer messages and the importance (and type) of peer attachment, causal mechanisms of dating violence are similar for straight and queer populations. She thus takes a more liberal postpositivist approach that acknowledges differences in the details but not necessarily in the fundamentals of intimate relationships. Jones’s sampling procedure is worthy of particular attention. She attempts to test a model that includes sexual minority students who did not differ from their heterosexual counterparts in other domains such as club membership or campus gay activism. Her inclusion criteria therefore ruled out any purposive sampling that might target gay-friendly classes, clubs, or campus activities. Instead, Jones surveyed almost two thousand students enrolled in either mandatory introduc- 160 | Dating Violence among Sexual Minorities tory life skills classes or introduction to psychology courses. Her final sample...