Preventing family violence: Investigating the theoretical orientations and techniques of New Zealand migrant communities

<p>While New Zealand legal and cultural sanctions against family violence are strong, representative surveys suggest that approximately 1 in 3 women has experienced physical violence from a partner in her lifetime, and every year approximately 14 women, 6 men, and 10 children die in New Zealand due to family violence. Evidence shows that family violence impacts members of all ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and migrant victims may suffer in silence more often than others due to social isolation and language or cultural barriers. Limited research is available on how the Duluth model, a popular feminist theoretical understanding of violence, is relevant to the experiences of migrants. This theory posits that patriarchal culture and men’s psychological desire for power and control facilitate violence toward women. As government agencies and community organizations act to prevent family violence, research is needed on how this model is relevant to understandings of violence that are prevalent in migrant communities. We must also increase our limited knowledge about how prevention efforts can be more inclusive of these groups. Two qualitative studies were conducted to explore these questions. In Study 1, I investigated the theoretical relevance of the Duluth model to New Zealand migrant communities, collecting data in partnership with two community groups that have organized informal family violence prevention initiatives. I conducted semi-structured interviews with community leaders and focus groups with community members. The findings suggest that participants viewed violence as caused either by desire for control (compatible with the Duluth model) or anger (incompatible). Participants articulated the need to balance rights (compatible) with responsibilities in interdependent, role-based family relationships (incompatible). Based on these findings, I suggest a two-pronged approach, where pre-violence prevention targets potential perpetrators by focusing on the responsibility to treat others well and post-violence intervention emphasizes victims’ rights. In Study 2, I analyzed the processes and strategies that community groups use to prevent violence. Data collection occurred during the same interviews and focus groups as the previous study, using a different set of questions and stimuli. My analysis indicated that participants used prevention strategies that validated and reduced ambivalence about the harmful nature of non-physical violence. Particularly in religious communities, leaders invoked aspirational cultural ideals that were intended to motivate positive behaviors and encourage healthy relationships. At the community level, participants identified opportunities to improve multilevel communication in order to enhance the benefits of cultural community engagement. I suggest that in addition to thoroughly evaluating these approaches for efficacy in migrant communities, we should consider how these approaches might be beneficially employed in mainstream initiatives. These findings suggest that nuanced understandings of family interdependence and responsibility can increase the relevance of family violence prevention campaigns to migrant communities. The findings and recommendations were synthesized into a framework for migrant community groups and their government partners. While research is needed to examine the effects of these strategies, they may increase the applicability of prevention initiatives to migrant communities and may also be explored as appropriate strategies for mainstream prevention campaigns.</p>