Building Men’s Engagement in Intimate Partner Violence Groups

Building Men’s Engagement in Intimate Partner Violence Groups

Building Men’s Engagement in Intimate Partner Violence Groups

Building Men’s Engagement in Intimate Partner Violence Groupss

| Ajouter

Référence bibliographique [13152]

Roy, Valerie, Châteauvert, Joanie, Drouin, Marie-Ève et Richard, Marie-Claude. 2014. «Building Men’s Engagement in Intimate Partner Violence Groups ». Partner Abuse, vol. 5, no 4, p. 420-438.

Fiche synthèse

1. Objectifs


Intentions :
«[T]his article reports the findings of qualitative research into the engagement process of men participating in these groups. The article looks primarily at the meaning given by men to the concept of engaging in an IPV (intimate partner violence) group.» (p. 421)

2. Méthode


Échantillon/Matériau :
«A purposive sampling strategy was used to create the two participant samples of this study (Patton, 2002). The men had to have participated in group therapy for IPV. Twenty-seven men took part in semi-structured interviews. A second sample of 13 men was brought together for a focus group so as to validate the data from the first sample. The 27 participants in the first sample were French-speaking men from Québec. […] The second sample (n = 13) was likewise composed of French-speaking male Québeckers» (p. 424-425)

Instruments :
Guide d’entretien semi-directif

Type de traitement des données :
Analyse de contenu

3. Résumé


«[T]he men’s perceptions of engagement suggest that the concept cannot be based on a single dimension but rather should be considered from a multidimensional perspective. We did, indeed, find several dimensions in the participants’ discourse about engagement, which generally corresponded to those proposed by Macgowan (2006). Furthermore, our findings suggest that the men did not consider attendance to be a central dimension in engagement. Even though several men mentioned attendance, they also pointed out the limitations of using only this dimension to evaluate engagement. These limitations are consistent with the pseudo-engagement, in which the person attends each group meeting without necessarily committing to change. Some of the engagement dimensions identified by the participants would appear to have been more important in their eyes than others. This was particularly true for the working on own problems dimension, which seemed to be the most significant engagement dimension from their point of view. The consideration accorded to this dimension must nonetheless be placed in the context of the orientation of the studied programs. They were process oriented and emphasized individual change. This program orientation led the men to concentrate on behavioral changes and violence-related attitudes.» (p. 432-433)