1. Objectifs

Intentions :
This article aims «to document ACDH [à cœur d’homme]’s practitioners and program managers’ view of IPV [intimate partner violence]; to get feedback from other actors in the field on these points of view, such as from shelters, child protection services, and violent partners; and [t]o identify prospects for BIPs [batterer intervention programs] in Québec.» (p. 880)

2. Méthode

Échantillon/Matériau :
«The study population was comprised of practitioners and program managers from organizations who were members of the ACDH association. […] A first sample of 25 practitioners was recruited for […] interviews using pamphlets delivered in organizations. […] A second sample of program managers were recruited for a one-day meeting in which a focus group was conducted to refine the preliminary results from the first sample. […] The sample of practitioners was composed of 18 men and 7 women, from 20 organizations located in 14 of Québec’s 17 administrative regions. […] The sample of directors was composed of 10 men and 8 women from as many different organizations and from 10 different regions in Quebec.» (p. 880)

Instruments :
- Guide d’entretien semi-directif
- Guide d’entretien de groupe

Type de traitement des données :
Analyse de contenu

3. Résumé

«The results suggest that complexity was a central element in the practitioners’ and managers’ conception of IPV. Their representation of the actors was characterized by a non-gendered conception of rational people. In this conception, both perpetrators and victims of violence can be held accountable for their choices. Above and beyond the simple symbolic images, the diversity of the male perpetrators and the vulnerability of female victims seemed to be common in the stakeholders’ view of these actors. […] As in other research on practitioners’ views of IPV […], this study suggests that the current theoretical debates are reflected in the practitioners’ opinions. The participants […] put forward a view of the problem where elements of the feminist paradigm and the coercive control of Stark (e.g., emphasis on control in the definition) intersected with the family violence paradigm and Johnson’ situational violence (e.g., interchangeable roles between the perpetrator and victim). It is worth nothing that the participants did not mention “crime” in their definition of IPV even though it is an important aspect of the Quebec public policy on IPV. Overall, the participants’ statements seemed to lean slightly more to the family violence paradigm.» (p. 884)