1
10
39
-
https://archive.ncfr.org/files/original/e9f00d0b63426475b574ea220911d474.pdf
dfdbca960f8a338464f44910431096ca
PDF Text
Text
Are Feminist Fraudulent Feelings Useful?
Elizabeth Sharp, PhD, Associate Professor, Texas Tech University and Shannon Weaver, PhD,
Associate Professor, University of Connecticut
Posted by Robert Hughes | September 21, 2015
In a section of our paper titled, “Feminist Fraudulence as Problematic
and Productive” we write,
“
“ Like McIntosh's (1985) thoughtful analysis of feeling like a fraud, we
propose that feelings of fraudulence related to one's feminism are
problematic and productive. While such feelings can be immobilizing
(Lloyd, Warner, Baber, & Sollie, 2009), feelings of fraudulence —if
harnessed successfully—are productive because they can hone a deep,
critical edge (McIntosh, 1985). We think the repeated expression of
feminist scholars who doubt whether their own work is “feminist
enough” or whether they produce “partially feminist” work (Stacey, 1988) is indicative of critical insight—these
doubts operate as signifiers to push deeper, to take questions further, thus enabling a richer, more complex
analysis.
Critical awareness also allows for feminist family scholars to monitor and mitigate dangers inherent in their
work (Stacey, 1988). As feminists we are often vulnerable to violating the very ethics we hold important, and
attending to our feelings of fraudulence can help ensure (greater) vigilance in our efforts. Therefore, we want
to encourage feminist scholars to attend to their feelings of fraudulence—to explore, expose, and respond to
them instead of pushing them away, avoiding being overtly feminist, extensively stalling, and/or quitting
projects altogether, as, for example, both of us have done”
”
Share your thoughts
Posted by Robert Hughes | September 22, 2015 5:16pm.
In a note to me, Paul Gorski (who was mentioned in a previous comment by Lee Ann De Reus) writes,
“
My general reflection is that feminist activists or any other activists reflecting on our challenges, whether those
challenges are internal or external, can prepare us to do more transformative work. The problem is when we get stuck
in the reflecting. This makes me think of all the intergroup dialogue programs on college campuses, and especially the
whiteonwhite dialogues in which white people gather and navelgaze and think that the dialogue itself is the activism
rather than what prepares us for the activism.
”
�Posted by Ramona Oswald | September 23, 2015 8:35am.
The concepts of feminist accountability, feminist fraud, and reflexivity were highly relevant for me yesterday. In
my gender course we did a unit on linguistic sexism that included an analysis of gendered slurs. During
discussion of the analysis an Asian American student tried to make a parallel with the N word stating that
"we" can't use it but "they can". I tried to reframe the discussion by saying that her bigger point seemed to be
that the meaning of words depends upon your relationship to the group. An African American student in the
class called out my indirect approach and said "she's referring to n**** and it isn't the same thing as b**** it
has a different history". I paraphrased what she said and then redirected the discussion to the next topic (sexist
surname practices). I left class feeling that I had not handled the situation well; I had been taken by surprise
and couldn't think fast enough to do more. My discomfort was that I felt like a "feminist fraud" here I was
teaching about gender and intersectionality and I missed a perfect opportunity to engage these issues. Worse
I may have contributed to an environment where students of color felt alienated. Last week we had discussed a
campus report about racial microaggressions and this scenario could have been in that report. I needed to
move out of my feelings and into an action that would correct the situation and so I consulted with a colleague
(#jenhardesty). I needed to own the situation as my problem. First, I contacted the African American student
and told her that I had not handled the situation well and wanted to address the issue in our next class. I said
that I was contacting her because she responded to the student and I wanted to make sure she would not feel
exposed by me addressing the issue. Then I contacted the Asian American student who made the remark and
let her know that I thought she was sincerely trying to learn and not be mean and then explained what was
troubling about what she said. I also asked this student if she had suggestions for how I could lead the
discussion without alienating her or anyone else. My attempt to remedy the situation reflects my attempt to hold
myself accountable as a feminist: to use power ethically, to avoid othering, to confront injustice, and to be
honest about my own behavior so that I can improve. For me, the red flag of feeling like a fraud is an indicator
that I should act...
Posted by Elizabeth Sharp | September 22, 2015 9:27am.
Responding to Lee Ann's earlier post:
Avoiding risk? The paper Shannon and I wrote was one of the riskiest papers we have ever written in our careers.
Gorski said
similar ideas that we did by bringing into foreground the pervasive influence of neoliberalism and the dangers of not
engaging in critical reflexivity about its insidious reach . Our paper is one of first known Family Studies articles take
on neoliberalism directly. As we argued in our paper, the point of attending to feelings of feminist fraudulence is
encourage more (visible) accountability as feminists. Attending to feelings of feminist fraudulence in and of itself
was never the end goal. We, like Peggy McIntosh before us, claimed that "feeling like a fraud" engenders a critical
edge, which, in turn, serves as way to ensure greater feminist accountability. One major component of feminist
accountability is pushing for social justice.
Posted by Lee Ann De Reus | September 21, 2015 10:36am.
I am a big fan of Paul Gorski, an Associate Professor at George Mason University. In a recent blog post
(http://lehamogo.blogspot.com/2015/09/theillusionofjusticesocial.html...) he wrote, "Does my social justice work
mitigate the impact of injustice or is it a threat to the existence of injustice? The problem comes when I put all my
energy into these mitigations and am unwilling to put my own privilege at risk by engaging in more transformative
social justice work." Given the feminist goal of social justice, is spending time on our feelings of fraudulence a
mitigation and a way to avoid risk?
Posted by Shannon Weaver | September 22, 2015 10:44am.
My first reaction here is to recall the criticism that has levied against feminists for engaging in too much “navel
gazing” that detracts them from their active efforts to promote social change. However, given the current
context, the need for an open discussion of feelings of fraudulence, and, more importantly, the means by which
we can use accountability in our work to embrace such feelings is even more warranted. Given the influence of
neoliberalism in academia with its focus on individualism and drawing attention away from systemic analyses of
social institutions that continue to perpetuate domination of certain groups over others and exploitation of
gender/racial/ethnic/sexual minorities, as well as the invasive postfeminist sentiment that gender inequality no
�longer exists, we wanted to start a discussion here in order to encourage others to reengage in praxis and re
invigorate interdisciplinary and feminist practices in research for families.
I do see our framing of the issue within the current neoliberal context as important because it is due to this
dominant worldview that we are not critically examining and dismantling the larger social institutions that
perpetuate oppression of women, and certain groups of women more than others. Paul Gorski in the blog entry
referenced above, questions if those who work in higher education, supposedly with the purpose of promoting
social justice, end up mitigating injustice rather than actually transforming it into justice as they focus more on
immediate rewards. Similar to my argument above, he asserts that "Neoliberalism has been, in part, a ruthless
attempt to take every untouched, sacred sphere and open it up to prophiteers… Social entrepreneurship is, to
me, what happens when we shift the profit motive into the most sacred of all public spheres: human rights and
social justice. It's what happens when we replace a commitment to basic human rights and social justice with a
commitment to profiting from every single thing.” Yes, need to lessen the severity of injustice for those who are
directly affected (such as feeding those who are hungry), but if not looking to larger issues, to looking at
engaging in transformative work that actually changes the dominant practice/worldview/means of living, what
we do is not actually going to make the difference we claim we want to achieve.
However, until we ourselves understand our place in our work, the epistemological assumptions underpinning it,
and the limitations we have in working in an environment where feminists are expected to operate within the
diverse and every changing terrain of feminist theories combined with the insidious influence of neoliberalism
and erroneous assumptions of postfeminist attitudes, we are unable to really think outside the box to begin to
do the kind of work that challenges dominant ideology, rather than just working around it.
Posted by Robert Hughes | September 21, 2015 10:33am.
Having doubts about your scientific work seems to me to be a sign of "professional maturity." As a young scholar I
thought I knew it all. The more time I have spent working on issues, learning about research and exploring theory, I
am less confident that I know the right answers or sometimes even know if I am asking the right questions.
Posted by Shannon Weaver | September 21, 2015 3:52pm.
In our paper we specifically made the point to stress that when scholars do not question their work, when they
become too overconfident in their approach to scholarship, that THIS is problematic. As others have also
asserted, there are no assurances in calling one’s work feminist; therefore, we continue to question and
consider what we are doing, how we are doing it, and the ways in which it does (and does not) contribute to
social justice.
Posted by Megan Haselschwerdt | September 22, 2015 9:12am.
Exactly, Shannon. I love that key point in your paper. I do think it can be exhausting and frustrating, which
makes it easier to become defensive. If we can fight through the frustration and defensiveness (and catch
ourselves when we are becoming defensive I've been there) and open up to the reality that we do not
have all the answers or the only way to examine an issue, we will become even better feminist scholars.
National Council on Family Relations | 1201 West River Parkway · Suite 200 · Minneapolis, MN 55454 · 888.781.9331
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | © 2017. All rights reserved.
Web design by Gorton Studios
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
JFTR Blog
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
jftr-blog
Description
An account of the resource
<p>The <a href="https://www.ncfr.org/jftr" target="_blank"><em>Journal of Family Theory and Review</em></a> (JFTR) Blog is designed to facilitate the exchange and sharing of the thoughtful discussions of issues regarding family theory, integrative ideas, and methods. Family scholars, media and the general public are invited to participate in rigorous, thoughtful conversations.</p>
<p>The team members managing this blog are <a href="mailto:hughesro@illinois.edu">Robert Hughes, Jr.</a>, the journal's digital scholarship editor; Libby Balter Blume, editor of JFTR; and Natalie D. Hengstebeck and Jeremy B. Kanter, JFTR Digital Scholarship Board members.</p>
<p>You can also find JFTR on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/jftrpage" target="_blank">Facebook</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/jftr_ncfr" target="_blank">Twitter</a>.</p>
<p><em>The views expressed in this blog may not represent the views of the entire NCFR organization.</em></p>
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Are Feminist Fraudulent Feelings Useful?
Description
An account of the resource
We think the repeated expression of feminist scholars who doubt whether their own work is "feminist enough" or whether they produce "partially feminist" work is indicative of critical insightthese doubts operate as signifiers to push deeper, to take questions further, thus enabling a richer, more complex analysis.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Elizabeth Sharp, PhD, Associate Professor, Texas Tech University and Shannon Weaver, PhD, Associate Professor, University of Connecticut
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
are-feminist-fraudulent-feelings-useful
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
September 21, 2015
-
https://archive.ncfr.org/files/original/5cf745c1d6b3c8c91b46ecc4cdd59c2e.pdf
78a29a14f9570671a3db5ec8e8935c5e
PDF Text
Text
Are there differential effects with mothers vs. fathers
who are violent?
Ericka SmithMarek, Bryan Cafferky, Prerana Diharkidharka, Allen Mallory, Maria Dominguez,
Jessica High, Sandra Stith, Marcos Mendez
Posted by Ashton Chapman | February 02, 2016
“… we explored the sexspecific hypothesis [in our article], which
suggests that witnessing or being victimized by the samesex parent as
compared to the oppositesex parent will have a stronger impact on
subsequent IPV. We did not find support for the sexspecific hypothesis
(i.e., samesex parental perpetration was not a significantly stronger risk
marker than oppositesex parental perpetration). The few overall sex
differences emphasize the importance of identifying and intervening to
reduce all forms of family violence. In addition, it may be important to
develop policy that seeks to ensure that both male and female violence
is targeted in prevention and intervention efforts. In summary, the
results underscore the need for the development of more
comprehensive theoretical and treatment models that move beyond
social learning principles to address the complex network of risk
markers emerging in the development of adult IPV” (p. 511).
Some of us were surprised by the finding that samesex parental perpetration was not a significantly
stronger risk marker than oppositesex parental perpetration.
Are you surprised by this finding? Why or why not?
Share your thoughts
Posted by Rebecca Chae | February 3, 2016 8:26pm.
I am not surprised by these results. I think that dividing people into subgroups could show different results. The
study could be divided by one's sexual orientation. After knowing that I think that we could test if adult IPV was
more prominent if they experienced or were victims of parental perpetration by the person of the same sex they
prefer.
Posted by Andrea Castillo | February 3, 2016 8:07pm.
the same sexhypothesis seems a bit unrealistic, however how about dominant parent, or machismo? Children who
are abused might be abused by the dominant parent, where in most cases it seems it is the male father figure. I
believe sexdifferences does not emphasize which partner will conduct the abuse. However I liked how they talked
�about" both male and female violence is targeted in prevention and intervention efforts". This shows equality in both
sexes in order to stop child abuse and development in adult IPV.
National Council on Family Relations | 1201 West River Parkway · Suite 200 · Minneapolis, MN 55454 · 888.781.9331
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | © 2017. All rights reserved.
Web design by Gorton Studios
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
JFTR Blog
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
jftr-blog
Description
An account of the resource
<p>The <a href="https://www.ncfr.org/jftr" target="_blank"><em>Journal of Family Theory and Review</em></a> (JFTR) Blog is designed to facilitate the exchange and sharing of the thoughtful discussions of issues regarding family theory, integrative ideas, and methods. Family scholars, media and the general public are invited to participate in rigorous, thoughtful conversations.</p>
<p>The team members managing this blog are <a href="mailto:hughesro@illinois.edu">Robert Hughes, Jr.</a>, the journal's digital scholarship editor; Libby Balter Blume, editor of JFTR; and Natalie D. Hengstebeck and Jeremy B. Kanter, JFTR Digital Scholarship Board members.</p>
<p>You can also find JFTR on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/jftrpage" target="_blank">Facebook</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/jftr_ncfr" target="_blank">Twitter</a>.</p>
<p><em>The views expressed in this blog may not represent the views of the entire NCFR organization.</em></p>
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Are there differential effects with mothers vs. fathers who are violent?
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ericka Smith-Marek, Bryan Cafferky, Prerana Diharkidharka, Allen Mallory, Maria Dominguez, Jessica High, Sandra Stith, Marcos Mendez
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
are-there-differential-effects-mothers-vs-fathers-who-are-violent
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
February 02, 2016
-
https://archive.ncfr.org/files/original/cd308cf89783dbdf59d8b01df0f96f0c.pdf
963ed05a67c055b12e50d0013ae4d1be
PDF Text
Text
Asking the Question “who benefits” is critical
Edith A. Lewis, Professor Emerita, University of Michigan
Posted by Robert Hughes | September 24, 2015
“The authors (referring to Sharp & Weaver) point out that feminist
researchers are always thoughtful about who, besides the researchers,
benefits from the research enterprise. Elizabeth Sharp again provides an
example of an interaction with the African American male pastor of an
urban church who raises the types of questions all of us who engage in
research programs with target populations need to ask ourselves. The
pastor was concerned about the researchers' misuse of information
provided by church members and was reluctant to agree to his church
being a part of the project. As in the earlier example of back translation,
these types of issues must be raised and addressed by the
researchers prior to engaging in research with families and communities, in
my opinion.
The context in which the pastor asked the questions is not included in the article, and its absence led me to
a series of questions. I wondered how often that church had been approached by researchers. I wondered
whether there had been opportunities for Elizabeth and her colleagues to work within the community the
church was located in so that a track record had been established for their work. I wondered whether
attempts had been made to determine how that church's members had been explicitly been exploited by
past research projects. Three words easily illustrate the distrust many African Americans have with
research: the Tuskegee Experiment. For many of us who have been raised to understand and embrace our
relationships to our ethnic, racial, or class groups, research conducted by an individually oriented outsider is
automatically suspect. The communitywide sensitivity about potential researcher misconduct needs to be
addressed in the earliest stages of interaction. Relationshipbuilding activities based on the stated needs of
the community may have a higher probability of later participation.”
Share your thoughts
Posted by Robert Hughes | September 25, 2015 12:25pm.
In this recent article, Campano and colleagues outline a set of ethical and professional standards for conducting
community work... They outline 5 norms to guide this work:
Norm 1: Equality Is the Starting Point, Not the End Point
Norm 2: Community Members’ Knowledge and Perspectives Must Be Taken Seriously
Norm 3: Specific Research Foci and Questions Are Codesigned with Community Members
�Norm 4: Research on/with/for the Community Should Benefit the Community
Norm 5: Research Is Made Public in Transparent, Collaborative, and Creative Ways
Gerald Campano, María Paula Ghiso, and Bethany Welch (2015) Ethical and Professional Norms in Community
Based Research. Harvard Educational Review: April 2015, Vol. 85, No. 1, pp. 2949.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.17763/haer.85.1.a34748522021115m
Posted by Elizabeth Sharp | September 24, 2015 10:40pm.
yes, I agree and, in the paper, I tried to highlight the way I came to understand these issues. I also would like to
remind the reader that I was a new graduate student and not in control of the project. This doesn't absolve me but it
does offer some context. Looking back, I now have a better understanding of the ways in which power operates
within a research team.
Posted by Shannon Weaver | September 24, 2015 11:11pm.
This reminds me of a point that we did not have room to address in the paper discussions of operating within
the parameters of research studies that are under the control of others. Particularly those directed by people in
positions of authority or power such as advisors over graduate students, senior scholars over more junior. How
can we be accountable to ourselves as feminists to participants, to communities when others we work for
perhaps might not have similar feminist commitments (and in many ways students/new professionals do not
have a choice regarding for whom they work)? How can we address issues that are of concern to us as
feminists but might not be shared by others on a research team?
National Council on Family Relations | 1201 West River Parkway · Suite 200 · Minneapolis, MN 55454 · 888.781.9331
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | © 2017. All rights reserved.
Web design by Gorton Studios
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
JFTR Blog
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
jftr-blog
Description
An account of the resource
<p>The <a href="https://www.ncfr.org/jftr" target="_blank"><em>Journal of Family Theory and Review</em></a> (JFTR) Blog is designed to facilitate the exchange and sharing of the thoughtful discussions of issues regarding family theory, integrative ideas, and methods. Family scholars, media and the general public are invited to participate in rigorous, thoughtful conversations.</p>
<p>The team members managing this blog are <a href="mailto:hughesro@illinois.edu">Robert Hughes, Jr.</a>, the journal's digital scholarship editor; Libby Balter Blume, editor of JFTR; and Natalie D. Hengstebeck and Jeremy B. Kanter, JFTR Digital Scholarship Board members.</p>
<p>You can also find JFTR on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/jftrpage" target="_blank">Facebook</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/jftr_ncfr" target="_blank">Twitter</a>.</p>
<p><em>The views expressed in this blog may not represent the views of the entire NCFR organization.</em></p>
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Asking the Question "who benefits" is critical
Description
An account of the resource
For many of us who have been raised to understand and embrace our relationships to our ethnic, racial, or class groups, research conducted by an individually oriented outsider is automatically suspect. The community-wide sensitivity about potential researcher misconduct needs to be addressed in the earliest stages of interaction.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Edith A. Lewis, Professor Emerita, University of Michigan
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
asking-question-who-benefits-critical
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
September 24, 2015
-
https://archive.ncfr.org/files/original/de511096079903a33013add7a8b0181e.pdf
096a2681ad66d58b82f0990e4c6d73df
PDF Text
Text
Book Review by Alison J.Chrisler: Humanizing
Research
Jeremy B. Kanter
Posted by Robert Hughes | January 13, 2016
Alison J. Chrisler writes an excellent review of the book, Humanizing Research: Decolonizing Qualitative
Inquiry With Youth and Communities. She highlights the difficulties that qualitative researchers are tasked
with as they conduct research, while focusing on the needs of the participants. Chrisler states, “Far too
often, researchers “take” the lived experiences of participants with little concern about what the individuals
in their studies will receive in return” (Chrisler, 2015, p. 333). This lack of attention given to the participant’s
wellbeing becomes increasingly problematic as many studies focus on intrusive topics of marginalized
groups.
The review is broken up into three sections corresponding with chapters from the book. The first section
focuses on the emotions of the researchers and challenges the notion of objectivity and passive listening as
a qualitative researcher. The second section focuses on experiences of researchers in participatory action
research and how this can be empowering for research participants. Finally, the last section emphasizes
the importance of the researchparticipant relationship. Particularly, how to best exit the relationship with a
research participant.
Following an extensive summary of the chapters, the author leaves the reader with suggestions to better
“humanize” research in hopes of helping participants. For instance, a paradigm shift is suggested, “As
researchers, we need to go beyond lamenting in the suffering of others and use pain narratives to inform
future change. To do this, we need to be true to the stories our research participants tell and focus on both
their challenges and successes.” (Chrisler, 2015, p. 336).
Other suggestions to humanize qualitative research involves participatory action, dialogical spiral, and
critical narrative analysis. Taken together, the contribution of this book and the review is to further the
conversation on how to positively influence participants in research studies in hopes of enacting societal
change and promoting resiliency throughout various populations researchers work with.
National Council on Family Relations | 1201 West River Parkway · Suite 200 · Minneapolis, MN 55454 · 888.781.9331
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | © 2017. All rights reserved.
Web design by Gorton Studios
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
JFTR Blog
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
jftr-blog
Description
An account of the resource
<p>The <a href="https://www.ncfr.org/jftr" target="_blank"><em>Journal of Family Theory and Review</em></a> (JFTR) Blog is designed to facilitate the exchange and sharing of the thoughtful discussions of issues regarding family theory, integrative ideas, and methods. Family scholars, media and the general public are invited to participate in rigorous, thoughtful conversations.</p>
<p>The team members managing this blog are <a href="mailto:hughesro@illinois.edu">Robert Hughes, Jr.</a>, the journal's digital scholarship editor; Libby Balter Blume, editor of JFTR; and Natalie D. Hengstebeck and Jeremy B. Kanter, JFTR Digital Scholarship Board members.</p>
<p>You can also find JFTR on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/jftrpage" target="_blank">Facebook</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/jftr_ncfr" target="_blank">Twitter</a>.</p>
<p><em>The views expressed in this blog may not represent the views of the entire NCFR organization.</em></p>
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Book Review Alison J.Chrisler: Humanizing Research
Description
An account of the resource
Alison J. Chrisler writes an excellent review of thebook, Humanizing Research: Decolonizing Qualitative Inquiry With Youth and Communities,highlighting the difficulties of conducting research with vulnerable participants. She write, "Far too often, researchers "take" the lived experiences of participants with little concern about what the individuals in their studies will receive in return" (Chrisler, 2015, p. 333). This lack of attention given to the participant's well-being becomes increasingly problematic as many studies focus on intrusive topics of marginalized groups.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Jeremy B. Kanter
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
book-review-alison-jchrisler-humanizing-research
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
January 13, 2016
-
https://archive.ncfr.org/files/original/4360f587a34f623fb92fa3fb70a9b357.pdf
f5c05508101e9e7201640cd8574cfc6f
PDF Text
Text
Change the Question
Lee Ann De Reus, Associate Professor, Pennsylvania State Altoona
Posted by Robert Hughes | September 24, 2015
The status of women and girls and families around the world points to myriad
complex crises that demand our skills as feminist scholars and activists.
Climate change, institutionalized racism and prejudices, armed conflict, poverty,
hunger, slavery, health care, relationship violence, and mass incarceration, for
example, are some of the dire issues we face as part of the global community.
My concern is that selfreflexive engagement in a culture of neoliberalism, can
distract attention and divert resources from the creation of “emancipatory
knowledge” (Mohanty, 2003, p. 1) and muchneeded feminist praxis and
political action. LevineRasky (2002) warned against such singular approaches
in her critique of antiracism workshops, which she described as “a kind of
human development project of selfdiscovery and redemption” that “neglects
the underlying context of history and social structure, and ongoing relations to
racialized others” (p. 329). This avoidance may be a function of privilege. As a
feminist scholar, I benefit from the neoliberal system. Thus, there is little
incentive for me to resist its hierarchies and processes or examine my own complicity in the oppression of
others. Too often our feminist family studies, while attending to the politics of gender, race, class, sexuality
and nation, are disconnected from a systematic critique of capitalism, racism, and heteropatriarchy
(Mohanty, 2013). The article by Sharp and Weaver begins with the question, “Are our studies feminist
enough?” I'd like to shift that question to “Have we created antiracist and anticapitalist studies that make a
difference?”
Share your thoughts
Posted by Elizabeth Sharp | September 24, 2015 10:11pm.
Response to Lee Ann' post:
In our piece, we were clear that our deployment of feminism necessarily entails a critique not only of gender but
also of racist and neoliberal apparatus. Thus, when asking "if our studies are feminist enough", we are asking
ourselves "have we created antiracist and anticaptialist studies that make a difference?" In fact, one of the major
goals of our paper was to show how deeply we are committed to dismantling oppressive regimes of power; to give
one example of many from our paper, we recommended scholars engage with Lois Weis and Michelle Fine's
"critical bifocals" and "circuits of privilege." (See: Weis, L. & Fine, M. (2012). Critical bifocality and circuits of
privilege: Expanding critical ethnographic theory and design. Harvard Educational Review, 82, 173201.)
Posted by Robert Hughes | September 25, 2015 11:05am.
�Here is the article referred to in Elizabeth Smart's reply to Lee Ann De Reus
Weis, L., & Fine, M. (2012). Critical bifocality and circuits of privilege: Expanding critical ethnographic theory
and design. Harvard Educational Review, 82(2), 173201.
http://hepgjournals.org/doi/abs/10.17763/haer.82.2.v1jx34n441532242
National Council on Family Relations | 1201 West River Parkway · Suite 200 · Minneapolis, MN 55454 · 888.781.9331
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | © 2017. All rights reserved.
Web design by Gorton Studios
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
JFTR Blog
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
jftr-blog
Description
An account of the resource
<p>The <a href="https://www.ncfr.org/jftr" target="_blank"><em>Journal of Family Theory and Review</em></a> (JFTR) Blog is designed to facilitate the exchange and sharing of the thoughtful discussions of issues regarding family theory, integrative ideas, and methods. Family scholars, media and the general public are invited to participate in rigorous, thoughtful conversations.</p>
<p>The team members managing this blog are <a href="mailto:hughesro@illinois.edu">Robert Hughes, Jr.</a>, the journal's digital scholarship editor; Libby Balter Blume, editor of JFTR; and Natalie D. Hengstebeck and Jeremy B. Kanter, JFTR Digital Scholarship Board members.</p>
<p>You can also find JFTR on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/jftrpage" target="_blank">Facebook</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/jftr_ncfr" target="_blank">Twitter</a>.</p>
<p><em>The views expressed in this blog may not represent the views of the entire NCFR organization.</em></p>
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Change the Question
Description
An account of the resource
The status of women and girls and families around the world points to myriad complex crises that demand our skills as feminist scholars and activists.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Lee Ann De Reus, Associate Professor, Pennsylvania State Altoona
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
change-question
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
September 24, 2015
-
https://archive.ncfr.org/files/original/9e0721d2afaf74cf85cb200e17752e75.pdf
436cee11242745eb2e167e3baed01fd6
PDF Text
Text
Concluding Thoughts: What Does Recentering LGBT
Parent Families Mean for Family Studies?
April L. FewDemo, Áine Humble, Melissa A. Curran, Sally Lloyd
Posted by Robert Hughes | May 06, 2016
“...we posed the question of what might occur when we use research on LGBT
parent families, and queer and intersectional lenses, to inform the field [family
studies] writ large. Many fascinating questions arise.
What happens when we decenter heterosexual expression and the overwhelming
emphasis in family studies on different sex partners?
Could we envision a family theories course taught at Phase 4 that would include
content only on LGBT families, a course that would essentially be the opposite of
Phase 1—what kind of impact would that have? Such a suggestion seems
counterintuitive given our argument for inclusion; however, it raises intriguing
questions.
As noted earlier, queer theory involves destabilizing and disrupting what is typically taken for granted, and
so we consider this idea food for thought, even though it might not actually be acted upon.
How might we theorize about issues such as romantic communication, parenting, love, relational power,
attachment, and spending time together in new ways, if we stopped assuming that heterosexuality, or
gender constructions, or Whiteness were at the center of it all?
How does an emphasis on the complexity of identities and positionalities fundamentally shift our
theorizing?”
National Council on Family Relations | 1201 West River Parkway · Suite 200 · Minneapolis, MN 55454 · 888.781.9331
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | © 2017. All rights reserved.
Web design by Gorton Studios
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
JFTR Blog
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
jftr-blog
Description
An account of the resource
<p>The <a href="https://www.ncfr.org/jftr" target="_blank"><em>Journal of Family Theory and Review</em></a> (JFTR) Blog is designed to facilitate the exchange and sharing of the thoughtful discussions of issues regarding family theory, integrative ideas, and methods. Family scholars, media and the general public are invited to participate in rigorous, thoughtful conversations.</p>
<p>The team members managing this blog are <a href="mailto:hughesro@illinois.edu">Robert Hughes, Jr.</a>, the journal's digital scholarship editor; Libby Balter Blume, editor of JFTR; and Natalie D. Hengstebeck and Jeremy B. Kanter, JFTR Digital Scholarship Board members.</p>
<p>You can also find JFTR on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/jftrpage" target="_blank">Facebook</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/jftr_ncfr" target="_blank">Twitter</a>.</p>
<p><em>The views expressed in this blog may not represent the views of the entire NCFR organization.</em></p>
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Concluding Thoughts: What Does Recentering LGBT-Parent Families Mean for Family Studies?
Description
An account of the resource
" we posed the question of what might occur when we use research on LGBT-parent families, and queer and intersectional lenses, to inform the field [family studies] writ large. Many fascinating questions arise."
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
April L. Few-Demo, Áine Humble, Melissa A. Curran, Sally Lloyd
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
concluding-thoughts-what-does-recentering-lgbt-parent-families-mean-family-studies
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
May 06, 2016
-
https://archive.ncfr.org/files/original/ac0e4ef95e288c1bc9a4d4de70398fa3.pdf
0e346ecb876086a9e198ac0fa8a064b3
PDF Text
Text
Does being raised in a physically violent home
predict adult intimate partner violence?
Erika Smith‐Marek, Bryan Cafferky, Prerana Dharnidharka, Allen B Mallory, Maria Dominguez,
Jessica High, Sandra Stith, Marcos Mendez
Posted by Robert Hughes | January 31, 2016
In our recent article published in JFTR “We propose integrating
developmental risk markers with the social learning model to gain a
more comprehensive understanding of the effects of childhood family
violence on adult IPV. This metaanalysis would, therefore, provide
support for the developmentalinteractional perspective if family
violence experienced in childhood emerges as a small risk marker. It
would provide further evidence for the importance of parental violent
behavior directed toward the child, as predicted by the development
interactional perspective, if experiencing child abuse is a stronger risk
marker for IPV than is witnessing interparental aggression. If, however,
familyoforigin violence emerges as a strong risk marker, then support
would be provided for the importance of social learning mechanisms in
explaining the effects of violence in the family of origin on adult intimate
partner violence (IPV)” (p. 500).
“Our findings reveal that the impact of childhood experiences of violence is a complex phenomenon, which
compels us to move beyond a linear examination of the effect of familyoforigin violence and maleto
female IPV. Consistent with Stith et al.'s 2000 metaanalysis, a relationship of small magnitude was found
between growing up in a violent home and IPV perpetration (r = .25) and victimization (r = .21) as an adult.
Although the results are in line with the assumptions of the social learning theory, the small effect sizes
indicate that there are other risk markers interacting over the course of an individual's life that contribute to
the outcome of adult IPV.
This metaanalysis, therefore, provides support for the argument that familyoforigin violence, contrary to
popular belief, does not play a central role in the development of adult IPV” (p. 509).
1. Does this fit with your overall understanding of the factors that contribute to adult IPV?
2. What are the other factors that predict adult IPV?
3. What are the implications of these findings for how we conduct future research?
Share your thoughts
�Posted by Erika SmithMarek | February 3, 2016 4:40pm.
We have really enjoyed engaging in this conversation with the NCFR community. Thank you for inviting us to
participate in this opportunity!
Posted by Arielle Kramer | February 3, 2016 3:37pm.
I would also have to disagree with the findings. Although I expressed in my last comment that errors in testing or
limitations were fairly probable, the results they received are accurate to a certain extent. I have a hard time
believing them because they don’t seem logical. Personally in my life, I grew up in a pretty violencefree household.
My brother and I were taught never to be violent or aggressive towards other people and to be respectful and keep
our hands to ourselves. Occasionally, there would be one parent to lash out and when they showed that violence,
the violence was then transcribed to us. Whenever I got mad or my brother got mad and displayed an act of
violence, my mother would always say it's our father's fault if he was violent or angry about something. This just
goes to show how violence in a household, or lack thereof, can influence someone. If I had grown up in a
perpetually angry, violent, and aggressive household, it would be very hard for me to imagine because the peaceful
and antiviolent person I am today. The same goes with the opposite. If someone grows up in a calm, serene home
that perpetuates values of respect to other people, I would assume that those individuals are more likely to grow up
and not be aggressive or violent to their partners. This is why I find it hard to believe that the research found little
correlation between household violence and IPV. However, with that said, I do agree with the assertion that there
are other factors besides familyoforigin violence that can impact one's IPV as an adult, such as their ability to react
to stress, how they deal with situations, if they went to therapy, the way they process important events, etc.
Posted by Samantha Scheck | February 3, 2016 4:49pm.
Arielle,
I have the same opinion as you and I also do not agree with these findings because how a person is raised
growing up shapes the person they are today. My family is also violent free and is so full of love. I do not even
think about violence because I was never around it. Do you think the area people grow up in effects whether or
not they are at greater risk at experiencing or witnessing family violence? I feel like the suburb I grew up in was
very safe and there was not a lot of violence in the area. If I would of grown up in a dangerous part of Chicago,
there is a greater chance that my family would be violent because I would of been exposed to it. I have a hard
time believing that individuals who grew up experiencing aggressive behavior do not reciprocate it when they
are older. Although I do not agree with the results, I am happy they turned out this way! I am glad that people
aren't using IPV even when they experienced it when they were younger. No family should ever be violent
because only negative aspects can come from it. I also agree with you that other factors besides family violence
can cause IPV. If this happens, people should get help because there is support out there and this situation can
be fixed.
Posted by Allegra Hoffman | February 3, 2016 11:12am.
While reading all of these studies and learning about violence and what an IPV is and so on, I understand now that
with this conclusion that is wrapped up in this article, that there are definitely factors that contribute to someone
becoming an adult IPV. I do not think i really thought about this so much because I was so indulged in the study, but
it is definitely a large factor when someone is abused as a child or watches abuse, but there has to be other things
that factor into someone becoming an adult IPV. I think that overall these studies are important because they show
the effects of what childhood scares can bring and it is important to look at these studies and really focus on them
because it is something in our world that needs to be changed so the further we look into this, the more we are able
to change it and examine what could be done differently to better our world.
Posted by Sarah Yoo | February 2, 2016 11:46pm.
From an article, it says how they used to explain mechanisms through childhood experiences of family violence that
affect adult partner violence. I agree with in because communication and social learning perspective are extremely
essential for those who are growing up and I believe it’s the parents’ role to demonstrate a good behavior for less
family violence. It was relieving knowing that they construct better understanding of violence where they will soon
be able to remodel their behavior and come up with an appropriate response to some of the conflicts they face.
Another perspective was the developmentalinteractional model which goes along with a developmental and
contextual perspective. This perspective is the model that suggests the children who grow up with violence may end
�up developing an aggressive interpersonal style due to the influence of individual differences in temperaments. The
model stated how it suggests children with abuse will receive a stronger influence than witnessing violent
interactions shaping their behaviors. I think this statement is a bit straightforward, I would obviously think that
children who have received an abuse will receive a stronger influence because they went through the process of
abuse where witnessing violent interactions are shocking but not as the ones who conflicted which seems to be
very inconsistent. Those who went through the abuse will not only harm and effect the mental but physical and
social skills as well which will make them become more of an introvert and get lower and lower selfesteem as the
time goes on. However, not only are they likely to be influenced by family itself but also by other factors along their
life span such as peer groups, environmental factors, and surroundings.
Posted by Samantha Scheck | February 2, 2016 4:51pm.
The research from this study is on the right track to making a difference in families lives because the findings
conclude that experiencing or witnessing violence as a child does not contribute to IPV. Although the information in
this study is beneficial and useful, there are implications that the research had. The study used the word "violence"
very vaguely which leads to limitations in this study because we don't know what types of IPV was
experienced/witnessed. There are many different ways to be violent, such as child abuse, situational couple
violence and intimate terrorism. For future research, the type of violence should be clear in the clinical settings. Out
of the various forms of violence, including a specific type will make the data more accurate and distinct. Is this study
going to conduct future research soon?
Posted by Chloe Weiss | February 3, 2016 7:28pm.
To go off of your statement that the study used the word "violence" very vaguely, I believe that these studies are
not conclusive enough. Violent relationships are not necessarily physical. Having neglectful parents, or parents
provide an absence of adequate social, emotional, or physical care, can have the same effects on a child as an
abusive parent. The study focuses mostly on the effect that experiencing violence or witnessing violence has on
a child developing abusive behavior. If the goal of this study was to make a difference in families lives, they
should start to consider other aspects of parentchild relationships that can lead to the development of abusive
or violent behavior. They also use the words abusive and violent a lot, but they don't explain that these
behaviors can be emotionally harmful to children. The study emphasizes the impact that physical violence has
on a child, but it doesn't consider the emotional impact it has. If they focus more on the emotional impact, they
can psychologically determine what is causing the children to later become abusive.
Posted by Erika SmithMarek | February 3, 2016 4:35pm.
Samantha, thank you for your comments. Research examining the effects of childhood experiences of family
violence on adult partner violence focuses on children witnessing intimate partner violence between parents
and children experiencing physical abuse, sexual abuse, or psychological abuse by a parent. For our meta
analysis, we focused on the first two phenomena: (a) children witnessing intimate partner violence and (b)
children experiencing physical abuse and later involvement in violent intimate relationships. That’s correct that a
limitation of our study was that we were unable to examine various forms of violence (e.g., intimate terrorism vs.
situational couple violence). We agree that more research that draws distinctions between the various types of
violence witnessed by children is needed.
Posted by Prerana Dharnidharka | February 2, 2016 3:33pm.
Cibele
Your comment that, “some people would learn and reproduce behaviors that they experienced by thinking it’s the
right way to act” is similar to the risk marker “approval of violence” which has been extensively studied and shown
to be associated with perpetration of IPV. With respect to your second point, in one of our metaanalysis
presentations we reported that demographic factors seem to be the weakest predictors of adult IPV. We appreciate
your comments!
Posted by Valerie Sherman | February 1, 2016 11:29pm.
�Before reading the article, I was under the impression that if violence was present early on in childhood, the child
would be more aggressive and violent in his/her actions while growing up. These are the conditions they were
raised under and it only makes sense that they would follow in their parents' violent footsteps, maybe taking out
some of the anger and hostility that has built up towards their parents. The article states that growing up in a violent
household did increase the chances of violent behaviors implemented by the child, yet later in the article they claim
these results are inconsistent. My thoughts on this inconsistency is that there may be other factors in play here,
regarding how violent behavior from parents in childhood affect a child's own actions growing up. Some possible
factors could be socioeconomic status, how well the child is doing in school, nationality, etc. Now that these findings
and this research has been done on the subject, I think it is important to narrow your horizons going forward with
any future research. I think it is important to control (as much as possible) the factors that are not being tested. But,
if this is not possible, those factors must be investigated as well, and I think it is important to note how each factor
impacts the other and why this may be a problem in coming to a clear conclusion.
Posted by Sandra Stith | February 2, 2016 3:14pm.
Valerie, your impression that early violence leads to violent behavior in adults seems to be a common theme.
Our findings point to the idea that growing up in a violent home is one of many factors that leads to violence in
adult intimate relationships. We agree with you that more research is needed on other factors and that when
possible, research should account for a multitude of other possible factors. Thanks for your comment.
Posted by Cibele Aguiar | February 1, 2016 11:15pm.
This is a really interesting article with a current and important subject. I agree with the point of view that
experiencing violence in childhood does not necessarily imply the reproduction of the same behavior later on. The
selfexperience is not determining. However, in my opinion, some people would learn and reproduce behaviors that
they experienced by thinking it’s the right way to act. On the other hand, some people would break the learned life
cycle by acting differently. The idea of “other risk markers interacting over the course of an individual’s life that
contribute to the outcome of adult IPV” is reasonable. Several cultural and social factors could interact with that
experience. I think some markers should be considered, for example: economic class, generation, gender
implications, race and ethnic.
Posted by Chloe Weiss | February 2, 2016 4:49pm.
Actually, the article directly supports your point of view that experiencing violence in childhood does not imply
that the reproduction of violent behavior later on! In fact, it says in the article that based off one of the studies,
Fergusson et al. (2006), they "found nonsignificant relationships between childhood exposure to inter parental
violence and IPV in adulthood after controlling for factors such as family functioning and childhood behavioral
problems. They concluded that exposure to inter parental violence is only weakly predictive of adult IPV and
that this relationship is mediated by the psychosocial context in which the childhood occurs." However, you
mentioned that there are other cultural and social factors that would interact with the experience, and although
the study says it controlled for such factors, I don't believe that it is entirely possible. Factors like race, ethnicity,
and gender implications are not things that a study can control. Although the studies mentioned in the article
concluded their results based off an experimental design, I still don't believe that any experiment can yield a
causal relationship in this case.
Posted by Sarah Yoo | February 1, 2016 10:14pm.
I assumed that children who are raised in a violet home would become either be an extreme violet partner from
factors such as experiencing physical, sexual, or psychological abuse, or an opposite in their adulthood assuring to
live an individual’s lives differently. Therefore, it was intriguing for me to discover that only a small portion of the
data reveals children of becoming violet partners as they get old in their lifetime. I have expected but it got me
curious to find out what made them result in certain outcomes. I would also think that there would be a nature vs
nurture going on. Even though they promise themselves that they wouldn’t become violent, if they had been raised
with getting and seeing abuse every day such as their parents being alcoholic or has bad temperament for instance,
how can they remain calm if they don’t even know how to cope with stress and violence? Wouldn’t they want to let
their anger out to their next generation or someone just like how they struggled through their lives? When the
studies concentrated on children witnessing IPV and experiencing physical abuse and involvement in violent
intimate relationships, it made me think how the results weren’t consistent within the studies and how some turned
�out to be true and some didn’t. In addition, was surprising to find out that there wasn’t a significant differences in the
impact of witnessing IPV.
Posted by Rebecca Chae | February 1, 2016 10:06pm.
When reading the title of this article, I thought "of course being in a physically violent home directly correlates with
IPV". I was surprised to learn that the results didn't clearly show that one caused another. I think that another thing
that could cause IPV are things like demographic and social class. It could very well be that people that are in a
physically violent home in a higher class causes high IPV and people in lower social classes experience low IPV
even though they are also from a physically violent home. Averaging this data doesn't show the specific
concentrations and trends of IPV. Now, I know that there are more things than just living in a physically violent home
that could cause adult IPV.
Posted by Chloe Weiss | February 1, 2016 10:04pm.
From my previous knowledge, I was under the impression that there was a direct correlation between having an
abusive parent and becoming abusive in an adult relationship. According to the metaanalysis mentioned, there is
support that coming from a violent family does not play a role in the development of abusive adult relationships. I
find it very hard to believe this, considering the social learning theory. The idea of this theory is heavily based off
Albert Bandura's Bobo doll experiments, in which it was found that children who are exposed to violence early in life
are likely to repeat the behaviors they observed. However, because of the clear evidence stated in the article, I
have to consider what other factors could contribute to adult IPV. There are clearly more complex functions at work
when it comes to determining the root of adult IPV. Socioeconomic status, cultural beliefs, and psychological
disorders can al be possible factors in determining IPV in adult relationships.
Posted by Bryan Cafferky | February 2, 2016 2:23pm.
Yes, there is common perception that those children who experience/witness violence in their family of origin
are automatically doomed to experience violence in their future relationships. However, we believe that our
findings do NOT support the idea that “coming from a violent family does not play a role in the development of
abusive adult relationships.” Rather, our findings point to metaanalytic evidence that there IS a significant link
between family of origin violence and adult IPV, but that this link is small in magnitude. Which, as you
mentioned, is part of a more complex scenario (including the socioeconomic status, cultural beliefs, mental
health challenges, etc.) rather than one individual “root” of IPV.
Posted by Samantha Scheck | February 1, 2016 9:32pm.
Before reading this study, my initial thought was that if a child was abused or grew up observing abuse when they
were younger, then there is no doubt that they will be violent with their future partner. Once I read the study, I
learned that my assumption was a "complex phenomenon" and that many studies had different results. After
viewing this study, my question is why are these results inconsistent? The study explains the factors that contribute
to adult IPV, like the social learning perspective and the developmentalinteractional perspective, but I am having
trouble understanding reasons as to why some results did not lead to adult IPV. Some other factors that predict
adult IPV could be behavioral risk factors like when the adults consume alcohol, it can increase the likelihood of
IPV. Another risk factor could be cultural beliefs, for example in a culture a man could be in more control of a
woman and he might be violent in order to show her who's boss.
Posted by Bryan Cafferky | February 2, 2016 2:24pm.
Yes, often there is a common assumption about an undeniable and inevitable link between experiencing
violence as a child and the forgone conclusion that these children will automatically grow up be violent (or be a
victim) in their future adult romantic relationships…yet not every study has found this to be true. (As to why
different studies found different results, it could be due to the sample characteristics, the overarching research
methodology, confounding factors, etc.—thus there are numerous explanations for different findings in different
studies.) In fact, this is exactly why we chose this metaanalytic approach, because it can take all the seemingly
“inconsistent” research findings and then pools them all together to look for support regarding whether there “is”
or “is not” a link between experiencing/witnessing violence as a child and future IPV.
�Similar to how you identified alcohol consumption and patriarchal cultural beliefs as two risk markers for IPV,
there also exist protective factors (individual, relational, behavioral, cultural, etc.) which may help prevent IPV.
Thus, the complex phenomenon includes not just include risk markers, but also protective factors. We hope
these metaanalytic findings can help shift the perspective away from “those who experience childhood violence
are doomed to automatically perpetrate violence in their adult romantic relationships” to a deeper understanding
(and hope!) that although childhood violence is linked to IPV, the magnitude is small, which suggests the
presence of other risk markers and protective factors that play a role in whether or not an adult experiences
IPV.
Posted by Lauren Southwood | February 1, 2016 8:52pm.
It’s interesting to me that only a “small magnitude” of the data collected proved that if a child is raised in a violent
home that child would be a more violent partner. I figured that a large portion of children raised in abusive homes
would then become more abusive as they got older, but even the small amount of facts that proved this vary from
study to study. You would think this would be a nature vs nurture case where if a child experiences and sees abuse
everyday they too then become more abusive as adults because to them it seems like “just a part of life”. Maybe
instead the effects of this physical violence aren’t making them more aggressive adults, but effecting them in
different ways including their self confidence, social skills, etc. This could then result in more problems during their
adulthood. Possibly a new study should be done not to see if experiencing physical abuse makes children more
abusive, but to see how this physical abuse effects these children as they go through the teenage years and
adulthood.
Posted by Bryan Cafferky | February 2, 2016 2:25pm.
Hey Lauren, we think you bring up some really good points about the interplay with the nature vs. nurture
debate. We appreciated your thoughts about how violent childhoods may not always be directly linked to IPV,
but may be linked instead to selfconfidence, social skills etc., which can challenge future adult relationships.
Thus, while this metaanalysis shows a significant direct link between family of origin violence and future IPV,
we agree that family of origin violence may also be indirectly be linked to IPV through mediating individual and
relational factors. There are a few longitudinal studies looking at children’s experience of abuse and their
experience of dating violence in teenage years. Finally, we think that the word “prove” might be a little too
strong to describe our findings of our study (especially since the mean effect sizes are small in magnitude).
Instead, we prefer the concept of “support”—in that this metaanalysis lends significant empirical support
(gathered from many studies across the field of family violence) to the idea that childhood violence is a
significant risk marker for future IPV.
Posted by Andrea Castillo | February 1, 2016 6:06pm.
There are plenty of variables that play into adults behavior in relation to IPV, and although some people believe
family of origin violence is the cause of IPV, I think differently. The importance of familyoforigin characteristics as
contributing to emotional and physical conflict in relationships can just happen to result in abusive IPV but that is not
always the case.
What are some external variables causing IPV? What are families doing in order to bring awareness of IPV?
Posted by Marcos Mendez | February 2, 2016 4:37pm.
Andrea, we agree with your statement regarding the importance of looking at other factors that play a role in
IPV. The metaanalysis shows that childhood violence is a predictor of intimate partner violence; however, we
agree that there are other developmental risk markers in addition to social learning factors that may also play a
role in IPV. In an earlier post, Erika, the first authors\ of this paper made a reference to preliminary findings of a
larger metaanalysis we are conducting that show many other important predictors of IPV. In response to your
questions regarding what other factors may play a role in IPV and adding to what Erika already said, we found
that some of the stronger predictors of IPV are relational interaction factors. For example, being a perpetrator or
victim of emotionally abuse in a current relationship is a stronger risk markers for perpetrating physical IPV than
is childhood violence. Likewise, other factors may be as important as childhood violence, such as mental health
problems including addiction, depression, and anxiety.
�Now, in response to your question “what are families doing in order to bring awareness of IPV?” I am a little
confused by the question. As you know, violence is an integral part of some families’ system rules. But part of
our responsibility as researchers, clinicians, and educators is to help families find more adaptive ways to live
and respond to one another. From our perspective, the larger question is how can WE do a better job helping
families break or prevent their cycles of violence?
Posted by Megan Haselschwerdt | February 1, 2016 5:35pm.
Thank you for taking time to talk with us and for your important metaanalysis! The time is perfect, as we (2 doctoral
students and I) are about to submit a review article looking at how methodological decisions, particularly
operationalization, measurement, and analytic approaches, may be strongly influencing whether or not researchers
find significance in the association between DV exposure, child abuse, and DV + child exposure and dating
violence perpetration/victimization in young adulthood. Your metaanalysis gave us great credence to continue
teasing apart these associations! We are theorizing that the lack of examination of coercive control may be
contributing to the nonsignificant findings, in that youth exposed to intimate terrorism are a fundamentally different
group than youth exposed to situational couple violence and this may be associated with different
"intergenerational" impacts. Jouriles & McDonald recently published an article with findings supporting the
importance of examining coercive control, above and beyond physical violence characteristics this appears to be
the only quantitative study on exposure to DV and coercive control in press (that I know of please someone tell me
if I am wrong though!)
This is also very relevant to my Master's student who is qualitatively examining the high school and college
romantic relationship experiences of 25 young adults exposed to different types of fatherperpetrated DV
(categorized into intimate terrorism/coercive controlling violence and situational couple violence). We are working
from the premise that we need to move beyond studying the transmission of violence, because as you found, this
isn't the "be all, end all" predictor or risk factor as we often believe it to be. Interestingly, as we presented at NCFR
this past fall, over half of our participants DID report experiencing an abusive or controlling relationship in high
school, but this substantial group of participants reported their DV exposure + early abuse in dating relationships as
the catalyst that led them to identify healthy, nonabusive relationships/partners in college. Many others have not
experienced any form of violence or abuse in dating relationships. Our findings suggest that these associations are
complex.
Based on your study, and your review of the literature, do you think that maybe we would find a stronger association
between early DV exposure + dating violence in adolescence or young adulthood as opposed to later adult
relationships? I'm curious what your thoughts are.
Posted by Erika SmithMarek | February 2, 2016 6:14pm.
Megan, thank you for sharing the important work that you and your students have in progress, look forward to
your results!
Posted by Sandra Stith | February 2, 2016 11:22am.
Megan, you bring up a couple of really good points. First, in our large metaanalysis we compared clinical
versus community samples and didn’t find a difference, but clinical samples included both people who were
experiencing situational violence and those who were experiencing intimate terrorism. More specific studies that
really expand our knowledge and understanding of the impact of intimate terrorism versus situational violence
will be really helpful!
Your second point that the impact of childhood exposure to IPV might be stronger in young adult or dating
violence than in adult violence is also important. I look forward to seeing your work in this area.
Posted by Robert Hughes | February 1, 2016 5:58pm.
For those interested here is a link to the Jouriles & McDonald article mentioned above:
Jouriles, E. N., & McDonald, R. (2015). Intimate partner violence, coercive control, and child adjustment
problems. Journal of interpersonal violence,30(3), 459474.
�Posted by Erika SmithMarek | February 2, 2016 6:17pm.
Readers may also be interested in this article
Frankland, A., & Brown, J. (2014). Coercive control in samesex intimate partner violence. Journal of Family
Violence, 29, 1522. doi: 10.1007/s1089601395581 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10896013
95581#/page1
Posted by Arielle Kramer | February 1, 2016 1:59pm.
The article stated that growing up in a violent home and observing parental violence and child abuse increases
one's chances of being violent with a future partner, as well as more likely to being victimized by a partner. Yet, it
also said that these results were inconsistent from study to study; some found it to be true, and some found that
results weren't statistically significant. This is interesting to me because it makes me wonder if other factors are
involved that would influence this; perhaps one's socioeconomic status? Or how they deal with stressful situations?
Or maybe even how old they were when they were first exposed to parental violence and abuse? One interesting
result they found was that they found no significant difference between experiencing child abuse and subsequent
IPV. This surprises me because I thought that being subjected to aggression and violence would cause a person to
act the same way in the future, but I guess that's not the case.
Posted by Erika SmithMarek | February 1, 2016 5:19pm.
That’s correct, our findings revealed that there is only a small association between being subjected to physical
violence in childhood (witnessing intimate partner violence and/or experiencing child abuse) and adult IPV. To
clarify, we found that there was no significant difference between witnessing interparental violence and
experiencing physical child abuse on subsequent IPV perpetration.
As you mentioned, the idea of an “intergenerational transmission” of violence has been prominent in our field. It
seems clear that being subjected to aggression and violence does not cause a person to act the same way in
the future. Both witnessing and experiencing violence as a child are risk factors, but they aren’t strong risk
factors. Of course more work is needed. You brought up interesting points about how age at the time of the
abuse exposure, for example, may impact adult partner violence.
Posted by Robert Hughes | February 1, 2016 11:11am.
I remain surprised by these findings. On the one hand, the lack of a strong relationship between childhood
experiences of family violence and adult intimate partner violence offers some hope, it is hard to imagine that these
powerful experiences do not play a bigger role in adult IPV. In several places in this paper, you suggest that there
are other "risk markers" that may either raise or lower a person's engagement in IPV, what do you have in mind?
Posted by Julia Hammett | February 1, 2016 4:07pm.
I could imagine that there are several factors over the course of an individual's life that may increase or
decrease the risk of experiencing adult IPV (either as a victim or perpetrator or both), such as a variety of
withincouple processes (relationship quality, communication and problemsolving skills, etc.). I could also
imagine that couples' social networks play a substantial role. Does violence towards an intimate partner exist
among other members of these networks or in the neighborhood context and might thus be viewed as being
more "normative"? Are couples relatively isolated from others or do they have tight connections to others who
might provide social support functions and who might simply observe how their relationships are going?
I agree that the lack of a strong association between these early childhood experiences of family violence and
adult IPV "offers some hope." These findings are quite promising in that they indicate that individuals who
experience violence in childhood are by no means "doomed" to follow a violent path. I strongly hope that future
research will continue to tease apart the differing impact of such interacting risk factors so that individuals at risk
for adult IPV can be identified and targeted as early as possible.
�Posted by Erika SmithMarek | February 1, 2016 5:17pm.
We agree that finding a relationship of small magnitude between growing up in a violent home and adult
intimate partner violence perpetration (r = .25) and victimization (r = .21) offers hope. The developmental
interactional perspective, which guided this research, indicates a multitude of internal and external factors,
which may influence our adult behavior. Some of our preliminary metaanalytic work, which we presented at
NCFR last year, indicates that factors in a person’s current relationship, such as relationship conflict or
violence perpetrated by our partner, seems to be more predictive of current violence than childhood factors
alone. It may also be possible that witnessing certain types of family violence (i.e., intimate terrorism) may
be more strongly associated with adult partner violence than experiencing child physical abuse or that
experiencing child physical abuse may be more strongly associated with adult partner violence than
witnessing certain types of family violence (i.e., situational couples violence).
We also appreciate the points that were raised regarding the influence of social networks and also, as
suggested, the importance of conducting qualitative research to gain a more nuanced understanding of how
adult children make sense of their childhood exposure to intimate partner violence.
Posted by Natalie Hengstebeck | February 1, 2016 3:42pm.
I can imagine so many possible factors. For example, what about the role of the nonabusive parent, teachers,
and even media in sending messages that violence is wrong? Perhaps schools and other organizations are
doing an increasingly better job of reaching families early or providing supports to help families escape from
abuse than they have in the past and the common perception of intergenerational transmission is simply
outdated. Could there be a critical period after which (if violence is experienced later) children are less prone to
perpetrate/experience violence as adults? Do the childhood experiences of adult partners matter?
Are there qualitative studies exploring how adult children (and their partners and children) make sense of their
family of origin experiences and what it has meant for their own families? If so, what has this research found?
Posted by Erika SmithMarek | February 1, 2016 11:01am.
We look forward to engaging in this conversation with the NCFR community!
Posted by Allison Wickler | February 1, 2016 2:28pm.
The NCFR staff is excited to have you participating in this great opportunity! Thank you!
Allison Wickler, NCFR web content manager
National Council on Family Relations | 1201 West River Parkway · Suite 200 · Minneapolis, MN 55454 · 888.781.9331
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | © 2017. All rights reserved.
Web design by Gorton Studios
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
JFTR Blog
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
jftr-blog
Description
An account of the resource
<p>The <a href="https://www.ncfr.org/jftr" target="_blank"><em>Journal of Family Theory and Review</em></a> (JFTR) Blog is designed to facilitate the exchange and sharing of the thoughtful discussions of issues regarding family theory, integrative ideas, and methods. Family scholars, media and the general public are invited to participate in rigorous, thoughtful conversations.</p>
<p>The team members managing this blog are <a href="mailto:hughesro@illinois.edu">Robert Hughes, Jr.</a>, the journal's digital scholarship editor; Libby Balter Blume, editor of JFTR; and Natalie D. Hengstebeck and Jeremy B. Kanter, JFTR Digital Scholarship Board members.</p>
<p>You can also find JFTR on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/jftrpage" target="_blank">Facebook</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/jftr_ncfr" target="_blank">Twitter</a>.</p>
<p><em>The views expressed in this blog may not represent the views of the entire NCFR organization.</em></p>
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Does being raised in a physically violent home predict adult intimate partner violence?
Description
An account of the resource
Our findings reveal that the impact of childhood experiences of violence is a complex phenomenon, which compels us to move beyond a linear examination of the effect of family-of-origin violence and male-to-female intimate partner violence (IPV).
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Erika Smith-
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
does-being-raised-physically-violent-home-predict-adult-intimate-partner-violence
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
January 31, 2016
-
https://archive.ncfr.org/files/original/c9579e88c2bb49a06795ea6f78f1c848.pdf
d6c67c59044d9f2dad33b10adced6d21
PDF Text
Text
Talk with the Authors of "Effects of Childhood
Experiences of Family Violence..."
Erika Smith‐Marek, Bryan Cafferky, Prerana Dharnidharka, Allen B Mallory, Maria Dominguez,
Jessica High, Sandra Stith, & Marcos Mendez
Posted by Robert Hughes | January 27, 2016
Beginning Monday, Feb 1 join the JFTR Discussion of the
intergenerational transmission of family violence with Erika Smith
Marek and colleagues in “Effects of Childhood Experiences of Family
Violence on Adult Partner Violence: A Meta‐Analytic Review.”
Some of the issues and questions will be:
1. Are child victims of physical abuse condemned to be violent in their
intimate relationships as adults?
2. Are abused boys more prone to adult intimate partner violence
(IPV) than girls?
3. What do 124 studies about childhood violence tell us about the
future of research on adult IPV?
4. How can we protect abused children from becoming victims or perpetrators of IPV as adults?
5. Is physical violence by fathers more damaging than physical violence by mothers?
6. Is the witnessing of family violence enough to cause children to grow up to become victims or
perpetrators of adult IPV?
Follow the Journal of Family Theory & Review discussion on Facebook and Twitter.
National Council on Family Relations | 1201 West River Parkway · Suite 200 · Minneapolis, MN 55454 · 888.781.9331
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | © 2017. All rights reserved.
Web design by Gorton Studios
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
JFTR Blog
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
jftr-blog
Description
An account of the resource
<p>The <a href="https://www.ncfr.org/jftr" target="_blank"><em>Journal of Family Theory and Review</em></a> (JFTR) Blog is designed to facilitate the exchange and sharing of the thoughtful discussions of issues regarding family theory, integrative ideas, and methods. Family scholars, media and the general public are invited to participate in rigorous, thoughtful conversations.</p>
<p>The team members managing this blog are <a href="mailto:hughesro@illinois.edu">Robert Hughes, Jr.</a>, the journal's digital scholarship editor; Libby Balter Blume, editor of JFTR; and Natalie D. Hengstebeck and Jeremy B. Kanter, JFTR Digital Scholarship Board members.</p>
<p>You can also find JFTR on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/jftrpage" target="_blank">Facebook</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/jftr_ncfr" target="_blank">Twitter</a>.</p>
<p><em>The views expressed in this blog may not represent the views of the entire NCFR organization.</em></p>
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Effects of Childhood Experiences of Family Violence
Description
An account of the resource
Here are the authors who conducted the meta-analysis of 124 studies of the effects of childhood experiences of family violence (both victims & witnesses) who will be discussing their work at JFTR.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Erika Smith-
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
effects-childhood-experiences-family-violence
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
January 28, 2016
-
https://archive.ncfr.org/files/original/0be38ef78e0bcdfb436db51c758106c5.pdf
94825a41e50a9fca91e28a023648de39
PDF Text
Text
Exploring Feminist Family Scholarship — a
Discussion
by Robert Hughes, Jr.
Posted by Robert Hughes | September 18, 2015
In a recent article in the J of Family Theory & Review, Elizabeth Sharp
and Shannon Weaver contributed a thoughtful article titled, Feeling Like
Feminist Frauds: Theorizing Feminist Accountability in Feminist Family
Studies Research in a Neoliberal, PostFeminist Context.
This week JFTR will host a discussion of this paper here to explore the
issues raised by these scholars as well as the responses that were
raised by these issues. The discussion will be organized around 4
questions.
Sept 21—Are Feminist Fraudulent Feelings Useful?
Sept 22—What is “feminist accountability?”
Sept 23—How do scholars translate feminist theory into research
practice?
Sept 24— What does it mean to be a “scholar committed to social
justice?”
Sharp & Weaver write,
“We wrote the paper with junior scholars in mind – our intent was to
showcase the struggles/ messiness/tensions of applying abstract feminist principles to specific research
practices. Our inspiration came from the narratives in Donna Sollie and Leigh Leslie’s (1994) book, Gender,
Families and Close Relationships: Feminist Research Journeys. Although our discussion revisits similar
tensions addressed in their chapters, we place them within a contemporary context. We wanted to offer an
authentic portrayal of the challenges facing feministidentified social scientists in the 21st century.”
Join us this week to talk about these issues.
Share your thoughts
Posted by Ramona Oswald | September 22, 2015 3:27pm.
The concept of feminist accountability was highly relevant for me today. In my gender course we did a unit on
linguistic sexism that included an analysis of gendered slurs. During discussion of the analysis an Asian American
�student tried to make a parallel with the N word stating that "we" can't use it but "they can". I tried to reframe the
discussion by saying that her bigger point seemed to be that the meaning of words depends upon your relationship
to the group. An African American student in the class called out my indirect approach and said "she's referring to
n**** and it isn't the same thing as b**** it has a different history". I paraphrased what she said and then
redirected the discussion to the next topic (sexist surname practices). I left class feeling that I had not handled the
situation well; I had been taken by surprise and couldn't think fast enough to do more. My discomfort was that I felt
like a "feminist fraud" here I was teaching about gender and intersectionality and I missed a perfect opportunity to
engage these issues. Worse I may have contributed to an environment where students of color felt alienated.
Last week we had discussed a campus report about racial microaggressions and this scenario could have been in
that report. I needed to move out of my feelings and into an action that would correct the situation and so I
consulted with a colleague (#jenhardesty). I needed to own the situation as my problem. First, I contacted the
African American student and told her that I had not handled the situation well and wanted to address the issue in
our next class. I said that I was contacting her because she responded to the student and I wanted to make sure
she would not feel exposed by me addressing the issue. Then I contacted the Asian American student who made
the remark and let her know that I thought she was sincerely trying to learn and not be mean and then explained
what was troubling about what she said. I also asked this student if she had suggestions for how I could lead the
discussion without alienating her or anyone else. My attempt to remedy the situation reflects my attempt to hold
myself accountable as a feminist: to use power ethically, to avoid othering, to confront injustice, and to be honest
about my own behavior so that I can improve.
Posted by Shannon Weaver | September 24, 2015 10:10pm.
Ramona, thank you for sharing your experience in class, I think many of us have encountered similar conflicts
in our teaching. Elizabeth and I noticed over the years that there were articles/chapters focusing upon feminist
pedagogy describing experiences or issues similar to our conceptualization of feeling like a feminist fraud and
accountability in the classroom. I wondered, with the immediacy of teaching, of the direct interactions with
students, if these issues of questioning ourselves are more salient in that context than they are in our
scholarship. When we looked to the literature, we did not find publications focusing specifically on such
experiences as a researcher since Leslie and Sollie's text in the '90s, or even those that addressed
epistemology or methodology from a feminist family studies perspective since Thompson. I myself question why
is this? This was, in part, a large motivation for me in writing this article with my coauthor.
Posted by Megan Haselschwerdt | September 23, 2015 8:33am.
Thank you for sharing your experience, Ramona. I think we have all had these moments that truly are "feminist
fraudlike" moments. Like I said in another section of the blog, we are all going to make mistakes, and I think we
need to give each other (and ourselvesmaybe that is even harder!) some amnesty when we do. But, like you
did, we have to work hard to remedy our mistakes. I bet professors have made similar mistakes but feel
uncomfortable (or fraudulent) and do nothing. What you did was show the students that you also make
mistakes, you will fix them, and you will learn. I'm sure that both students will appreciate how you held yourself
accountable in a way that ethically used your power.
Posted by Natalie Hengstebeck | September 24, 2015 2:55am.
As a graduate student, I personally find it incredibly helpful to read about these experiences in the
classroom and how people navigated these teachable moments, whether in that moment, or afterwards as
Ramona described. Reflections on these types of situations and how they were handled and/or how
individuals think they should have been handled would be very useful.
Posted by Lee Ann De Reus | September 21, 2015 9:58am.
I am a big fan of Paul Gorski, an Associate Professor at George Mason University. In a recent blog post
(http://lehamogo.blogspot.com/2015/09/theillusionofjusticesocial.html...) he wrote, "Does my social justice work
mitigate the impact of injustice or is it a threat to the existence of injustice? The problem comes when I put all my
energy into these mitigations and am unwilling to put my own privilege at risk by engaging in more transformative
social justice work." Is spending time on our feelings of fraudulence a mitigation?
�National Council on Family Relations | 1201 West River Parkway · Suite 200 · Minneapolis, MN 55454 · 888.781.9331
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | © 2017. All rights reserved.
Web design by Gorton Studios
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
JFTR Blog
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
jftr-blog
Description
An account of the resource
<p>The <a href="https://www.ncfr.org/jftr" target="_blank"><em>Journal of Family Theory and Review</em></a> (JFTR) Blog is designed to facilitate the exchange and sharing of the thoughtful discussions of issues regarding family theory, integrative ideas, and methods. Family scholars, media and the general public are invited to participate in rigorous, thoughtful conversations.</p>
<p>The team members managing this blog are <a href="mailto:hughesro@illinois.edu">Robert Hughes, Jr.</a>, the journal's digital scholarship editor; Libby Balter Blume, editor of JFTR; and Natalie D. Hengstebeck and Jeremy B. Kanter, JFTR Digital Scholarship Board members.</p>
<p>You can also find JFTR on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/jftrpage" target="_blank">Facebook</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/jftr_ncfr" target="_blank">Twitter</a>.</p>
<p><em>The views expressed in this blog may not represent the views of the entire NCFR organization.</em></p>
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Exploring Feminist Family Scholarship
Description
An account of the resource
<p>This week JFTR will host a discussion of Feeling Like A Feminist Fraud. The discussion will be organized around 4 questions.</p><p>Sept 21Are Feminist Fraudulent Feelings Useful?</p><p>Sept 22What is "feminist accountability?"</p><p>Sept 23How do scholars translate feminist theory into research practice?</p><p>Sept 24 What does it mean to be a "scholar committed to social justice?"</p>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Robert Hughes, Jr.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
exploring-feminist-family-scholarship-discussion
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
September 18, 2015
-
https://archive.ncfr.org/files/original/2a90229e1b4fbcd7168fa68f67333ad3.pdf
685533823afe7e6803e853e1903355a5
PDF Text
Text
Hello World!
by Robert Hughes, Jr., Ph.D., professor, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign
Posted by Robert Hughes | August 26, 2015
According to Wikipedia, the first computer program that many firsttime
programmers learn is how to get the computer to produce the phrase
—“Hello, World!” So it is on this note the Journal of Family Theory &
Review says, “Hello World!.” This blog is part of a social media
experiment to explore new media approaches to participatory and
engaged scholarship about family theory and research.
Conducting Conversations in Public Online
Spaces
Our first step in building an online, engaged conversation is this blog
space at NCFR.org to host discussions about family theory.
There are many examples of this structure in the media—articles
followed by the opportunity for readers to comment about the author’s
views. Initially, we will select articles and authors that seem especially
likely to foster a robust discussion of their ideas. Our inaugural
discussion will focus on “Feeling Like Feminist Frauds” in the Sept 2015
issue of JFTR by Elizabeth Sharp and Shannon Weaver and the
accompanying commentaries of Leigh Leslie and Donna Sollie, Edith
Lewis, and Lee Ann De Reus.
To facilitate this process we have recruited a small Digital Scholarship Board who have agreed to be active
participants in this discussion and to share this conversation. We invite all the authors, readers, and
editorial board members of this journal to take this journey with us.
Follow the Journal of Family Theory & Review on Facebook and Twitter.
National Council on Family Relations | 1201 West River Parkway · Suite 200 · Minneapolis, MN 55454 · 888.781.9331
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | © 2017. All rights reserved.
Web design by Gorton Studios
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
JFTR Blog
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
jftr-blog
Description
An account of the resource
<p>The <a href="https://www.ncfr.org/jftr" target="_blank"><em>Journal of Family Theory and Review</em></a> (JFTR) Blog is designed to facilitate the exchange and sharing of the thoughtful discussions of issues regarding family theory, integrative ideas, and methods. Family scholars, media and the general public are invited to participate in rigorous, thoughtful conversations.</p>
<p>The team members managing this blog are <a href="mailto:hughesro@illinois.edu">Robert Hughes, Jr.</a>, the journal's digital scholarship editor; Libby Balter Blume, editor of JFTR; and Natalie D. Hengstebeck and Jeremy B. Kanter, JFTR Digital Scholarship Board members.</p>
<p>You can also find JFTR on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/jftrpage" target="_blank">Facebook</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/jftr_ncfr" target="_blank">Twitter</a>.</p>
<p><em>The views expressed in this blog may not represent the views of the entire NCFR organization.</em></p>
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Hello World!
Description
An account of the resource
This blog is part of a social media experiment to explore new media approaches to participatory and engaged scholarship about family theory and research.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Robert Hughes, Jr., Ph.D., professor, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
hello-world
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
August 26, 2015