“We Can Be Oppressed but That Does Not Mean We Cannot Fight Oppression”: Narratives of Resilience and Advocacy From Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Helping others has been identified as an important component in recovery and resilience for women following intimate partner violence (IPV). However, little is known about the experiences of women who are IPV survivors and who also engage in formal and informal violence against women (VAW) advocacy work, such as supporting IPV survivors in a social work role or volunteering on VAW advocacy committees. Using in-depth semistructured interviews with nine “survivor–advocates” who were part of a larger study on IPV and resilience, this study extends the existing literature to examine the multidirectional relationship between IPV, advocacy work, and resilience using narrative analysis. Three distinct narratives were identified in survivor–advocates’ accounts of their experiences of abuse and advocacy work. The working through the abuse narrative focused on using the knowledge and experience from advocacy work that began prior to IPV to critically reflect on the abuse and its meaning for women. The second narrative, helping others , focused on using personal experiences of abuse to help other IPV survivors. The third narrative, personal strength , focused on a personal identity as a lifelong advocate and inner strength and determination as central to resilience. The findings of this study demonstrate the multitude of ways that engaging in advocacy work interacts with abuse experiences and women’s recovery and resilience processes. The findings of this study can inform approaches for promoting resilience and recovery for IPV survivors and highlight the importance of cultivating a critical understanding of abuse to support resilience and recovery following IPV.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".