“Like Opening Up Old Wounds”: Conceptualizing Intersectional Trauma Among Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite increasing acknowledgment of intimate partner violence (IPV) as a potentially traumatic experience, there is a gap in research investigating women's perspectives of trauma related to their experiences of IPV from an intersectional lens. Intersectionality, which illuminates interconnected inequalities due to constructions of race, gender, sexuality, class, and culture, is particularly important for exploring the broader contexts of women's experiences of IPV and trauma. In response to this dearth in research, this paper presents qualitative findings from a constructivist grounded theory study of 15 women's experiences of IPV and trauma. To conceptualize IPV-related trauma from an intersectional lens, this study addressed the following research questions: (a) How do women who have experienced IPV understand and view trauma? (b) What do women who have experienced IPV indicate are experiences of trauma? and (c) How do women's differing identities, experiences of oppression, or other hardships or adversities relate to their experiences of IPV? Through analysis, six distinct themes were identified: (a) changing perceptions of trauma; (b) the pain of trauma; (c) fear, anxiety, and triggers; (d) lasting impact of trauma; (e) struggle for acceptance; and (f) growth and insight. Implications from these findings illustrate the pervasiveness of IPV and other forms of trauma among women who have been abused by a partner, the long-lasting traumatic impacts of IPV, and the multiple experiences of being blamed and not believed that many women have experienced. These findings represent first steps in understanding the relationship between IPV and trauma from the perspectives of women who have survived IPV, offering an important contribution to previous knowledge on IPV. As well, this study provides first steps in understanding the interacting, intersectional effects of multiple forms of adversity, oppression, and IPV, and their relationships to trauma.
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".