An Analysis of Comparative Perspectives on Economic Empowerment among Employment-Seeking Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) and Service Providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare perspectives on economic empowerment in the context of employment seeking among intimate partner violence (IPV) survivors and service providers specializing in IPV-related trauma. This study addressed the following question is: How do employment-seeking IPV survivors and service providers conceptualize and understand empowerment? Insights into how each group conceives of economic empowerment and its attainment following IPV experiences can help to inform an effective service curriculum that can be used to facilitate optimal employment outcomes among survivors. Methods: A constructivist grounded theory method was used to develop a theoretical framework for conceptualizing how economic empowerment is understood by employment-seeking survivors of IPV, and IPV service providers. Twenty-six participants were recruited (survivors, n = 16; service providers, n = 10) in a large northeastern U.S. city. Interview questions focused on how IPV survivors and service providers identify and conceptualize economic empowerment, and how support services respond to survivors’ needs around empowerment, particularly through help with employment seeking. Results: Data were coded and analyzed following data analysis stages: (a) initial coding; (b) constant comparison; and, (c) focused coding. Three main themes emerged from the narrative data: (1) structural characteristics shape individual experiences and perspectives of empowerment; (2) peer support as an integral component to empowerment; and (3) employment attainment as economic empowerment. Though perspectives on economic empowerment were often aligned, some key differences emerged. Whereas providers tended toward a more restricted, micro-level view of empowerment as primarily an attribute of the individual, survivors were inclined toward a structuralist perspective that considers how individuals’ experiences of empowerment are shaped by broader, institutional-level factors. Conclusions: Findings from this study build on prior research on the experiences of IPV survivors. The focus on experiences of empowerment in the context of employment-seeking can inform work on building more effective support services for survivors that avoid reductionist approaches that could be perceived by survivors as “victim-blaming” by incorporating a sensitivity to empowerment as derived from structural factors that shape individual experience.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".