Mothering in the context of intimate partner violence: A feminist intersectional critique of the nursing literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To describe how mothers and mothering in the context of IPV are conceptualized in the nursing research and practice literature with attention to underlying ideologies, biases and potential harms. DESIGN: Feminist intersectionality was used as a theoretical and analytic lens. DATA SOURCES: Articles published between 2000 and 2021 in the nursing literature, identified by searching Google Scholar, CINAHL, PubMed and Scopus databases, and conducting bibliographic reviews of published articles. REVIEW METHODS: Search terms included: intimate partner violence, domestic violence, parenting, mother and nursing. Initial screening resulted in inclusion of 98 papers for analysis. RESULTS: Four dominant ways of conceptualizing mothering in the context of IPV were identified: (1) IPV is conceptualized as a discrete acute event and/or crisis, (2) mothering is treated as a practice, (3) mothers are valued as vehicles for child health and well-being and (4) mothers are seen as vulnerable and 'at risk'. These narrow constructions are rooted in ideologies such as normative motherhood, deficit and grit/resilience and neoliberalism. Emerging shifts in the literature are providing an important counter-balance. CONCLUSION: Biases in nursing knowledge about mothering in the context of IPV may limit nursing's capacity to support the health of these women and their children. The integration of emerging perspectives that emphasize strengths and equity is critical in strengthening nursing knowledge and practice and in beginning to redress existing limitations and potential harms. IMPACT: This critique focused on higher-income countries of the Global North but raises fundamental questions that should be considered in other contexts. Applying broader conceptualizations of mothers, mothering and IPV to research and practice can help improve the quality of care available.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".