Religious, Practical and Future-Oriented Coping Strategies to End Intimate Partner Violence: An In-Depth Examination of Ultraorthodox Israeli Women’s Narratives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose Much attention has been devoted to the ways in which women have made sense of, worked through, coped with, and recovered from Intimate Partner Violence (IPV), but the insights of survivors affiliated with religious minorities are scarce. The purpose of this study is to advance understandings and practices concerning the coping experiences of Ultraorthodox women (UJW) survivors of IPV. Using descriptive phenomenological methodology, in-depth semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with 15 Ultraorthodox Israeli women who identified themselves as survivors of IPV. Methods The research design and data analysis were inspired by a phenomenological approach to document, analyze, and understand these women’s subjective experiences on this heretofore under-studied topic. Shenton’s four criteria were assessed to promote the current study’s rigor and trustworthiness. Results Thematic analysis revealed three core themes and seven related sub-themes: (1) Devoting time to spiritual activities (sub-themes: daily prayers and attending Jewish classes); (2) Finding inspiration in a role model (sub-themes: a woman who survived IPV, a well-appreciated rabbi); and, (3) Planning the future (sub-themes: commitment to a new project, helping other women to cope with IPV, and commitment to the future and well-being of their children). Conclusions An integrative synthesis of the findings reveals two distinctive forms of coping: spiritual-based and practical-based coping strategies, that demonstrate the survivors’ multifaceted perceptions and coping narrative with IPV. The strengths and limitations of this study are addressed along with implications for practice and theory.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".