How social workers in community health care understand and respond to concerns of intimate partner abuse in the lives of older women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Guided by a feminist intersectionality framework and conducted within an action research paradigm, this dissertation reports on how social workers in community health care respond to concerns of intimate partner abuse in the lives of older women. The study was undertaken in 18 publicly-funded community health and social services agencies (CLSCs) in Quebec, Canada. Interviews were carried out with 30 social workers and three focus groups were held with some of the same social workers. In this dissertation, I argue that social workers in community health care might benefit from using certain theoretical frameworks, as they tend to see older women as a homogeneous group, view older women's agency as problematic, and lack a cohesive understanding of the problem of intimate partner abuse -- all of which leaves them less than optimally equipped for intervention. Furthermore, certain features of intimate partner abuse at the intersection of gender, age, and disability can make intervention very complex. As a result, social workers tend to view intimate partner abuse in the lives of older women as an intractable problem, rife with double-binds, contradictions, and tensions, which can leave them feeling powerless. In the first three chapters of this dissertation I present the study's theoretical framework, its location within the empirical scholarship on intimate partner abuse, and the methods used. I also provide background information on the Quebec context of practice. Chapters 4 and 5 are empirical chapters reporting the findings as they relate to social workers' understandings and their responses. Chapter 6 is the concluding chapter and discusses the three principal findings. The first key finding was that the practice setting shapes social workers' understandings of and responses to the problem. The second key finding was that social workers could benefit from certain theoretical frameworks that would greatly enhance their practice. The third finding is that social workers view intimate partner abuse as both enduring and changing in form, frequency, and intensity over time. The implications for theory, practice, and research are offered for each key finding.
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 | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".