See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/338515779

Understanding Women’s Resistance to Intimate Partner Violence: A Scoping

Review

Article  in  Trauma Violence & Abuse · January 2020

DOI: 10.1177/1524838019897345

CITATIONS READS
17 1,199

2 authors:

Valli Rajah Max Osborn

City University of New York - John Jay College of Criminal Justice Villanova University
32 PUBLICATIONS   804 CITATIONS    9 PUBLICATIONS   51 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

LGBTQIA+ Individuals' Encounters with Police: Contextual Factors, Help Seeking, and Service Needs View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Max Osborn on 27 August 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Review Article
TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE
1-15
Understanding Women’s Resistance ª The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
to Intimate Partner Violence: DOI: 10.1177/1524838019897345
journals.sagepub.com/home/tva
A Scoping Review

Valli Rajah1 and Max Osborn1

Abstract
Scholars widely acknowledge that women oppose male violence and control in intimate relationships. Yet there is limited
comprehensive knowledge of how resistance features in intimate partner violence (IPV) research across the social sciences. Our
scoping review helps fill this gap, analyzing and synthesizing 74 research articles published in English-language scholarly journals
between 1994 and 2017. Our review is guided by the following questions: (1) How is research on IPV and resistance designed and
executed? (2) How do IPV researchers define the term resistance? (3) What specific types of resistance do IPV researchers
discuss in their work? (4) What policy and practice implications are provided by current literature on women’s resistance to IPV?
We find that scholarship on resistance to IPV is varied, spanning 10 scholarly disciplines with research samples drawn from 19
countries. Studies overwhelmingly used qualitative data, gathered through a range of techniques. The 42 articles that explicitly or
implicitly defined resistance either conceptualized the term in the context of power relations, defined it as a form of agency, or
understood resistance as a mechanism of physical, economic, and existential survival. Articles also identify several subtypes of
resistance strategies including avoidance, help-seeking, active opposition, violent action, and leaving a violent relationship. In terms
of practice and policy, articles identify several ways in which institutions fail to meet women’s needs, and recommend training so
providers and legal personnel may better assist IPV victims.

Keywords
intimate partner violence, domestic violence, resistance, agency, power, context, scoping review

Violence against women is a substantial social, health, and
criminal justice concern. Intimate partner violence (IPV)
involves behaviors that cause physical, psychological, or sex-
ual harm to those in a relationship (Wood et al., 2019). Many
researchers characterize IPV as a gender-based crime because
of its prevalence among women—globally, 30% of women
aged 15 years and older have been victimized by intimate
partners (Devries et al., 2013; World Health Organization,
2013). While early IPV research employed a victimization
framework that emphasized individuals’ inability to challenge
the dominance of violent partners, more recent scholarship has
moved away from this and toward a nuanced understanding of
IPV, which accounts for a range of oppositional behaviors by
which partner violence may be resisted (Abraham, 2005).
Research on resistance in the context of IPV is a part of a
vast body of social science scholarship, which investigates
resistance as a social and organizational phenomenon (Cour-
passon & Valles, 2016; Lilja & Vinthagen, 2018). Spanning
several scholarly disciplines, such as sociology, anthropology,
history, and cultural studies, this research addresses the nature
of resistance, the conditions under which it occurs, and what
effects, if any, it has on facilitating social change. While sub-
stantively and conceptually eclectic, much of this scholarship
embraces two core assumptions (Courpasson & Valles, 2016).
First, it assumes that domination and an acceptance of its
legitimacy can never be complete or totalizing. Second, this
scholarship assumes that resistance varies in its scale (spanning
macro- and micro-level processes), openness (including covert
and overt practices), and intent (involving relatively passive as
well as more active efforts; Courpasson & Valles, 2016; Lilja
& Vinthagen, 2018). Resistance scholarship has expanded and
evolved over time to include investigations of both organized/
collective and individualized efforts. Because individualized
resistance may be hard to recognize and conceptually difficult
to pin down, a few researchers have attempted to outline and
clarify underlying assumptions of research in this area (Hol-
lander & Einwohner, 2004; Johansson & Vinthagen, 2016).
1
John Jay College of Criminal Justice, The Graduate Center, City University of
New York, NY, USA
Corresponding Author:
Valli Rajah, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, The Graduate Center, City
University of New York, 524 West 59th Street, Room 636.03, Haaren Hall,
New York, NY 10019, USA.
Email: vrajah@jjay.cuny.edu
2 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE XX(X)
This work recognizes that, in daily life, individuals oppose both
repressive forms of domination (like violence) and the mechan-
isms that regulate knowledge, customs, and habits to sustain
power inequities and oppression (Courpasson & Valles, 2016;
Lilja & Vinthagen, 2018). A critical insight here is that the
particular forms of domination being opposed and what is at
stake for the individuals involved all shape why and how peo-
ple engage in resistance (Courpasson & Valles, 2016; Lilja &
Vinthagen, 2018).
The growing body of scholarship on women’s resistance to
IPV reflects an evolution in scholarly perspectives on women
who suffer partner violence. In the 1970s and 1980s, IPV scho-
larship largely conceptualized women as victims and/or fore-
grounded victim-focused language in their analyses (Bowker,
1983; Gondolf & Fisher, 1988; Walker, 1979). This perspective
was most pronounced in well-recognized theories of learned
helplessness that psychologized abuse as a “women’s problem”
where, due to their childhood experiences, women either
become conditioned to tolerate violence or learn to respond
aggressively to interpersonal conflict, thereby increasing their
risk of victimization by intimate partners. As a counterpoint,
feminist researchers argued that macrocultural and structural
arrangements—and not those related to individuals—best
explain the violent victimization of women by their intimate
partners (Dobash & Dobash, 1979). The latter approach helped
lay the foundation for a conceptual shift in IPV research that
embraced survivor-focused language, in the 1990s. This
research framed women involved in situations of partner
violence as “survivors” who are angry, resourceful and,
despite their vulnerabilities, capable of demonstrating
agency, understood as the capacity to act for oneself
(Mahoney, 1994).
Women’s agency in the context of IPV has been recognized
in a body of research on a set of constructs that are associated
with resistance including empowerment (“the process by which
those who have been denied the ability to make strategic life
choices acquire such an ability” [Kabeer, 1999]), resilience (“a
combination of abilities and characteristics that interact dyna-
mically to allow an individual to bounce back, cope success-
fully, and function above the norm in spite of significant stress
or adversity” [Tusaie & Dyer, 2004), and coping (“a range of
cognitive and behavioral strategies used to reduce, minimize,
master, or tolerate the internal and external demands of a stress-
ful or threatening situation” [Rizo et al., 2017]), which have all
been the topics of systematic and/or conceptual reviews. Our
review of women’s resistance to IPV adds to this existing body
of scholarship.
To better understand the ways in which the concept of resis-
tance features in the interdisciplinary research literature on
IPV, we undertake a systematic analysis and synthesis of exist-
ing knowledge. This approach, often called a “scoping review,”
is particularly useful for mapping concepts, forms of evidence,
and identifying gaps in scholarly research. Our work is guided
by the following questions: (1) How is research on IPV and
resistance designed and executed? (2) How do IPV researchers
define the term resistance? (3) What specific types of resistance
do IPV researchers discuss in their work? (4) What policy and
practice implications are provided by current literature on
women’s resistance to IPV?
Method
We conducted a scoping review and textual analysis of pub-
lished scholarly journal articles that addressed resistance
within the context of IPV. Scoping reviews allow for an effi-
cient and inclusive mapping of the existing literature on a
given topic (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Levac et al., 2010).
While a relatively new technique, with the most commonly
cited methodological guidelines published in 2005 (Arksey &
O’Malley), the number of scoping reviews in health and
social science literature has increased steadily since 2012
(Tricco et al., 2016).
Scoping reviews differ from systematic reviews in that their
inclusion criteria are not limited to specific research questions
or study designs; rather, a scoping review represents an attempt
to capture the full breadth and depth of research in a topic area,
regardless of methodology (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). This
comprehensiveness makes scoping reviews well suited to
exploring complex subjects spanning multiple disciplines and
to identifying gaps in existing literature (Peters et al., 2015).
Search Strategy
To identify our sample of published articles, we conducted
title, abstract, and keyword searches of three databases: Psy-
cINFO, Sociological Abstracts, and SCOPUS. Two sets of
search terms (“partner violence” þ “resistance” and “domestic
violence” þ “resistance”) were used, in order to allow for
variations in language and terminology related to IPV. Initially,
we had experimented with broader search terms. However, this
strategy yielded more results than we had the resources to
review and analyze; moreover, many of these items had little
relevance to our chosen topic and research questions. Results
were limited to English-language scholarly journals; no date
restrictions were specified. These initial searches, conducted in
March 2018, produced 135 articles from PsycINFO, 102 arti-
cles from Sociological Abstracts, and 137 articles from SCO-
PUS. These results were combined into a single list and
duplicates were removed, leaving a total of 240 articles.
Arksey and O’Malley (2005) describe the search process of
a scoping review as iterative and reflexive and detail a process
by which researchers relatively quickly appraised and excluded
unrelated search results, as they grew more familiar with the
literature and more easily honed in on relevant concepts. While
our search process was fairly linear overall, we did apply this
reflexivity to our initial appraisal of the articles produced by
our search terms. We manually reviewed the articles to exclude
book reviews, introductions to journal issues, commentaries
and responses, and non-English-language articles that had mis-
takenly appeared in the search results. Additionally, we
removed articles that we judged to fall outside the scope of this
study. For example, some articles used the term “resistance”
Rajah and Osborn
Step 1: PsycINFO,
Sociological Abstracts,
& SCOPUS searches
Sociological Abstracts:
PsycINFO: 135 articles
Step 2: Combination of
search results to exclude
duplicates
Step 3: Manual screening &
exclusion of articles that do
not discuss resistance and
IPV
Figure 1. Search strategy.
exclusively in contexts unrelated to IPV, such as drug resis-
tance, political resistance movements, or mental health clients’
resistance to receiving treatment. Following this review pro-
cess, we arrived at a final sample of 74 articles (see Figure 1 for
a visual representation of our search process.)
Data Analysis
For our coding and analysis process, we employed both induc-
tive and deductive approaches to extract data for our review.
We coded and analyzed research articles in four steps. In the
first step, we read through identified articles and created a set of
categories to address two broad questions: “How does resis-
tance appear in this article?” and “What are the characteristics
of this research?” In the former case, we created categories for
the definition, types/strategies, processes, and meanings asso-
ciated with resistance. In the latter case, we identified cate-
gories such as scholarly discipline, methodology used, and
policy and practice suggestions offered. In the second step,
we integrated the data by assigning small segments of our texts,
individual lines, or paragraphs, to appropriate categories.
Third, we refined our initial set of categories (and their coded
segments) by subdividing the labels based on our understand-
ing of existing IPV and resistance scholarship. For instance,
during this step, we identified and subdivided data into several
specific types of resistance. Fourth, we summarized the themes
and identified illustrative quotes from each data file. Both
authors conferred with each other throughout the data analysis
process to modify the coding scheme and to resolve any dis-
crepancies in opinion.
3
+ +
SCOPUS: 137 articles
102 articles
240 articles
74 articles
Study Limitations
Before discussing our results, it is important to recognize two
limitations to our research concerning our study sample. The
articles included research conducted in 19 countries, spanning
Asia, Central and South America, North America, Oceania, and
the Caribbean. Reviewed articles, however, were typically
based on samples drawn from the United States, Canada, and
the United Kingdom. The fact that our sample was Western-
centric is a limitation of our research. Like some authors we
reviewed, we believe there is a need for research on resistance
to IPV from various countries and cultures and across socio-
economic and political circumstances. Even so, it is worth
noting that we found some cross-cultural similarity in the sam-
ple we did review regarding gender expectations and violence.
Specifically, although the sampled articles covered a wide vari-
ety of cultures and communities, each with its own distinct set
of traditions, women’s experience of being constrained by
expectations regarding adherence to gender norms was preva-
lent throughout the areas studied, including countries in North
America, Latin America, Southeast Asia, and Africa. The spe-
cifics of the expectations placed on women varied depending
on the cultural context.
Another limitation of our research is its focus on heterosex-
ual relationships and male violence toward women. We did not
decide to limit our work in this manner; this is simply a reflec-
tion of the research identified through our review process. It is
important to note, however, that research shows that partner
violence occurs in intimate relationships of all types and that
female partners may be violent aggressors in their relation-
ships. Presumably, resistance also occurs in relationships of all
4 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE XX(X)

Table 1. Discipline and Geographic Focus. Table 2. Methods Used.

Variable N (%) Variable N (%)

Discipline Methodology (N ¼ 74)

Public health/nursing 10 (13.5) Qualitative 46 (62.2)
Criminology/criminal justice 6 (8.1) Quantitative 13 (17.6)
Women’s studies/family studies 32 (43.2) Theoretical article 10 (13.5)
Geography/area studies 3 (4.1) Practice recommendations 4 (5.4)
Psychology/therapy 4 (5.4) Review paper 1 (1.4)
Law 2 (2.7) Qualitative method (N ¼ 46)
Theology/religion 3 (4.1) Focus groups 5 (10.9)
Social sciences 3 (4.1) Interviews/personal narratives 28 (60.9)
Social work 4 (5.4) Case study 3 (6.5)
Sociology 3 (4.1) Thematic discourse analysis 2 (4.3)
Other 4 (5.4) Field research 2 (4.3)
Geographic region Multiple methods 6 (13.0)
Africa 9 (12.2) Quantitative method (N ¼ 13)
Asia 6 (8.1) Self-report measures/surveys 7 (53.8)
Central & South America 5 (6.8) Program evaluation 1 (7.7)
Europe 6 (8.1) Secondary data analysis 3 (23.1)
North America 36 (48.6) Multiple methods 2 (15.4)
Oceania 1 (1.4)
Caribbean 1 (1.4) Note. N ¼ 74.
Multiple countries 2 (2.7)
No geographic focus 8 (10.8) percentile. If a journal was not included in the Journal Citation
Reports, the article in question was coded according to the
discipline in which the first author earned their most advanced
types. In addition, while some of the sampled articles acknowl-
degree. While a wide range of disciplines was represented in
edged female violence as a form of resistance to male violence,
the current sample, the most common was women’s and family
these pieces tended to conceptualize men as the aggressors.
studies, which provided 43.2% of the articles.
None of the pieces we reviewed focused on female violence
The articles included research conducted in 19 countries (see
toward men and male resistance or on resistance to violence in
Table 1). A plurality (41.9%) of articles used population samples
same-gender relationships. We recognize the reasons for this
drawn from the United States; the second most prevalent indi-
orientation—which include the broad sociocultural support for
vidual countries of origin were Canada (6.8%) and the United
male violence against women and the fact that, relative to men,
Kingdom (6.8%). (However, it should be noted that three studies
women suffer more severe forms of violent victimization at the
conducted in the United States and one conducted in the UK
hands of their heterosexual partners. Even so, more research is
focused on immigrants from specific countries or regions.) Two
needed that examines the dynamics of male resistance to
papers (2.7%) discussed findings from multiple countries, and
female violence in intimate relationships.
eight (10.8%) papers, all of which were theoretical rather than
empirical, did not specify a country in terms of focus.
Results
Sample Characteristics (Discipline and Study Designs and Methodologies
Geographic Focus) Study designs were overwhelmingly qualitative in terms of meth-
The 74 articles included in the final sample were published odology rather than quantitative (see Table 2). The sample also
between 1994 and 2017. The number of articles published per included articles that did not present original empirical research,
year within this time span ranged from zero to nine, with a including 10 theoretical papers (13.5%), 4 papers focused
mean of three. Articles were published in 50 separate journals; primarily on practice recommendations for therapists and other
the most frequently represented journal was Violence Against service providers (5.4%), and 1 review paper (1.4%). The most
Women (nine articles), followed by Feminism & Psychology frequently used qualitative method was interviewing (28, or
(three articles) and the Journal of Interpersonal Violence (three 60.9% of qualitative articles), while the most frequently used
articles). Identified articles are marked with an asterisk in the quantitative method was administering self-report measures or
references. surveys to participants (7, or 53.8% of quantitative articles).
The discipline for each journal was determined according to
its categorization in the Clarivate Analytics InCite Journal
Citation Reports (see Table 1). When a journal was listed
Definitions of Resistance
within two or more disciplines, it was coded according to the To address our second research question, we examined how
discipline within which it had the highest journal impact factor IPV researchers use the term resistance in their work. Nearly a
Rajah and Osborn
Table 3. Discussion of Resistance.
Variable N (%)
Definition of resistance
Explicit 23 (31.1)
Implicit 19 (25.7)
None 32 (43.2)
Resistance strategies discussed
Help-seeking 39 (52.7)
Covert resistance 10 (13.5)
Active opposition 15 (20.3)
Leaving 38 (51.4)
Violence 27 (36.5)
Number of strategies discussed
0 18 (24.3)
1 16 (21.6)
2 23 (31.1)
3 14 (18.9)
4 3 (4.1)
Note. N ¼ 74. Percentages for resistance strategies discussed do not add up to
100%.
third of the articles (23, or 31.1%) provided an explicit opera-
tional definition of the term resistance, while 19 others (25.7%)
suggested implicit definitions through context and the use of
related terms (see Table 3). These definitions can be seen in
Table 4. The remaining 32 articles (43.2%) did not attempt to
define resistance, either explicitly or implicitly.
The 42 articles that explicitly or implicitly defined resis-
tance offered a variety of perspectives on the term, which we
thematically grouped into three broad areas: (1) defining resis-
tance in the context of power relations, (2) conceptualizing
resistance as a form of agency, and (3) understanding resistance
as a mechanism of physical, economic, and existential survival.
Resistance and power relations. Twenty (47%) of the articles
highlighted the power dynamics within intimate relationships,
defining resistance as a form of opposition to violence and
control. Some of these articles conceptualized resistance
broadly as speaking and acting against domination and a pre-
vailing social order. In this view, male violence is an expres-
sion of the patriarchal values of society at large and of the
discrepancies in intimate relationships that they perpetuate
(Dobash & Dobash, 1979). Other articles defined women’s
resistance as specifically oppositional to male violence. The
articles that used this definition tended to zero in on specific
interactions to highlight how men use violence to maintain
power over women (McGee, 2017). In either case, many of
these texts emphasized the gendered dimensions of IPV that
shaped women’s understanding of their situations, their
decision-making processes, and their responses to violence.
Throughout these articles, women described both external
social pressure to conform to gender role expectations and their
internalization of normative ideas about appropriate female
behavior. Several articles documented how women are specif-
ically charged with preserving the harmony of the family
sphere through silent acceptance and endurance, while their
5
male partners are viewed as the uncontested heads of the house-
hold. In this context, any physical demonstration of resistance
may be viewed as disruptive and an indication that the victim
has failed to meet gender expectations (Allen & Raghallaigh,
2013; Campbell & Mannell, 2016; Cavanagh, 2003; Khoury &
Webhi, 2016; Rajah, 2006).
Rather than focusing on the ways that men exercise power
over women, other articles defined resistance in terms of the
power dynamics that exist within violent intimate relation-
ships. For instance, Parker and Gielen (2014) argued that
resistance “consists of strategies meant to change the abuser’s
behavior as well as shift the balance of power by challenging
his perception of control” (p. 584). In their analyses, articles
that defined resistance in terms of power negotiations still
tended to recognize that the balance of power in heterosexual
relationships tilts in men’s favor because they may not only
possess greater material and symbolic resources but also
enjoy social and cultural support for their use of violence
against intimate partners (Parker & Gielen, 2014). The arti-
cles in this section tended to examine the broader context of
constraints on women, viewing their responses to IPV as rela-
tional in nature by illustrating how the ways in which women
negotiate power are contoured within the contexts of main-
taining connections with family members and broader social
networks, including their connections within religious insti-
tutions. For instance, Khoury and Webhi (2016) conducted a
study with Lebanese women who had left violent relation-
ships. When describing their responses to IPV, participants
emphasized the importance of marriage as a cultural institu-
tion and the need to “save face” and maintain one’s dignity
during a divorce.
When defining resistance in terms of power dynamics, some
articles adopted a continuum- or spectrum-based view, depict-
ing resistance as intertwined with all forms of everyday power
that are constantly shifting (Johansson & Vinthagen, 2016). In
this view, resistance is an ongoing part of a fluid process where
domination and resistance are interconnected. As explained by
Faria (2017), “violence and resistance are knitted-
together . . . [and resistance] may at once creatively challenge
violence, incite violence, and/or work to make life livable
within violent settings” (p. 4). The articles that adopted a fluid
approach to power and resistance specified the mechanisms by
which resistance may produce change. For instance, in the
context of daily power negotiations, women may challenge and
reverse stereotypes and attach new meanings to conduct in their
relationships. Such seemingly small acts help to undermine
repressive institutions, thereby helping people to alter their
desires and ways of doing things, which ultimately enable them
to recreate themselves.
Beginning with a conceptualization of resistance as part of
negotiated power relations, much of the research we grouped in
this section marshaled data to implicitly or explicitly challenge
the notion that women occupy specific subject positions or
identities in the context of IPV. As explained by van Schalk-
wyk et al. (2014), rather than transitioning from the role of
“victim” to that of “survivor” along a simple linear trajectory,
6 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE XX(X)

Table 4. Definitions of Resistance.

Author(s) Year Explicit Definition Implicit Definition

Allen and 2013 “any attempt to imagine or establish a life based on respect —
Raghallaigh and equality”
Ammar 2000 — “The more recent understanding of the phenomenon is
that women who ‘fight back’ are resisting their
oppression.”
Anderson 2014 “private attempts to impact the abuser’s behavior by —
et al. challenging his control”
Anderson 2017 — Resistance scale includes:
et al. “Left home to get away from him/her
Ended (or tried to end) the relationship
Slept separately
Used/threatened to use weapon against him/her
Fought back physically
Refused to do what he/she said
Fought back verbally”
Belknap 1999 — “Speaking and acting against domination”
Campbell and 2016 — “the myriad of ways in which women counteract violent
Mannell behavior while remaining within their relationship”
Cavanagh 2003 — Strategies employed by women “to counter men’s
attempts to control them”
Chantler 2006 — “attempts for survival and control within the relationship”
Crann and 2016 “Resistance is being used as a broad term to reflect —
Barata women’s active capacity to oppose, avoid, and push back
against the abuse and its negative effects, the abuser and
abusive relationships, and the broader social
environment that upholds social and cultural norms of
violence against women.”
Critelli 2012 “Women made efforts to resist and gain control over the —
conditions with which they were confronted in ways that
they could. They made calculated assessments of ways to
maximize their safety, such as appeasing and
accommodating the husbands and extended families,
refraining from requests for money, and suppressing
their complaints, and did their best to cope through
prayer or hope for the future of their children.”
Davis 2007 — “In the face of IPV and economic hardship, women
strategize their survival to remain free of violence and
achieve economic security.”
Faria 2017 — “Violence and resistance are knitted-together here, with
attention to mundane, quiet, and/or indirect practices of
resistance that are often ignored in the literature and in
life. These may at once creatively challenge violence,
incite violence, and/or work to make life livable within
violent settings (Datta, 2016).”
“This approach also recognizes everyday resistance [ . . . ]
‘small acts” (Pain, 2014b, p. 128) against both state-based
and intimate patriarchal violence”
Geiger 2002 “Subjects can resist each other’s influence, block, or —
reverse any relationship of guidance, direction, or
power. They remain free to choose from a field of
possible actions. Foucault’s work emphasizes the
cardinal dimension of resistance when he notes that ‘As
soon as there is a relation of power, there is a possibility
of resistance.’” (p. 13)
Gondolf 2012 — “women’s aggression in clinical samples tends to be ‘violent
resistance’ against their male partner’s ‘intimate
terrorism’”
Goodman 2005 — “resistance strategies, which are intended to change
et al. batterer behavior and, possibly, the balance of power in
the relationship, by challenging his sense of control”
(continued)
Rajah and Osborn 7

Table 4. (continued)

Author(s) Year Explicit Definition Implicit Definition

Hayes 2013 — “women engage in certain behaviors throughout abusive

relationships to show they are not passive and/or
helpless”
Hyden 2005 — “Could it also be [ . . . ] that this resistance often takes
subtle, indirect expression and is not always culturally
predictable? And could it be that the dominant cultural
discourses of resistance are based on such
preconceptions about what characterizes resistance that
they allow no space for everyday resistance as it has to
be exerted by a person living in a close relationship with
her perpetrator?”
Johnson 2006 “[O]ne can be violent and noncontrolling but in a —
relationship with a violent and controlling partner. Given
that the behavior of the partner suggests an attempt to
exert general control, I labeled this type of violence
violent resistance.”
Kelly and 2008 “The term Violent Resistance posits the reality that both —
Johnson women and men may, in attempts to get the violence to
stop or to stand up for themselves, react violently to
their partners who have a pattern of Coercive
Controlling Violence.”
Khoury and 2016 — The study discussed in this article sought to specifically
Webhi examine women’s decisions to leave an abusive
relationship as an act of agency and resistance.
Klostermann 2009 “[V]iolent resistance, is characterized by violence that —
et al. occurs in response to a partner’s violent and controlling
behavior (e.g., intimate terrorism). In these cases, the
resistor is violent but not controlling.”
Lazar 2008 — “battered women act in various ways against the violence
and are making choices within the context of oppression
and abuse”
Lewis et al. 2000 — “a strategic response to domestic violence”
Lewis et al. 2001 — “the small, routine and private or the grand, dramatic, and
public ways in which women challenge men’s abuse”
Lilja and Baaz 2016 “In this paper, ‘resistance’ is understood as a response to —
power from below, a subaltern practice that could
challenge, negotiate and undermine power, or such a
practice performed on behalf of and/or in solidarity with
a subaltern (proxy resistance). Resistance is thus (1) an
act, (2) performed by a subaltern or someone acting on
behalf of and/or in solidarity with a subaltern, (3) (most
often) responding to power, in situations where (4) this
action, at least in theory has the possibility to undermine
the power challenged.”
Mills 2016 — “careful navigation of precarious life in the face of obdurate
inequality and persistent structural violence”
Muftic et al. 2007 “using violence as a defensive mechanism against abusive —
partners”
Pain 2016a — “[R]esistance is never in straightforward opposition to
violence but exists in messy and dynamic relation and
may also be an intimate practice. In situations of
domestic violence, resistance is necessarily private and
small scale, not always planned and strategic, but may be
faltering and unanticipated.”
Pain 2016b “actions taken to counter or reduce violence” —
“I have argued that resistance here consists of acts,
moments, and interventions that, though small and quiet,
still contribute to a wider process that ultimately may
lead to change.”
(continued)
8 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE XX(X)

Table 4. (continued)

Author(s) Year Explicit Definition Implicit Definition

Parker and 2014 “strategies meant to change the abuser’s behavior as well as —
Gielen shift the balance of power by challenging his perception
of control (e.g., fighting back physically)”
Paterson 2009 “Resistance is defined as any activity with which women —
attempt to reduce or eliminate violence and can be
conceptualized along a continuum.”
Piedalue 2017 “plural resistance—that is, a complex set of social —
movement processes through which antiviolence
workers contest multiple forms of violence
simultaneously. These multiple forms include violence
women experience in the home, but also forms of
structural and state violence that subaltern, Muslim
families, and communities are subjected to in everyday
life”
Profitt 1994 “The Collective described resistance as ‘ruptures’ or —
‘breaks’ in women’s attitudes and actions, which result in
new ways of dealing with oppressive situations.”
Pyscher 2017 — “Scott (1990) suggests that hegemony not only be thought
of as an ideological experience for the marginalized but
rather that the hegemonic experience is consciously
recognized and resisted in both low and high forms of
expression.”
Rajah 2006 “Here, resistance is defined as the conscious effort to —
subvert or countermand patriarchal control and the
symbolic meanings that support it.”
Rajah 2007 “nonconformist behavior that questions the legitimacy of a —
prevailing social order”
Rosen et al. 2005 “Violent resistance is a pattern of violence in which the —
victim, using nonviolent and violent acts, retaliates
against a partner’s attempts to control.”
Sen 1996 “Where [women] responded [to violence] in ways which —
challenged men—either physically or verbally—I have
considered this to be resistance”
Sharp 2014 “Behaviorally, resistance consists of victims confronting —
their abusers with their own interpretations of the
doctrine that negate abusers’ control-motivated
interpretations.”
“victims’ active struggles, both violent and nonviolent,
against coercive control by their partners”
van 2014 “In this paper, we conceptualize resistance as an active self- —
Schalkwyk construction strategy.”
et al.
Warner et al. 2004 “In this study, resistance is defined as any action taken or —
tactic employed by women to prevent, avoid, reduce, or
stop violence and/or abuse in intimate relationships.
Resistance may include a variety of tactics such as fighting
back, calling the police, threatening to leave, or even
seemingly passive behaviors like remaining silent in order
to avoid an argument or physical injury.”
Zweig et al. 2014 “Violent resistance captures the category of couples in —
which both partners are violent but only one is
controlling, perhaps indicating that a primary victim of
intimate terrorism is fighting back.”

a woman navigating a violent relationship may experience her Defining resistance as a form of agency. When defining resistance,
identity and her level of agency and the precise form that it 12 (29%) of the articles foregrounded women’s agency. Like
takes [as] fluid, depending on her life circumstances (McGee, resistance, agency is a contested and varied concept. While the
2017; van Schalkwyk et al., 2014). articles we reviewed used and drew upon on the term agency in
Rajah and Osborn
varying ways, they generally conceptualized resistance as an
individual’s active ability to make decisions and exert influ-
ence over their circumstances. As explained by Crann and
Barata (2016), “resistance is being used as a broad term to
reflect women’s active capacity to oppose, avoid, and push
back against the abuse and its negative effects, the abuser and
abusive relationships, and the broader social environment that
upholds social and cultural norms of violence against women”
(p. 860). A critical facet of many of the articles that we grouped
in this section is their understanding of women’s resistance as
conscious, intentional responses to male violence and control
(Hollander & Einwohner, 2004; McGee, 2017). In addition, in
line with much of existing IPV research, articles that empha-
sized agency in their definitions of resistance generally
acknowledged that, in the context of IPV, resistance involves
active negotiations within the context of constraints. A concep-
tualization of resistance as active, conscious, and negotiated
prompts researchers to specify the contextual factors that may
constraint or enable opposition to IPV, including a woman’s
surroundings, her relationships with those around her, her
access to resources, and her sense of self (van Schalkwyk
et al., 2014). Importantly, while many of the articles we
grouped in this section documented how cultural ideas and
their manifestation in institutional arrangements constrain
women’s agency (see below for more discussion), generally
speaking, the research suggested that across cultures, women
recognize that they are not responsible for the violence perpe-
trated against them by intimate partners, and such efforts yield
a variety of consequences, which help maintain women’s
safety, alter the power dynamics in their relationships, and/or
help sustain their intimate relationships.
Through their data, moreover, articles in this section impli-
citly or explicitly engaged with and contested fundamental
ideas about agency. Notably, these articles demonstrated that,
as a form of agency, resistance may be enacted differently from
one cultural context to another. For instance, in some contexts,
women may not act alone when they oppose violence (Khoury
& Wehbi, 2016; Profitt, 1994). In addition, rather than simply
focus on resistance as a demonstration of agency within dis-
crete and identifiable actions at specific moments, the research-
ers in this section demonstrated that agency is differently
distributed and over time and space (Campbell & Mannell,
2016). The research in this section teased out these complex-
ities by directing less attention to specific acts of resistance and
more attention to how women negotiate constraint to resist IPV.
Resistance as a mechanism of physical, economic, and existential
survival. Rather than focus on power relations and agency, 24%
of the authors, across 10 articles, conceptualized women’s
resistance as self-protective and oriented toward women’s eco-
nomic, physical, and existential survival. Commonly, the texts
we grouped in this section account for various reasons why
women’s relationships are significant to them. For women from
a variety of cultural and social circumstances, remaining in a
relationship is important for economic security, to maintain
family harmony and social support, and to sustain a sense of
9
personal dignity. For socially marginalized women, maintain-
ing one’s personal existence itself may be a form of resistance
(Lilja & Baaz, 2016). As Davis (2007) explains, “in the face of
IPV and economic hardship, women strategize their survival to
remain free of violence and achieve economic security” (p.
126). By looking at the ways in which highly vulnerable
women resist, these articles challenged the paradoxical yet
prevalent tendency to conceptualize agency and victimhood
as opposed, wherein “agency does not mean acting for oneself
under conditions of oppression; it means being without oppres-
sion, either having ended oppression or never having experi-
enced it at all” (Mahoney, 1994, p. 64).
A conceptualization of resistance as part of everyday sur-
vival prompts researchers to recognize that acts of resistance
vary in scope. The studies in this section show that resistance
involves small actions that allow a person to maintain some
sense of control and intentionality, including the choice to act
within established social institutions or to comply with certain
norms and expectations in order to protect oneself (Piedalue,
2017; Villalon, 2010). Through their analyses, moreover, these
articles demonstrated that a broad understanding of resistant
acts is warranted, as any of a number of resistant acts may be
the engine of change. As they work toward their survival, for
instance, women may imagine a different situation and stem
their fears about the possible consequences of further resis-
tance. All of this together helps alter women’s understanding
of what is possible and desirable. Finally, some articles in this
section went further to argue that acts of resistance are cumu-
lative and part of larger personal processes, wherein even the
smallest acts of resistance that are oriented toward survival
may ultimately be part of an active self-construction strategy,
which enables women to not only acknowledge their violent
partners’ actions but also redefine their sense of self (van
Schalkwyk et al., 2014).
The Nature and Forms of Resistance
Within broader discussions of resistance to IPV, many articles
included information on specific strategies or resistance sub-
types employed by victims against their abusers. In answer to
our third research question, we identified five types of resis-
tance. These included help-seeking, covert resistance, active
opposition, leaving, and violence. While some articles focused
on only one of the abovementioned strategies, most discussed
two or more of them (see Table 3). We look at each in turn.
Help-seeking. Thirty-nine articles suggested that, when manag-
ing and resisting violence, women engage in help-seeking, that
is, asking for assistance from either formal channels such as the
legal system, domestic violence shelters, or religious organiza-
tions or informal channels such as friends and family members.
Some researchers argued that, when resisting violence, women
seek outside help under specific conditions. For instance,
women may begin to use both individualized and outside
help-seeking resistance when their partners’ violence and con-
trol increases and becomes less personally manageable (Sharp,
10
2014). Alternatively, when the intensity of violence they suffer
increases, women’s resistance may progress from personalized,
individualized approaches to more public strategies, which
include soliciting outside assistance (Sharp, 2014). In other
words, help-seeking is typically part of a broader pattern of
resistance. However, they position women’s acts, the articles
we grouped in this section showed that partner violence, resis-
tance, and help-seeking are linked to interactions within a
woman’s social networks.
Covert resistance. Ten articles described the ways in which
women resisted violence though covert means, that is, tem-
porarily removing oneself from the abuser’s presence so as
not to be violently victimized or by strategically acting to
limit the likelihood that a partner would initiate violence.
Because they exist in situations of extreme risk to either them-
selves or their children, women may engage in acts of covert
or hidden resistance. Covert resistance may be a means by
which women acknowledge their own opposition, maintain
their personal dignity, and even expose male abuse. Through
these processes, women may improve their own and their
children’s lives. The scholarship that recognizes women’s
covert acts of resistance either conceptualizes these acts as
based on a conscious rational calculus about vulnerability and
the necessity of change or hints at a more complex dynamic
where women learn, internalize, and execute strategies of
action based on their sociocultural context and personal his-
tory. Whatever its source, the articles suggested that covert
action has unique rewards. As described by Rajah (2007),
“Covert action [ . . . ] provides protection from violent retalia-
tion, and because of its ambiguity, it also allows multiple
meanings to be attached to it, enabling a greater range of
actions to be taken in the future” (p. 198). Covert resistance
may be especially important when women strive to maintain a
violent relationship over time.
Active opposition, discussed in 15 articles, described ways
in which women directly challenged abusive partners’ control
over them using nonviolent methods, without physically
removing themselves from the situation or enlisting the help
of others. This might include refusing to comply with a demand
or verbally arguing with a partner, performing hostility, threa-
tening to leave, and refusing to accept a partner’s disapproval
of particular practices such as working or pursuing an educa-
tion. In these articles, agency is not merely construed as the
capacity to regulate one’s own actions, it also involves devel-
oping and maintaining an understanding of the self that encom-
passes strength and resilience. In many cases, active opposition
to IPV also involved women’s attempts to change their partners
and prompt them to recognize and acknowledge their own
harmful behavior. For instance, after her partner was violent,
one respondent reported to Cavanagh (2003) that she would
engage her partner in conversation. In her words, “I used to
talk about it [violence] as often as I could. I wanted him to
realise he had a problem and the only way I could make him
realise it was to bring it up, to say to him, ‘You have a problem,
I think we should talk about it’” (p. 237). A respondent in
TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE XX(X)
another study described the importance of maintaining firm
boundaries with an abusive partner: “You must put him in his
place and say, ‘You are not going to punch me, you are not
going to hit me, you are not going to offend me, to humiliate
me’” (Belknap, 1999, p. 884). These approaches contest the
tendency of many violent men to try to get their partners to
accept self-blame for their victimization.
Leaving. Thirty-eight articles recognized the role of resistance in
facilitating ending violent relationships. Several articles specif-
ically focused on women leaving, that is, making the final
decision to separate from an abusive partner and his violence.
Leaving and ending violent relationships is often understood as
the most appropriate response to partner violence and is the
foundation of important criminal justice responses to IPV, such
as orders of protection and “no drop” arrest approaches, which
minimize ongoing interaction between victims and perpetra-
tors. These policy responses are based on the linked assump-
tions that victims’ agency is stymied, and the only rational
response in a situation of partner violence is to help women
separate from their violent partners. However, separating vic-
tims from violent men often increases a victim’s risk in domes-
tic violence situations (Geiger, 2002). Several articles we
reviewed, however, situated leaving a relationship within a
broader pattern of resistance, offering an important corrective
to mainstream assumptions about victims’ ongoing capacity to
act within the context of violence. Some authors detailed the
steps and stages that women move through when they resist
violence, wherein thinking, maintaining, preparing, and enga-
ging in active resistance together may facilitate a women’s
leaving the relationship (Khoury & Wehbi, 2016). Others
described how when engaging in resistance over time,
women’s understandings of themselves may change, which
may result in a separation.
Violence. Research further indicated that women resist violent
partners through their own acts of violence. Twenty-seven of
the sampled articles discussed violent resistance tactics.
Whether and how women use violence in the context of their
intimate relationships is the subject of considerable academic
debate, with some suggesting that women and men engage in
mutual violent aggression, but others framing women’s vio-
lence as “fighting back” or attempts to regain control. In the
context of resistance, the articles we reviewed typically indi-
cated that when women resist violent partners through their
own acts of violence, the violence among intimates is asymme-
trical—women are more frequent victims of partner violence
than men and are more likely to be injured by such engage-
ments (Johnson, 2006). The term “violent resistance” is part of
Michael Johnson’s well-known typology of forms of partner
violence. Johnson defines violent resistance as acts of physical
violence that are not controlling. In this view, women’s vio-
lence is usually responsive to a male partner’s extreme violence
and control (Johnson, 2006).
Rajah and Osborn
Policy and Practice Recommendations
Regardless of the forms of resistance discussed, reviewed scho-
larship offered insights for policy and practice responses to
women who suffer partner violence and engage in resistance
to it. The vast majority of this discussion focused on challenges
and failings in this area. Of the articles we reviewed, 68.9%
(n ¼ 51) discussed the ways in which formal responses to IPV
were unable to meet victims’ needs. Specifically, when discuss-
ing institutional failures, articles focused on social service and
government agencies and the criminal justice system (including
the police and court system). In the former case, several articles
referenced women’s financial precarity. For instance, Davis
(2007) described significant structural obstacles in women’s
ability to access welfare benefits, which drove many to return
to abusive partners and engage in resistance strategies to survive
in this context. Articles also described other barriers that impede
formal help-seeking. Anderson et al. (2014) noted that partici-
pants in their study, who resided in a rural Midwestern state,
rarely sought formal assistance due to geographic isolation and a
lack of social service accessibility. Frequently, individuals such
as those in this study, who were unable or unwilling to access
institutional support, resisted IPV by engaging informal social
networks who could either help them survive within their rela-
tionships or help women leave violent men.
The court system emerged as a site of further harm and dys-
function. Participants in some studies indicated a lack of confi-
dence in criminal justice intervention, believing that courts
would be biased toward abusers (Allen & Raghallaigh, 2013;
Beaulaurier et al., 2008; Gill & Rehman, 2004). Others
described courts as inflexible in their handling of IPV cases,
disregarding or overriding women’s ability to decide whether
to press charges and how to ensure their own safety (Lewis
et al., 2000; Paterson, 2009). In these situations, “many women
find that the huge machinery of the criminal justice system then
rolls into place, regardless of her wishes,” reinforcing feelings of
helplessness and frustration (Lewis et al., 2000, p. 198). In cases
of women who used retaliatory violence against abusive part-
ners, a common legal defense strategy involves emphasizing the
woman’s helplessness and psychological distress, negating her
identity as an active individual. While intended to mitigate the
severity of violent acts of resistance, this framing may cause
further harm by perpetuating simplistic stereotypes about abuse
and reinforcing a false dichotomy between female defendants
who “deserve” sympathy versus those who do not (Lazar, 2008).
“In depicting the women as victims,” Lazar (2008) notes, “the
approach of the courts obscures any aspects of resistance and
choice these women may have demonstrated in their acts and
further creates a superficial distinction between victimization
and agency and between oppression and resistance” (p. 5).
Against the backdrop of institutional failures, 67.6%
(n ¼ 50) of the articles offered some recommendations for
policy or practice changes based on their findings. We identi-
fied up to three categories of recommendation per article (see
Figure 2). Most frequently (28% of the 50 articles), articles
suggested increasing awareness around the topic of IPV,
11
Increase Awareness/Education
Practitioner Best Practices
Healthcare/Mental Health
Social Services
Micro/Macro Approach
Legal System
Research
Reduce Resource Disparities
Other
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure 2. Policy and practice recommendations (N ¼ 50). Percen-
tages do not add up to 100%.
including but not limited to consciousness-raising among vic-
tims, providing more education and training for service provi-
ders, and reshaping overly simplistic cultural narratives about
IPV. For example, Profitt (1994) describes the work of a fem-
inist support group that engaged in both reflective, therapeutic
discussions of abuse dynamics and activist work such as public
demonstrations and educational workshops; these practices
were empowering and transformative for the individual group
members as well as beneficial to the community as a whole.
Other common suggestions included offering concrete best
practices for practitioners (22%), addressing the health care and
mental health needs of victims (10%), and expanding access to
victim-centered social support services (14%). In the former
case, reviewed research suggested that medical professionals
need better training to recognize the symptoms associated with
partner violence. In the latter case, researchers recommended
that social service and mental health professionals need to be
educated about the complexity of women’s responses to vio-
lence and how holding violent partners accountable leads to
bifurcated outcomes: enhancing women’s well-being while
simultaneously increasing their physical risk. Several of the
articles (14%) mentioned the need to take a two-pronged,
micro-/macro- approach to addressing IPV; in other words,
handling individual cases while also attempting to situate these
within wider contexts of political and social inequality. Only
six articles (12%) recommended legal or criminal justice inter-
ventions. These articles generally touted the successes associ-
ated with criminal justice surveillance and control but still
argued for associated preventative programing with violence
men. Another six (12%) articles offered specific guidance for
future researchers. Lastly, three articles (6%) advised working
to reduce overall social and economic disparities between men
and women, given that financial concerns often represent a
significant barrier to leaving an abusive partner.
Discussion: Key Findings, Conclusions,
and Future Research
Our scoping review helps provide systematic knowledge of
how IPV research defines resistance, documents and
12
investigates its forms and, based on these analyses, provides
policy and practice suggestions to help improve women’s lives.
Our efforts add to existing research in several ways. First, we
identified several gaps in the literature on women’s resistance
to IPV and found that resistance in general was undertheorized
and often left undefined. This is a substantial shortcoming
given the widely recognized need for conceptual clarity when
examining resistance (Courpasson & Valles 2016; Hayes,
2013; Lilja & Vinthagen, 2018). However, the articles we
reviewed did reflect existing understandings of women’s resis-
tance and related constructs in important ways. Specifically,
the constructs of empowerment, resilience, and coping were
foregrounded in the ways the sampled articles defined resis-
tance in relation to power relations, agency, and survival,
respectively. In addition, our review of resistance research in
the context of IPV demonstrates the complexity and depth of
this scholarship, which offers a fine-grained understanding of
women’s actual lived experience. Another important contribu-
tion of our review involves unpacking how resistance has been
defined and used in IPV research. Despite a lack of clear def-
initions of resistance, our review also demonstrates how, in
their analyses, several studies offer conceptually rich insights
into the workings of power and agency in the context of male
violence and oppression. Examining the corpus of research that
theorizes and documents resistance in the context of IPV is an
important step to advancing our cultural script about IPV,
which, despite nuanced scholarship to the contrary, often still
frames women as victims. Finally, recognizing the nuance and
breadth of women’s resistance also helps to shift our under-
standings of the real and perceived relationship between gender
and violence.
For fear of losing nuance and insight, like other researchers
in this area, we are cautious about advancing an all-
encompassing definition of everyday resistance to IPV. Even
so, we offer some orientating statements about IPV resistance
based on our review. First, the research we reviewed generally
recognizes the dynamic nature of both power positions and
negotiations within intimate relationships. Second, researchers
showed that, in the context of IPV, women’s resistance may be
conscious and intentional or habitually practiced. Third, the
apparent goals of acts of resistance to IPV vary and may
include stemming a partner’s violence, shifting the nature of
control in a relationship, and self-preservation.
The ideas advanced in the scholarship here reviewed extend
IPV research because, rather than simply conceiving of
women’s resistance as a response to men’s power over them,
reviewed research generally conceptualizes the relationship
between power and resistance as entangled and acts of resis-
tance as part of ongoing processes in women’s lives. In addi-
tion, while focusing on women’s efforts to challenge violence,
resistance research complements and extends other IPV scho-
larship that tends to examine either women’s self-defense
efforts or use of violence.
The scholarship reviewed here also adds to existing resis-
tance research. Specifically, by demonstrating how many of the
forms and dynamics of resistance that have been previously
TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE XX(X)
documented in other arenas extend into the private sphere of
women’s intimate relationships, IPV resistance research con-
firms that power may operate similarly across micro, meso, and
macro arenas. In addition, like other scholarship on everyday
resistance, the research we reviewed argues for the need to
broadly situate resistance to IPV within the context of women’s
personal histories, family relations, cultures, and social posi-
tions, which are factors that not only constrain and enable
resistance but also influence how such acts are understood and
experienced by all involved parties.
While the reviewed research helps broaden our understand-
ing of women’s experiences, this work also points to scholarly
gaps in need of further investigation. Our review shows that
IPV resistance research is highly eclectic, based in a variety of
scholarly disciplines, which are sometimes grounded in differ-
ent theoretical assumptions. In this context, attempts to unify
and advance research through, for instance, constructing an
instrument to measure resistance is not feasible because con-
text, social condition, and personal history all contour women’s
responses to violence. Even so, we do believe the IPV Strate-
gies Index (Goodman et al., 2003), which includes a resistance
subscale, is a useful tool to document the broad strokes of
women’s strategic responses to violence.
We also see a need for research on various types and trajec-
tories of resistance and how they may be related. Future
research could work to refine the typology of resistance strate-
gies here identified to further illuminate the conditions under
which women engage in various types of resistance and what
the potential adverse consequences of doing so may be (e.g.,
increased violence or victim blaming, greater socioeconomic
deprivation, and possibly even separation from children).
Among the resistance subtypes, further research of covert resis-
tance is particularly needed. Scholars must better document
hidden resistance in its various forms and provide clues as to
how they may be identified and studied. Moreover, we need to
know whether some forms of resistance, such as covert acts of
noncompliance, accumulate and give way to other more overt
forms of opposition to IPV. As described in van Schalkwyk
et al. (2014), pathways to resistance are often nonlinear and
fluid, developing within the constraints of specific contexts and
pressures. More information is needed on how resistance pro-
cesses develop over time, as well as situational factors that may
shift such trajectories.
Overall, reviewed research demonstrates the complexity of
women’s responses to IPV, and more research is needed on how
women’s resistance may be related to other responses to vio-
lence. IPV resistance research suggests that women most fre-
quently oppose their partners through the use of personal, private
strategies. But some women complement these with strategic
responses in the public sphere. Such findings are important
because some IPV research suggests that, compared to private
responses to violence, public responses are more effective in
helping women minimize their victimization (Goodman et al.,
2003). At the same time, our review of resistance research in the
context of IPV suggests that institutions often fail to provide
women with the help that they want or need. These differing
Rajah and Osborn
and somewhat discrepant findings suggest that more research is
needed to specifically unpack how and why women engage with
institutions as part of their resistance strategies and how private
and more public approaches to resistance may complement or
possibly hinder each other.
Our close reading of scholarship on IPV and resistance also
indicates that women’s bodies and embodiment, that is, their
physical and emotional practices and the cultural and social
systems that influence them, play a role in women’s resistance
to IPV. Future research should focus on these dynamics, an
examination of which was beyond the score of this study. Such
a focus fits with a growing call among social scientists to exam-
ine the body in the context of violence research (Pain, 2016b).
Lastly, we call for an expanded resistance literature empha-
sizing racial, cultural, and other social factors that impact gen-
dered expectations of behavior. These factors affect the degrees
and types of vulnerability certain women experience and conse-
quently shape their resistance processes and the avenues of resis-
tance available to them. We begin to examine some of these
identity-based differences in a paper currently in development.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Valli Rajah https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9289-4800
Max Osborn https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6291-986X
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the
meta-analysis.
Abraham, M. (2005). Domestic violence and the Indian diaspora in the
United States. Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 12, 427–451.
*Allen, M., & Raghallaigh, M. N. (2013). Domestic violence in a
developing context: The perspectives of women in northern Ethio-
pia. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 28, 256–272.
*Ammar, N. H. (2000). In the shadow of the pyramids: Domestic
violence in Egypt. International Review of Victimology, 7, 29–46.
*Anderson, K. M., Renner, L. M., & Bloom, T. S. (2014). Rural
women’s strategic responses to intimate partner violence. Health
Care for Women International, 35, 423–441.
*Anderson, K. M., Renner, L. M., & Bloom, T. S. (2017). Exploring
protective strategies among rural women in an abusive relation-
ship. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 38, 610–618.
Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a meth-
odological framework. International Journal of Social Research
Methodology, 8, 19–32.
*Beaulaurier, R. L., Seff, L. R., & Newman, F. L. (2008). Barriers to
help-seeking for older women who experience intimate partner
13
violence: A descriptive model. Journal of Women & Aging, 20,
231–248.
*Belknap, R. A. (1999). Why did she do that? Issues of moral conflict
in battered women’s decision making. Issues in Mental Health
Nursing, 20, 387–404.
Bowker, L. H. (1983). Beating wife beating. Lexington, MA: Lexing-
ton Books.
*Campbell, C., & Mannell, J. (2016). Conceptualising the agency of
highly marginalised women: Intimate partner violence in extreme
settings. Global Public Health, 11, 1–16.
*Cavanagh, K. (2003). Understanding women’s responses to domestic
violence. Qualitative Social Work, 2, 229–249.
*Chantler, K. (2006). Independence, dependency and interdepen-
dence: Struggles and resistances of minoritized women within
and on leaving violent relationships. Feminist Review, 82,
27–49.
Courpasson, D., & Valles, S. (2016). Resistance studies: A critical
introduction. In D. Courpasson & S. Valles (Eds.), Sage handbook
of resistance (pp. 1–28). Sage.
*Crann, S. E., & Barata, P. C. (2016). The experience of resili-
ence for adult female survivors of intimate partner violence: A
phenomenological inquiry. Violence Against Women, 22,
853–875.
*Critelli, F. M. (2012). Voices of resistance: Seeking shelter services
in Pakistan. Violence Against Women, 18, 437–458.
*Davis, D. A. (2007). Non-violent survival strategies in the face of
intimate partner violence and economic discrimination. Journal of
Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 15, 123–153.
Devries, K. M., Mak, J. Y .T., Garcia-Moreno, C., Petzold, M., Child,
J. C., Falder, G., Lim, S., Bacchus, L. J., Engell, R. E., Rosenfeld,
L., Pallitto, C., Vos, T., Abrahams, N., & Watts, C. H. (2013). The
global prevalence of intimate partner violence against women.
Science, 340, 1527–1528.
Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. (1979). Violence against wives: A case
against the patriarchy. Free Press.
*Faria, C. (2017). Towards a countertopography of intimate war: Con-
touring violence and resistance in a South Sudanese diaspora.
Gender, Place, & Culture, 24, 575–593.
*Geiger, B. (2002). From deviance to creation: Women’s answer to
subjugation. Humanity and Society, 26, 214–227.
*Gill, A., & Rehman, G. (2004). Empowerment through activism:
Responding to domestic violence in the South Asian community
in London. Gender & Development, 12, 75–82.
*Gondolf, E. W. (2012). Physical tactics of female partners against
male batterer program participants. Violence Against Women, 18,
1027–1044.
Gondolf, E. W, & Fisher, E. R. (1988). Battered women as survivors:
An alternative to treating learned helplessness. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
*Goodman, L., Dutton, M. A., Vankos, N., & Weinfurt, K. (2005).
Women’s resources and use of strategies as risk and protective
factors for reabuse over time. Violence Against Women, 11,
311–336.
Goodman, L., Dutton, M. A., Weinfurt, K., & Cook, S. (2003). The
intimate partner violence strategies index: Development and appli-
cation. Violence Against Women, 9, 163–168.
14
*Hayes, B. E. (2013). Women’s resistance strategies in abusive relation-
ships: An alternative framework. Sage Open, 3, 2158244013501154.
Hollander, J., & Einwohner, R. (2004). Conceptualizing resistance.
Sociological Forum, 19, 533–554.
*Hydén, M. (2005). ‘I must have been an idiot to let it go on’: Agency
and positioning in battered women’s narratives of leaving. Femin-
ism & Psychology, 15, 169–188.
Johansson, A., & Vinthagen, S. (2016). Dimensions of everyday resis-
tance: An analytical framework. Critical Sociology, 42, 417–435.
*Johnson, M. P. (2006). Conflict and control: Gender symmetry and
asymmetry in domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 12,
1003–1018.
Kabeer, N. (1999). Resources, agency, achievements: Reflections on
the measurement of women’s empowerment. Development and
Change, 30, 435–464.
*Kelly, J. B., & Johnson, M. P. (2008). Differentiation among types of
intimate partner violence: Research update and implications for
interventions. Family Court Review, 46, 476–499.
Lilja, M., & Vinthagen, S. (2018). Dispersed resistance: Unpacking
the spectrum and properties of glaring and everyday resistance.
Journal of Political Power, 11, 211–229.
*Khoury, J., & Webhi, S. (2016). Leaving a violent domestic relation-
ship: Experiences of women in Lebanon. International Social
Work, 59, 73–85.
*Klostermann, K., Mignone, T., & Chen, R. (2009). Subtypes of alco-
hol and intimate partner violence: A latent class analysis. Violence
and Victims, 24, 563–576.
*Lazar, R. (2008). Reconceptualizing victimization and agency in the
discourse of battered women who kill. Studies in Law, Politics, &
Society, 4, 229–241.
Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O’Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies:
Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5, 69.
*Lewis, R., Dobash, R. P., Dobash, R. E., & Cavanagh, K. (2000).
Protection, prevention, rehabilitation or justice? Women’s use of
the law to challenge domestic violence. International Review of
Victimology, 7, 179–205.
*Lewis, R., Dobash, R. P., Dobash, R. E., & Cavanagh, K. (2001).
Law’s progressive potential: The value of engagement with the law
for domestic violence. Social & Legal Studies, 10, 105–130.
*Lilja, M., & Baaz, M. (2016). Resistance, rupture and repetition:
Civil society strategies against intimate partner violence in Cam-
bodia. Global Public Health, 11, 95–107.
Mahoney, M. R. (1994). Victimization or oppression? Women’s lives,
violence, and agency. In M. A. Fineman & R. Mykitiuk (Eds.), The
public nature of private violence (pp. 59–92). Routledge.
McGee, R. (2017). Invisible power and visible everyday resistance in
the violent Colombian Pacific. Peacebuilding, 5, 170–185. http://
doi.org/10.1080/21647259.2016.1277013.
*Mills, E. (2016). “When the skies fight” HIV, violence and pathways of
precarity in South Africa. Reproductive Health Matters, 24, 85–95.
*Muftic, L. R., Bouffard, J. A., & Bouffard, L. A. (2007). An explora-
tory study of women arrested for intimate partner violence: Violent
women or violent resistance? Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
22, 753–774.
*Pain, R. (2016a). Gendered violence: Rotating intimacy. Area, 46,
344–360.
TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE XX(X)
*Pain, R. (2016b). Seismologies of emotion: Fear and activism during
domestic violence. Social Cultural Geography, 15, 127–150.
*Parker, E. M., & Gielen, A. C. (2014). Intimate partner violence and
safety strategy use: Frequency of use and perceived effectiveness.
Women’s Health Issues, 24, 584–593.
*Paterson, S. (2009). (Re)constructing women’s resistance to woman
abuse: Resources, strategy choice and implications of and public
policy for Canada. Critical Social Policy, 29, 121–145.
Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C. M., Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Parker, D.,
& Soares, C. B. (2015). Guidance for conducting systematic scop-
ing reviews. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare,
13, 141–146.
*Piedalue, A. (2017). Beyond ‘culture’ as an explanation for intimate
violence: The politics and possibilities of plural resistance. Gen-
der, Place, & Culture, 24, 564–574.
*Profitt, N. J. (1994). Resisting violence against women in Central
America: The experience of a feminist collective. Canadian Social
Work Review, 11, 103–115.
*Pyscher, T. (2017). Domestic violence and girlhood: The making and
breaking of a disordered subjectivity. Cultural Studies $ Critical
Methodologies, 17, 399–405.
*Rajah, V. (2006). Respecting boundaries: The symbolic and mate-
rial concerns of drug-involved women employing violence
against violent male partners. British Journal of Criminology,
46, 837–858.
*Rajah, V. (2007). Resistance as edgework in violent intimate rela-
tionships of drug involved women. British Journal of Criminology,
47, 196–213.
Rizo, C. F., Givens, A., & Lombardi, B. (2017). A systematic
review of coping among heterosexual female IPV survivors in
the United States with a focus on the conceptualization and
measurement of coping. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 34,
35–50.
*Rosen, K. H., Stith, S. M., Few, A. L., Daly, K. L., & Tritt, D. R.
(2005). A qualitative investigation of Johnson’s typology. Violence
and Victims, 20, 319.
Scott, J. C. (1990). Domination and the arts of resistance: Hidden
transcripts. Yale University Press.
*Sen, P. (1996). Networks, support groups, and domestic violence.
Development in Practice, 6, 364–367.
*Sharp, S. (2014). Resisting religious coercive control. Violence
Against Women, 20, 1407–1427.
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K., Colquhoun, H., Kast-
ner, M., Levac, D., Ng, C., Sharpe, J. P., Wilson, K., Kenny, M.,
Warren, R., Wilson, C., Stelfox, H. T., & Straus, S. E. (2016). A
scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews.
BMC Medical Research Methodology, 16, 15.
Tusaie, K., & Dyer, J. (2004). Resilience: A Historical Review of the
Construct. Holistic Nursing Practice, 18, 3–8.
*van Schalkwyk, S., Boonzaier, F., & Gobodo-Madikizela, P. (2014).
‘Selves’ in contradiction: Power and powerlessness in South Afri-
can shelter residents’ narratives of leaving abusive heterosexual
relationships. Feminism & Psychology, 24, 314–331.
*Villalon, R. (2010). Passage to citizenship and the nuances of
agency: Latina battered immigrants. Women’s Studies Interna-
tional Forum, 33, 552–560.
Rajah and Osborn
Walker, L. (1979). The battered woman. New York: Harper & Row.
*Warner, K., Baro, A., & Eigenberg, H. (2004). Stories of resistance:
Exploring women’s responses to male violence. Journal of Fem-
inist Family Therapy, 16, 21–42.
Wood, S., Glass, N., & Decker, M. (2019). An Integrative review of
safety strategies for women experiencing intimate partner violence
in low-middle-income countries. Trauma, Violence & Abuse.
http://doi.org/10.1177/1524838018823270
World Health Organization. (2013). Global and regional estimates
of violence against women: Prevalence and health effects of
intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence.
Author.
*Zweig, J. M., Yahner, J., Dank, M., & Lachman, P. (2014). Can
Johnson’s typology of adult partner violence apply to teen
dating violence? Journal of Marriage and Family, 76,
808–825.
View publication stats
15
Author Biographies
Valli Rajah, PhD, is an associate professor at John Jay College of
Criminal Justice, City University of New York. A sociologist by train-
ing, her research focuses on intimate partner violence (IPV), its health
consequences or correlates (e.g., substance abuse, PTSD, HIV), and
the unintended consequences of IPV-control practices and policies.
Her research, which draws on cultural sociology and critical crimin-
ology, often focuses on members of groups that defy easy categoriza-
tion as either “victims” or “criminal offenders,” such as drug-involved
women who suffer partner violence and individuals arrested in domes-
tic disputes.
Max Osborn is a PhD student studying criminal justice at John Jay
College of Criminal Justice and the City University of New York
Graduate Center. Their research focuses on vulnerable populations
within the justice system, with an emphasis on LGBTQþ people,
women, and survivors of abuse.