26 Staying or Leaving: A Narrative Analysis of Stories Told by Victim/Survivors of Domestic Violence

Faculty Mentor: Jenny Andrus (Writing & Rhetoric Studies, University of Utah)

Introduction

There is a methodological gap in the literature on intimate partner violence (IPV). While there is a lot of survey data and quantitative analysis, there is very little narrative collection and qualitative analysis. The lack of detailed narratives and missed nuance in staying/leaving decision-making make it hard to better understand this topic and provide appropriate guidance. The present study focuses on increasing the understanding of robust decision-making that IPB victims engage in as they strategize leaving a violent relationship safely.

This study acknowledges the common reasons why IPV victims/survivors stay, such as financial or family reasons, but it goes one step further and uncovers other reasons that are unique to the individual that may impede leaving a dangerous relationship.

This study uses narrative analysis to analyze stories about IPV told in interviews with Dr. Jenny Andrus and public social media posts. The stories analyzed are considered “staying stories,” which often reference social norms and stereotypes that incentivize staying. In particular, this study revealed two understudied reasons why IPV victims stay that are related to social stereotypes: first, some study participants didn’t realize they were being abused because their abuse was emotional/verbal and didn’t match the stereotypes of physical violence; second, some IPV victims didn’t realize their abuse counted as IPV because they had no visible bruises.

Methods

This study made use of narrative analysis to provide careful and meaningful conclusions about the current situation surrounding IPV. The data for this study was collected through interviews. A total of 24 interviews were completed by Dr. Andrus. Each interview lasted between 30 and 60 minutes.

All of the interviews were transcribed and carefully analyzed using an interactive coding scheme. Each interview was read and analyzed at least 3 times. The primary read was general, noticing common themes and topics. The secondary read identified keywords. The keywords were counted, to identify the topics and themes that emerged as the most important. Finally, the interviews were read to identify the narratives that corresponded to the keywords that were either the most referenced topic or the topic the least studied in the IPV literature. The topics that emerged as the most important were: financial abuse, emotional/verbal abuse, misunderstandings about abuse because of the lack of visible bruises and the lack of physical violence, and the impact of social discourses and IPV.

Once each interview was categorized under the different keywords, researchers decided that 7 interviews would be used in this study. These interviews possessed essential information about the current state of domestic violence. Then, the narrative types found in these interviews were compared to each other. After this, each interview was further analyzed and a coding system was developed. Within each interview, essential stories were shared by the participants, thus researchers looked for patterns in each passage.

Results

Most of the existing research is determined to examine the reasons victims/survivors of IPV stay in those violent relationships with the help of surveys or questionnaires. These methods do not produce detailed data, which could more directly assist victims/survivors to improve their well-being. Our qualitative, narrative-based research provided much-needed detailed reasoning that went into staying/leaving decision-making.

During the interviews, many participants provided answers that align with the data found in the surveys and questionnaires conducted in the past. However, during the analysis of these interviews. a unique cluster of reasons emerged, which has not been thoroughly investigated. Referencing stereotypes about physical abuse, many participants articulated how they did not even realize that they were part of an abusive relationship until the relationship was in a late stage or even after it was over.

Through narrative analysis, we identified two important factors in staying/leaving decision-making. First, participants were not able to recognize emotional/verbal abuse as IPV. Second, they assumed that they were not victims of IPV because the abuse did not leave marks visible in public, such as a black eye. For both groups, unless abuse reached a particular level of severity, producing “proof” that would necessitate leaving, they did not see the abuse as IPV.

Conclusion

Through the examination of the interviews that were used in this study, it can be concluded that many of the participants were constantly being emotionally/verbally abused, however, they were not able to recognize it as abuse because they did not have the resources to see or have an example of what this abuse looks like.

Another group of participants did not recognize that they were being abused because the physical attacks did not leave a visible mark that could be seen or witnessed in public. Four of the seven women mentioned that they did not have any visible bruises or “evidence” of the physical abuse they experienced, decreasing their likelihood that they would look for outside assistance or even consider themselves IPV victims.

It can be concluded that the narratives in US culture about what counts as domestic abuse are very limited, to the point where it has impacted the decisions of individuals in abusive relationships. This means that victims/survivors of IPV are not able to effectively recognize that emotional/verbal abuse is part of domestic abuse or that they do not need a visible bruise, and/or experience any type of extreme physical violence before they can think about leaving the relationship because it can be seen as irrational as it does not follow established cultural norms.