How Research Makes a Difference to Policy and Practice (From Family Violence: Research and Public Policy Issues, P 185-204, 1990, Douglas J Besharov, ed. -- See NCJ-125593)

• NCJ Number: 125605
• Author(s): R P Dobash; R E Dobash
• Date Published: 1990
• Length: 20 pages
• Sale Source: University Press of America
• Publication Type: Report (Technical)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This analysis of the relationship between policymaking and research on spouse abuse concludes that a combination of quantitative and subjective methods can be a useful approach to developing contextual analyses of the problem.

Abstract

The role of research in policymaking has declined in recent years, but research should still inform policy. The three main methods of studying domestic violence are the empiricist, the instrumental positivist, and the interpretive-contextual. Each method has its supporters as well as its critics, with criticisms based largely on methodological inadequacies, the time required, and the relevance of the findings. The authors have combined quantitative and subjective methods to develop a contextual interpretive analysis of violence against wives. They have found that the best means of investigating violence is to concentrate on violent events, violent relationships, and the wider responses to them. They also found it crucial to understand the violence in the context of the history of the relationship and worked closely with those in the battered women's movement. However, politics may be more important than methods and findings in influencing policy.