Several implications for future research emerged during this project. First, the social context of women’s IPV must be considered in subsequent research. This will provide a whole picture of the underlying contributing factors that lead a woman to IPV. This includes examining the social, historical, and cultural variables that may be intersecting factors of her reality.
Continuing to examine women’s IPV in a narrowly defined way will not address their
vulnerabilities, and consequently will ignore the factors and context that led to their use of IPV. Further, not focusing on women’s IPV will ignore their male victims and work is required here to understand their victimization. Not engaging in comprehensive research in the area of IPV, inclusive of women’s IPV, will ultimately perpetuate the ongoing exclusion women have faced in the study of their violence and ignore the specific and required intervention and prevention programs that can address women’s IPV and men’s victimization.
Second, another area that has been largely ignored, and requires further research, is women’s IPV and impact on children. While the women in my study described being concerned about their children, this research did not address this. The impact of IPV on children is studied under the paradigm of men as perpetrators, but understanding in the area of women’s IPV is lacking. The impact of women’s perpetration as a critical aspect of the familial context should be a focused area of study going forward.
Third, the literature in this area lacks a solid theoretical foundation as part of the research design. Because much of the literature focuses on women’s IPV from a motives framework, it lacks a theoretical foundation. Some studies suggest future research should include theoretical
181
frameworks, such as the nested ecological model or feminist theory, to increase understanding of women’s IPV (Dasgupta, 2002; Bair-Merritt et al., 2010; Capaldi et al, 2012). I agree with this position, as the complexity of this issue cannot be understated. Seeking better and deeper understanding against the backdrop of a sound theoretical framework will avoid inappropriate assumptions or constructions of gender, women’s agency (further victimizing women),
consequences for women’s lives, or the creation of useless policy that does not produce meaningful solutions. In this same vein, more studies need to examine women’s IPV using critical feminist theory as a foundation for understanding women’s agency, situated knowledge of their experiences, and how factors that contribute to their IPV intersect. Further, articulating women’s voices from their standpoint allows for an inclusive position of women’s voices in the literature.
Fourth, further research must encompass an exploration of the role and impact of
substance use in women’s IPV. Many women described their partner’s substance use as ranging from problematic to creating serious issues in the relationship. Some of the women also
described their substance use as problematic, and the way in which this impacts the relationship or how it exists between couples is not as prevalent in the literature on women’s IPV.
Last, further studies are also required to explore and address the unique circumstances of Indigenous women’s IPV as this is an area of limited research. While there is a plethora of literature on Indigenous women’s violence generally, this is not the case with respect to issues of IPV. All of the Indigenous women cited reciprocal violence in their relationships and also
admitted to being instigators at times. What is unique, and not surprising, however, is that almost all of the Indigenous women cited historical oppression and the devastating impacts of
182
contributing to their IPV. The impact of this structural factor on their use of IPV remains unclear, and therefore further research must be conducted to gain an increased understanding of the implications of this structural factor as well as understand how women cope with their experience of IPV, whether perpetrator, victim, or both (Burnett, 2015). Understanding the reciprocal violence Indigenous women experience and their role in perpetrating IPV against the backdrop of the historical context of oppression would provide a deeper level of understanding that can inform culturally appropriate policies. My work points to the importance of using an Indigenous feminist or post-colonial theory that can ground how race/ethnicity, class and gender intersect and at which point on the axis this occurs. The reason there is a requirement for this type of focus is that Indigenous women’s violence and related feminist issues remains unexamined. When it comes to Indigenous women, their experience are situated against the backdrop of their oppression and loss of cultural identity. Understanding this in from an Indigenous or post-colonial lens can lead to a focus on the implementation of holistic
intervention and prevention within health, justice, and education sectors. My findings provide some initial insights into Indigenous women’s IPV and, as Burnett (2015) suggests, this can move professionals to be ‘reflexive’ in services for Indigenous people and to identify sites of oppression within these interventions, working toward addressing these to provide a holistic program. Thus, further research is recommended to not only address the phenomenon of IPV but also to address the structural determinants that continue to perpetuate these issues.