Search results

Definitions of domestic homicide shape data collection and prevention efforts and, consequentially, our understanding of these crimes. This chapter explores issues related to defining domestic homicide in the context of our work with the Canadian Domestic Homicide Prevention Initiative with Vulnerable Populations (CDHPIVP). We discuss selected case studies to demonstrate what cases are included and excluded in this work and to highlight the importance of understanding our narrower, project-based definition in relation to the larger context of domestic violence-related homicides and deaths. By considering how victims and perpetrators are identified when defining domestic violence, we illustrate how undercounting of domestic homicide may occur, contributing to the “dark figure” of domestic homicide. Furthermore, we argue that cases from certain groups, such as Indigenous women in Canada, may be systematically excluded from definitions of domestic homicide. In reflecting on these issues and cases, our aim is to advance calls for consistency and transparency in definitions to allow for stronger research across jurisdictions (Fairbairn, Jaffe, & Dawson, 2017; Jaffe et al., 2017), as well as to support efforts of initiatives such as domestic violence death review committees (DVDRCs) in their work to prevent domestic homicides.

Purpose – This chapter explores the nature of feminist research and its contributions to criminology, with a specific focus on intersectionality and intimate partner violence (IPV) research.

Methodology/approach – Feminism, feminist criminology, and intersectionality are used to consider approaches to research and criminological knowledge-production broadly, and IPV research specifically.

Findings – An analysis of feminism and feminist criminology in early movement and contemporary contexts demonstrates the necessity of intersectionality to feminist praxis. Feminist criminology, as a reflexive and evolving field, maintains a commitment to progressive social change and addressing inequality. In the context of IPV, this commitment tasks feminist criminology with examining the consequences of historical, carceral feminist approaches related to the over-policing and criminalization of racialized, Indigenous, and immigrant communities. In working to prevent IPV, feminist criminology should prioritize interdisciplinary work and engage broader social movements, recognizing the interconnectedness of gender justice with racial, economic, and health justice.

Originality/value – Through a consideration of feminist approaches to research and the importance of intersectionality to IPV research specifically, this analysis links broader feminist research principles and intersectional understandings with contemporary anti-carceral movements and interdisciplinary, public health-driven understandings surrounding IPV.

As the role and uptake of digital media, devices and other technologies increases, so has their presence in our lives. Technology has revolutionised the speed, type and extent of communication and contact between individuals and groups, transforming temporal, geographic and personal boundaries. There have undoubtedly been benefits associated with such shifts, but technologies have also exacerbated existing patterns of gendered violence and introduced new forms of intrusion, abuse and surveillance. In order to understand and combat harm and, protect and empower women, criminologists must investigate these practices. This chapter discusses how technology has transformed the enactment of violence against women.

Typically, studies have focussed on particular types of technology-facilitated violence as isolated phenomenon. Here, the author examines, more holistically, a range of digital perpetration: by persons unknown, who may be known and are known to female targets. These digital harms should, the author contends, be viewed as part of what Kelly (1988) conceptualised as a ‘continuum of violence’ (and Stanko, 1985 as ‘continuums of unsafety’) to which women are exposed, throughout the course of our lives. These behaviours do not occur in a vacuum. Violence is the cause and effect of inequalities and social control, which manifests structurally and institutionally, offline and online. Technologies are shaped by these forces, and investigating the creation, governance and use of technologies provides insight how violence is enacted, fostered and normalised.

Can we broaden the boundaries of the history of economic thought to include positionalities articulated by grassroots movements? Following Keynes’s famous remark from General Theory that ‘practical men […] are usually the slaves of some defunct economist,’ we might be wont to dismiss such a push from below. While it is sometimes true that grassroots movements channel preexisting economic thought, I wish to argue that grassroots economic thought can also precede developments subsequently elaborated by economists. This paper considers such a case: by women at the intersection of the women’s liberation movement and the claimants’ unions movement in 1970s Britain. Oral historical and archival work on these working-class women and on achievements such as their succeeding to establish unconditional basic income as an official demand of the British Women’s Liberation Movement forms the springboard for my reconstruction of the grassroots feminist economic thought underpinning the women’s basic income demand. I hope to demonstrate, firstly, how this was a prefiguration of ideas later developed by feminist economists and philosophers; secondly, how unique it was for its time and a consequence of the intersectionality of class, gender, race, and dis/ability. Thirdly, I should like to suggest that bringing into the fold this particular grassroots feminist economic thought on basic income would widen the mainstream understanding and historiography of the idea of basic income. Lastly, I hope to make the point that, within the history of economic thought, grassroots economic thought ought to be heeded far more than it currently is.