:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:台灣婚姻暴力圖像與對策之研究—父權家族系統受暴網的觀點
作者:戴世玫
作者(外文):Tai, Shih-Mei
校院名稱:國立暨南國際大學
系所名稱:社會政策與社會工作學系
指導教授:詹火生
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2014
主題關鍵詞:婚姻暴力受暴婦女紮根理論父權家族系統Domestic ViolenceBattered WomanGrounded TheoryPatriarchyClan System
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(2) 博士論文(1) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:2
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:458
女性遭受婚姻暴力(Domestic Violence)的現象是全球共同面臨的問題,台灣也早在1998年就通過亞洲第一部的家庭暴力防治法,歷年來英美等國的服務模式也陸續的被移植到台灣,衍生出許多防治措施。西風東漸的情形下,社會工作實務上慣用美國所發展出來的「權力控制輪」的圖像,來解釋女性遭受婚姻暴力的動力現象,缺乏對於台灣女性受暴脈絡不同於西方國家的討論。在檢閱婚姻暴力有關文獻之後,本研究藉由於引進日裔美國學者吉濱‧美惠子(Mieko Yoshihama)所發展的「父權家族系統受暴網」 (A Web of Intimate Partner Violence in the Patriarchal Clan System),此一立基於東方社會文化情境(Socio-Culture)的觀點,作為看待女性遭受婚姻暴力現象的基礎。
本研究聚焦在進行台灣本土婚姻暴力圖像及對策的討論,研究目的在於:(1)檢視台灣女性被害人遭受婚姻暴力或社會工作者服務女性被害人的經驗中,女性被害人受「父權體制」與「家族系統」影響的現象與內涵; (2)產出以台灣本土社會情境及婚姻暴力女性被害人受暴經驗為基礎的「台灣婚姻暴力圖像」;(3)對應台灣本土社會情境及婚姻暴力女性被害人的受暴經驗,指出當前在女性被害人服務方面應該強化的對策;(4)針對未來台灣婚姻暴力防治體系中,健全婚姻暴力女性被害人服務的防治策略,提出政策與實務面的具體建議。
為利進行「父權家族系統受暴網」觀點的修改,與本土圖像的討論,本研究採質性研究取向,依循紮根理論 (Grounded Theory)的研究方法進行。研究者在美國密西根大學進行觀點原創人吉濱‧美惠子的專家訪談,並以滾雪球的方式邀請大台北地區的婚姻暴力女性被害人和直接與間接的婚姻暴力相關服務社工人員,共計24人,進行5次的本土焦點團體訪談。在團體中,研究參與者皆指出「父權家族系統受暴網」與本土女性被害人所經驗的暴力極為相似,但卻也有不同之處。
經由資料分析歸納的結果,本研究發現台灣女性被害人的遭受婚姻暴力的過程,已經不再是兩個人之間的事(被害人與加害人),而是 (1)如同千變萬化的「暴力陣」,以眾人的「暴力合理化」為核心,孩子不但參與其中,同時也處在被利用和被決定的地位(2)加害人經常使用各種不同的複合戰術,同時出現許多不同於日本女性所遭遇到的型態,像是信用剝奪、騷擾行為和利用輿論壓力等(3)除了加害人的施暴之外,女性被害人要面對社會文化情境面來自「婆家」、「娘家」,以及自幼所受的「父權」思想灌輸和「大眾輿論」,甚至是「民間傳統的信仰與習俗」的影響 (4)透過社區鄰里的輿論傳遞和媒體的傳播,所有的父權傳統教條,再次強化了暴力合理化的文化。 (5)因為上述多方面的加害與壓力,使得台灣女性被害人的內心經常游移在「自主」和「隱忍」的價值之間,加上傳統的性別角色與「家庭照顧的責任」,讓女性更傾向於選擇為守住夫方家庭的完整性而活。
依據本研究所生成的台灣本土婚姻暴力的「暴力陣」圖像,本研究針對在未來台灣婚姻暴力防治的「政策制度面」及「實務運作面」提出建議,並且強調在整體的婚姻暴力防治對策上,應該更為重視「社區預防性服務工作的投入」、「醫療衛生服務的主動提供」、「鄰里參與的救援機制」、「相關專業人員的養成訓練」、「開創居住及職場就業的長期支持」等議題,來阻斷加害人施暴和其他環境面加害情境的連結,從而翻轉社會輿論為正面支持,削弱父權體制對於女性在家庭和職場的影響,強化娘家的支持系統,制止婆家的忽視暴力的行為,以瓦解暴力合理化的核心,協助更多的女性害人脫離婚姻暴力。
Domestic violence against women is a phenomenon present in all countries worldwide. In 1998, Taiwan passed the Family Violence Prevention Act, becoming the first country in Asia to legislate against domestic violence. After service models from Europe and the United States were introduced into Taiwan, relevant measures for preventing domestic violence have been developed. Under circumstances when eastern society is influenced by western cultures, the Power and Control Wheel developed in the United State is often used in social work to explain the dynamics by which women are subjected to domestic violence. However, alternative (non-Western) discussions on Taiwanese domestic violence have been scant. This study conducted a literature review and adopted the concept of A Web in the Patriarchal Clan System, proposed by Japanese-American scholar Mieko Yoshihama, which takes into consideration an Asian sociocultural context, as a foundation to study domestic violence against women.
This study examined Taiwanese domestic violence and relevant antiviolence strategies. The objectives of this study were: (a) to explore the phenomenon and implications of the influence that patriarchal and clan systems have on female victims of domestic violence based on social workers’ experiences of serving these victims; (b) produce an image of Taiwanese domestic violence based on Taiwan’s social context and the experience of local female victims; (c) identify strategies that should be enhanced for serving female victims by examining Taiwan’s social context and the experience of local female victims of domestic violence; and (d) propose suggestions for establishing comprehensive policies and antiviolence strategies in Taiwan’s future domestic violence prevention system for serving female victims of domestic violence.
A qualitative approach was employed in conjunction with grounded theory to revise the perspective of A Web in the Patriarchal Clan System and discuss domestic violence in Taiwan. The researcher conducted an interview with the creator of the Web in the Patriarchal Clan System perspective, Mieko Yoshihama, at the University of Michigan. Snowball sampling was used to recruit female victims of domestic violence, as well as social workers who have directly or indirectly served the victims, in the Taipei Metro Area. A total of 24 participants were recruited to attend five focus group sessions. The participants stated that although the experiences of female victims were similar to that proposed by the Web in the Patriarchal Clan System, certain differences did exist.
Data analysis results indicated that domestic violence against women in Taiwan is no longer a matter that is solely between the victim and the offender. It is characterized by the following traits: (a) Domestic violence is an ever-changing array of violence that is centered on the public’s justifying of violence, where children are not only involved but are being used and forced to take sides. (b) The offender often uses various compound tactics, which create a different form of domestic violence than that experienced by Japanese women, such as credit deprivation, harassment, and public pressure. (c) In addition to domestic violence, female victims are also subjected to the influence of sociocultural contexts, including their origins and the husbands’ families, as well as stress caused by patriarchy, public opinion, and even traditional religion beliefs and customs. (d) Traditional patriarchal concepts are disseminated through public opinion in communities and the media, which further reinforces a culture that rationalizes violence. (e) Because of victimization and stress, female victims of domestic violence in Taiwan are frequently tormented by the values of autonomy and tolerance. This, in combination with traditional gender roles and the responsibility of being the family caregiver, results in the tendency among female victims of domestic abuse in Taiwan to prioritize keeping the integrity of their husbands’ families.
Based on the “array of violence” developed in this study, the researchers provide recommendations pertaining to policy system and operational dimensions for formulating domestic violence prevention measures in Taiwan. In addition, relevant individuals should place greater emphasis on the strategies of domestic violence prevention, such as investing in preventative service in communities, ensuring accessibility to medical and health services, offering community-involved rescue mechanisms, training relevant professionals, and developing long-term living and employment support for victims of domestic abuse. By enhancing these strategies, the connection between the offender’s abusive actions and environmental factors can be severed, public opinion can be transformed into positive support, and the patriarchal influence on women in households and workplace can be mitigated. Furthermore, support provided by woman’s family should be enhanced, and the husband’s family’s indifference toward violent behavior should be deterred, thereby crippling the core justifying of violence and liberating female victims from domestic violence.
中文部分
大紀元(2008)。〈親密暴力44%,婦團提CSI三策略〉,2008年8月8日報導。取自http://au.epochtimes.com/b5/8/8/8/n2220404.htm
中央社(2010)。〈2010年女性進步指數,台灣止跌回升〉,2010年3月4日報導。取自http://www.cna.com.tw/
內政部家庭暴力及性侵害防治委員會(2012)。〈家庭暴力統計資訊〉。取自http://dspc.moi.gov.tw/np.asp?ctNode=1401&mp=1
內政部家庭暴力及性侵害防治委員會(2008)。《台灣家庭暴力防治大事紀》。台北:內政部。
內政部家庭暴力及性侵害防治委員會(2009)。《家庭暴力防治工作人員服務手冊理念篇》。台北:內政部。
內政部(2008年6月)。〈家庭暴力防治法十週年的回顧與展望-從各國經驗談台灣推動家庭暴力防治工作之過去現在與未來〉研討會會議手冊,台北。
內政部(2004)。〈家庭政策〉,2004年10月18日行政院社會福利推動委員會第八次會議通過版。取自http://sowf.moi.gov.tw/20/931018.mht
王怡文、陳亮全、黃光國(2006)。〈華人社會的信任策略〉。《本土心理學研究》,25,199-242。new window
王珮玲(2009)。〈親密關係暴力危險評估:實務操作方法的探討〉。《社會政策與社會工作學刊》,13(1),141-184。new window
王珮玲(2012)。〈台灣親密暴力危險評估表(TIPVDA)之建構與驗證〉。《社會政策與社會工作學刊》,16(1),1-58。
王麗容(1999)。《婦女保護網絡建構之研究》。內政部委託研究計劃。
王麗容、陳芬苓(2012)。《我國性別暴力現況調查之研究》。內政部委託研究計劃。
王叢桂(2004)。〈家暴事件中助人工作者的專業判斷與和諧價值觀的關聯〉。《本土心理學研究》,21,127-161。new window
孔祥明(2001)。〈媳婦﹖女兒﹖妳媽﹖我媽﹖從誰是「自己人」看婆媳關係〉。《本土心理學研究》,16,43-87。new window
台灣立報(2013)。〈家暴法15周年,仍有進步空間〉,2013年6月25日報導。取自http://www.lihpao.com/?action-viewnews-itemid-130763
民視新聞網(2010)。〈名人怕毀形象 家暴只能忍氣吞〉,2010年3月18日報導。取自http://tw.news.yahoo.com/article/url/d/a/100318/11/229cs.html
行政院Open政府資料回應網(2010)。〈公務出國考察報告〉。瀏覽日期﹕2010年1月10日。取自http://open.nat.gov.tw/OpenFront/report/report_main.jsp
全國法規資料庫(2012)。〈家庭暴力防治法及施行細則〉,瀏覽日期:2012年2月10日。取自http://law.moj.gov.tw/Law/LawSearchLaw.aspx
全國博碩士論文資訊網(2012)。〈家庭暴力相關論文資料搜尋〉,瀏覽日期:2012年4月5日。取自http://etds.ncl.edu.tw/theabs/site/sh/search_adv.jsp
江妙盈(2008)。〈時事評析:113不滿意,打434防暴專線〉,女性電子報第264期,瀏覽日期:2010年3月2日。取自http://forum.yam.org.tw/bongchhi/old/microphone
朱柔若、吳柳嬌 (2005)。〈行動研究、女性主義、社會學與實務界的多元對話:台灣婚姻暴力研究之檢討〉,《南大學報》,39(1),1-16。
林雅容(2003)。〈家庭暴力防治與婦女離婚問題:家庭暴力防治理念與現況之兩難〉,《台灣社會福利期刊》,4,19-52。new window
李易駿(2006)。《社會政策與立法十五講》。大里:許雅惠出版。
李易駿、古允文(2003)。〈另一個福利世界?東亞發展型福利體制初探〉,《台灣社會學刊》,31,189-241。new window
李政賢譯(2006)。《質性研究:設計與計畫書撰寫》。Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B.原著。台北:五南。
李美珍、林維言、郭彩榕(2013)。〈傳承—我國推動性別暴力防治工作回顧與展望〉,《社區發展季刊》,142,3-12。new window
李郁文(2001)。〈對家庭暴力防治應有的基本認識與反省〉,《社區發展季刊》,94,268-276。new window
李欽湧(1994)社會政策分析。台北:巨流。
宋麗玉、施教裕、顏玉如、張錦麗(2006)。〈優點個案管理模式之介紹與運用於受暴婦女之評估結果〉。《社區發展季刊》,113,143-161。new window
沈慶鴻(1997)。《婚姻暴力代間傳遞之分析研究》。國立彰化師範大學輔導學系博士論文。new window
沈慶鴻(2009)。〈弱勢社工服務弱勢案主?!婚暴防治社會工作者實務困境之研究〉,《社會政策與社會工作學刊》,13(2),87-142。new window
沈瓊桃(2008)。〈婚暴併兒虐服務整合的挑戰與模式初探〉,《社會政策與社會工作學刊》,12(1),51-90。new window
周月清(1995)。《婚姻暴力-理論分析與社會工作處置》。台北:巨流。new window
周素鳳譯,Anthony Giddens原著(2003)。《親密關係的轉變:現代社會的性、愛、慾》。台北:巨流。
周倩編著(2011)。《學術研究倫理數位教材》。新竹:國立交通大學出版社。
周詩寧譯,Kevin Browne & Martin Hebert 原著(2004)。《預防家庭暴力》。台北:五南。
邱貴玲(2006)。〈從女性角度分析比較美國、法國、丹麥三種家庭政策發展模式〉,《社區發展季刊》,144,30-42。new window
金耀基(1998)。〈中國人的「公」與「私」觀念〉,喬健、潘乃谷(編),《中國人的觀念與行為》,59-73。高雄:麗文文化。
林文瑛、王震武(1998)。〈刑罰與教化—中國人的素樸心理學分析〉,《輔仁學誌》,26,181-214。
林明傑(2000)。〈美加婚姻暴力犯之治療方案與技術暨其危險評估之探討〉,《社區發展季刊》,90,197-215new window
林明傑、鄭瑞隆、蔡宗晃、張秀鴛、李文輝(2006)。〈家庭暴力案件危險分級管理試辦方案之檢驗〉,《社區發展季刊》,115,290-308。new window
林萬億(2002)。〈台灣的家庭變遷與家庭政策〉,《台大社會工作學刊》,6,37-88。new window
柯麗評、王珮玲、張錦麗(2005)。《家庭暴力-理論、政策與實務》。台北:巨流。
胡秀娟(2005)。〈家庭政策面臨的挑戰〉,《網路社會學通訊期刊》,45,2005.03.15。
胡幼慧主編(1996)。《質性研究-理論、方法及本土女性研究實例》。台北:巨流。
胡幼慧、馬淑榮(1989)。〈台灣都市地區已婚及非婚人口組成及社會特質探討,「台灣社會現象的分析」〉,《中央研究院三民主義研究所叢刊》,25, 25-55。
胡慧嫈(2013年5月)。〈清官難斷家務事!—兒少保護社會工作者在華人社會文化脈絡下的實務處遇議題與省思〉。「變遷中的社區工作與兒童少年福利學術研討會論文」,台中。
姚淑文主編(2004)。《蛹化-台北市婚姻暴力防治歷史紀事》。台北:台北市政府社會局補助現代婦女基金會編印。
高明士編著(2005)。《東亞傳統家禮、教育與國法(一):家族、家禮與教育》。台北:國立台灣大學出版中心。
高鳳仙(2007)。《家庭暴力防治法規專論(二版)》。台北:五南。new window
財團法人婦女權益促進發展基金會(2010)。〈台灣女性圖像〉。瀏覽日期﹕2010年5月15日。取自http://gender.wrp.org.tw/Page_Show.asp?Page_ID=125
孫隆基(1990)。《中國文化的深層結構》。台北:唐山。
陳若璋(1992)。〈台灣婚姻暴力之本質、歷程與影響〉,《婦女與兩性學刊》,3,48-117。new window
陳怡君(2006)。〈從北歐的家庭福利政策談起-反觀我國家庭福利政策〉,《網路社會學通訊期刊》,第52期,2006.01.05。
陳高凌(2001)。〈義與面子在華人家庭暴力裡的運作及其對治療之啟示〉。《本土心理學研究》,15,63-111。new window
陳婷蕙(1997)。〈婚姻暴力阻礙受虐婦女脫離受虐關係的影響因素之探討〉,《社會福利雙月刊》,103,42-48。
陳源湖(2003)。〈婚姻暴力與社會支持之探討〉,《社區發展季刊》,102,277-292。new window
許雅惠(2000)。〈家庭政策的兩難困境—從傳統意識型態出發〉,《社會政策與社會工作學刊》,4(1),237-286。new window
彭泗清(1997)。〈中國人真的對人不對事嗎?〉,《本土心理學研究》,7,340-356。new window
黃光國主編(1988a)。《中國人的權力遊戲》。台北:巨流。
黃光國(1988b)。《儒家思想與東亞現代化》。台北:巨流。new window
黃光國(2009)。《儒家關係主義—哲學反思、理論建構與實徵研究》。台北:心理。new window
葉明華、楊國樞(1998)。〈中國人的家族主義:概念分析與實徵衡鑑〉,《中央研究院民族學研究所集刊》,83,169-225。new window
葉重新(2004)。《教育研究法(第二版)》。台北:心理。
葉肅柏(2001)。〈家庭暴力理論觀點與防治策略〉,《社區發展季刊》,94,289-305。
游美貴(2009年12月)。〈家庭暴力及性侵害被害人垂直整合服務方案評估研究〉,「98年度家庭暴力、性侵害及性騷擾防治工作有功人士、評鑑績優縣市表揚暨服務模式發表觀摩會論文」,台北。
湯靜蓮、蔡怡佳(1997)。《我痛!走出婚姻暴力的陰影》。台北:張老師。
張德勝(1989)。《儒家倫理與秩序情結—中國思想的社會學詮釋》。台北:巨流。
張錦麗、王珮玲、柯麗評(2003)。〈美國杜魯斯家庭暴力社區介入模式介紹〉,《社區發展季刊》,101,320-330 。new window
張錦麗(2013)。〈以CEDAW內涵與防治困境建構家暴與性侵害網絡檢視指標〉,《社區發展季刊》,142,13-24。new window
楊中芳、高尚仁主編(1991)。《中國人中國心-人格與社會篇》。台北:遠流。new window
楊國樞、余安邦主編(1992)。《中國人的心理與行為—理念與方法篇》。台北:桂冠。new window
費孝通(1991)。《鄉土中國(1947初版) 》。香港:三聯。
潘淑滿(2003)。〈婚姻暴力的發展路徑與模式:台灣與美國的比較〉,《社區發展季刊》,101,276-292。new window
潘淑滿(2007)。《親密暴力—多重身分與權力流動》。台北:心理。new window
臺灣社會工作人員專業協會(2011)。〈社會工作研究倫理守則建議版(2011.7.18)〉。取自http://www.tasw.org.tw/p1-news-detail.php?bgid=1&gid=1&nid=81
劉可屏(1987)。〈虐妻問題〉,《輔仁學誌》,19,375-391。
劉秀娟譯,Richard J. Gelles & Claire P. Cornell原著(1998)。《家庭暴力》。台北:揚智。
簡春安、鄒平儀(1998)。《社會工作研究方法》。台北:巨流。new window
簡春安、常宏文(2002)。《家庭暴力被害人保護方案之初探研究》。內政部委託研究計畫。
謝秀芬(2004)。《家庭社會工作:理論與實務》。台北:雙葉書廊。
謝臥龍(1993年12月)。〈被毆婦女之性別角色確認與自尊的研究-探討心理重建與教育策略〉。「特殊境遇婦女研討會論文」,高雄。
戴世玫、楊雅華、郁佳霖(2008年3月)。〈看見心傷兒—實踐以目睹婚姻暴力兒童為主體的服務〉。「追求公平正義社會:社會工作專業的挑戰研討會論文」,台北。
戴世玫、林雅玲(2009)。〈婦女保護庇護安置工作的觀察與詮釋〉,《社區發展季刊》,126,298-308。new window
顏玉如(2013)。〈落實CEDAW之家庭暴力及性侵害防治倡議行動策略〉,《社區發展季刊》,142,25-38。new window

英文部分
Abramovitz, M (2006). Welfare reform in the United States: Gender, race, and class matter. Critical Social Policy, 26(2), 336-364.
Abrahamson, P. & Wehner, C.(2006). Family and/ or Work in Europe? Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 37(2): 153-171.
Theater of the Oppressed Laboratory(2011, Jan. 30)August Boal and the Theatre of the Oppressed. Retrieved from http://www.toplab.org/boalint.htm
Ahlberg, J, Roman, C. & Duncan, S. (2008). Actualizing “Democratic Family”? Swedish Policy Rhetoric versus Family Practice, Social Politics, 15(1): 79-100.
Almeida, R.V., & Lockard, J. (2005). The cultural context model: A new paradigm for accountability, empowerment, and the development of critical consciousness against domestic violence. In N.J. Sokoloff (Ed.), (2005). Domestic violence at the margins: Readings on race, class, gender, and culture (pp. 301-320). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Asian & Pacific Islander Institute on Domestic violence(2012, Jan. 10.). Coiled Spring of Violence. Retrieved from http://apidvinstaapiahf.org/
Berg, B. L.(2007). Qualitative Research Methods for The Social Science(6th ed.).Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Bennett L.W. & Williams O.J. (2001). Intervention programs for men who batter. In C.M. Renzetti, J.L. Edleson, & R. Kennedy Bergen (Eds.), Sourcebook on violence against women (pp. 261-277). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bettio, F. & Plantenga, J. (2004). Comparing Care Regimes in Europe. Feminist Economics, 10 (1): 85-113.
Blumer, H. (1971). Social problem as collective behavior. Social Problems, 18, 298-306.
Brennan, D. (2007). Babies, Budgets, and Birthrates: Work/Family Policy in Australia 1996-2006, Social Politics, 14 (1): 31-57.
Bolzendahl, C. & Olafsdottir, S. (2008). Gender Group Interest or Gender Ideology? Understanding U.S. Support for Family Policy within the Liberal Welfare Regime, Sociological Perspectives, 51 (2): 281-304.
Bond, J., & Phillips, R. (2001). Violence against women as a human rights violation. In C.M. Renzetti, J.L. Edleson, & R. Kennedy Bergen (Eds.), Sourcebook on violence against women (pp. 481-499). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Boss, P.(1988). Family stress management. CA: Sage.
Bunch, C., & Reilly, N. (1994). Demanding accountability: The global campaign and Vienna Tribunal for Women's Human Rights. New York: UNIFEM.
Conyers, J. (2007). The 2005 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. Violence Against Women, 13(5), 457-468
Chamie, J. (2007). Government Policy and Responsibilities Toward the Family: What is Happening to the Family? In S. Loveless & T. B. Holman (eds.) The Family in the New Millennium: World Voices Supporting the ‘Natural’ Clan I. USA: Praeger.
DAIP, Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, Duluth, MN. (2012, Jan. 15).The Power and Control Wheel. Retrieved from http://www.duluth-model.org/wheelgallery.php
Danis, F.S. (2003). The criminalization of domestic violence: What social workers need to know. Social Work, 48(3), 237-246.
Dobash, R. E. & Dobash, R. (1979). Violence against wives: A case against the patriarchy. NY: Free pess.
Elworthy, S.(1996). Power and sex. Dorest:Element Books.
Eng, P. (2003). Safety & justice for all: Examining the relationship between the women's anti-violence movement and the criminal legal system. New York: Ms. Foundation.
Esping-Andersen, G.(1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. NJ: Princeton University Press.
Fedders, B. (1997). Lobbying for Mandatory Arrest Policies: race, class, and the politics of the battered women’s movement. New York University Review of Law and Social Change, Vol.23, No. 2., pp. 281-300.
Family Violence Prevention Fund(2012, Feb. 07). Forms of domestic violence that women experience (immigrant women power and control wheel). Retrieved from http://endabuse.org/userfiles/file/ImmigrantWomen/
Fagnani, J.(2007). Family Policies In France And Germany: Sisters Or Distant Cousins? Community, Work and Family, 10( 1):39-56.
Feerick, M. M., & Silverman, G. B. (Eds.)(2006). Children Exposed to Violence. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks Publishing.
Fenton, Z. E. (1998). Domestic violence in black and white: Racialized gender stereotypes in gender violence. In Lemon, N. K. D. ed.(2001) Domestic Violence Law. Chap. 3C, pp. 147-151.
Ferraro, K. J. (1996). The dance of dependency: A genealogy of domestic violence discourse. Hypatia, 11(4), 77-91.
Finn, J.L., Jacobson, M. & Campana, J.D. (2004). Participatory research, popular education, and popular theatre: Contributions to group work. In C.G. Garvin, L.M. Gutierrez, and M.J. Galinsky (Eds.), Handbook of social work with groups (pp.326-343). New York: The Guilford Press.
Frye, M.(1983). The politics of reality: Essays in feminist theory.Trumansburg, NY: Crossing.
Ghez, M. (2001). Getting the message out: Using media to change social norms on abuse. In C.M. Renzetti, J.L. Edleson, & R.K. Bergen (Eds.), Sourcebook on violence against women (pp. 417-437). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Glaser, B. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis. CA: Sociology Press.
Graham, D. L. R., Rawlings, E., & Rimini, N. (1988). Survivors of terror: Battered women, hostages and the Stockholm Syndrome. In K. Yllo & M. Bograd (Eds.), Feminist perspectives on wife abuse (pp. 217-233). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Guba, E. C. (1990) The Paradigm dialog. CA: SAGE.
Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S.( 1989). Forth generation evaluation. Newbury Park. CA:SAGE
Guo, J. & Gilbert, N.(2007)Welfare State Regimes and Family Policy: A Longitudinal Analysis, International Journal of Social Welfare, 16: 307–313.
Gutierrez, M. & Lewis, E. A. (1999). Empowering Women of Color. NY:Clumbia university Press.
Haj-Yahia, M., & Sadan, E.. (2008) Issues in intervention with battered women in collectivist societies. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 34(1), 1-13.
Henninger, A., Wimbauer, C., Dombrowski, R. (2008). Demography as a Push toward Gender Equality? Current Reforms of Germen Family Policy, Social Politics, 15 (3): 287-314.
Hiilamo, H.(2004). Changing Family Policy in Sweden and Finland during the 1990s, Social Policy and Administration, 38(1): 21-40.
Imperial, M.L. (1997). Self-sufficiency and safety: Welfare reform for victims of domestic violence. In Lemon, N. K. D. ed.(2001) Domestic Violence Law. (pp. 796-808) St. Paul, MN: West Group.
Jasinski, J.L. (2001). Theoretical explanations for violence against women. In C.M. Renzetti, J.L. Edleson, & R. Kennedy Bergen (Eds.), Sourcebook on violence against women (pp. 5-22). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kasturirangan, A., Krishnan, S. & Riger, S. (2004). The impact of culture and minority status on women’s experiences of domestic violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 5(4), 318-332.
Lee, M. Y. (2000). Understanding Chinese battered women in North America: A review of the literature and practice implications. Journal of Multicultural Social Work, 8, 215-241.
Lee, Y. S., & Hadeed, L. (2009). Intimate partner violence among Asian immigrant communities: Health/mental health consequences, help-seeking behaviors, and service utilization. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10, 143-170.
Lee, M. Y., & Law, P. F. M. (2001). Perception of sexual violence against women in Asian American communities. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 10(2), 3-25.
Levinson, D. (1987). Cross-cultural perspective. In Lemon, N. K. D. ed.(2001) Domestic Violence Law ( pp. 94-99). St. Paul, MN: West Group.
Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba E. G.(1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. CA:SAGE Publication.
Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B.(1999). Designing Qualitative Research(3rd ed.). CA: SAGE Publication.
Murray, V. H. (1998). A comparative survey of the historic civil, common, and American Indian tribal law responses to domestic violence. In Lemon,N. K. D. ed.(2001) Domestic Violence Law (pp. 2-7). St. Paul, MN: West Group.
McPhail, B.A., Busch, N.B., Kulkami, S., & Rice, G. (2007). An integrative feminist model: The evolving feminist perspective on intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 13(8), 817-841
National Institute of Justice & American Bar Association. (1998). Legal interventions in family violence: Research findings and policy implications. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
New Visions: Alliance to End Violence in Asian/Asian American Communities. (Brochure)
Numan, W. L.(1997). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
OECD -Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2012,Oct. 06.) OECD Factbook, Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/publications/factbook/
Pankratz, Curt J. (2009). Cross-National Comparisons of Family Policies: The Relevance of National Approaches to Social Welfare, Journal of Comparative Family Studies, Winter Issue: 493-511.
Paymor, M. (2000). Violence no more: Helping men end domestic violence, Andy’s story. In Lemon,N. K. D. ed.(2001) Domestic Violence Law( pp. 73-78) St. Paul, MN: West Group.
Perilla, J.L., Lavizzo, E., & Ibáñez, G. (2007). Towards a community psychology of liberation: A domestic violence intervention as a tool for social change. In Aldarondo, E. (Ed.), Promoting social justice through mental health practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rath, C. (1999). Transforming communities: A model for community organizing. PA: The National Resource Center on Domestic Violence.
Raj, A., & Silverman, J. (2002). Violence against immigrant women: The roles of culture, context, and legal immigrant status on intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 8(3), 367-398.
Richie, B. E. (2000). A Black Feminist Reflection on the Antiviolence Movement. Signs. 25(4), 1133-1137.
Rivera, J. (1994). Domestic violence against Latinas by Latino males: An analysis of race, national origin, and gender differential. In Lemon,N. K. D. ed.(2001) Domestic Violence Law (pp. 155-171). St. Paul, MN: West Group.

Saxonberg, S. & Szelewa, D.(2007). The Continuing Legacy of the Community Legacy? The Development of Family Policies in Poland and the Czech Republic, Social Politics, 14(3): 351-379.
Shen, A.C.T.(沈瓊桃) (2010). Cultural Barriers to Help-Seeking Among Taiwanese Female Victims of Dating Violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 26( 7) ,P.1343-1365.
Smith, C. W. (1988). The Rule of Thumb," A historic perspective? In Lemon, N. K. D. ed.(2001) Domestic Violence Law (pp. 1-2). St. Paul, MN: West Group.

Smith, A. (2005). Looking to the future: Domestic violence, women of color, the state, and social change. In Sokoloff, N.J. (Ed.), Domestic violence at the margins: Readings on race, class, gender, and culture (Chap. 24, pp. 416-434). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Sokoloff, N. J., (2004). Domestic violence at the crossroads: Violence against poor women and women of color. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 32(3/4), 139-147.
GovTrack, Civic Impulse, USA. (2011,Jan. 18). Summary of H. R. 4594 International Violence Against Women Act of 2010. Retrieved from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-4594&tab=summary
Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Strong, B., & DeVault, C. (1992). The marriage and family experience. MN: West.
Tong, R.(1997). Feminist approaches to bioethics: Theoretical reflections and practical applications. Boulder:Westview Press.
Vienna City Government( 2011, Oct. 10). EU-Project: Daphne for families. Fit for life.-Trans-national local support programme to prevent violence against and abuse of children in families. Retrieved from http://www.wien.gv.at/english/magelf/daphne/index.htm
Volpp, L. & Main, L. (1995). Working with Battered Immigrant Women: A Handbook to Make Services Accessible. CA: Family Violence Prevention Fund.
Walker, L. E. (1979). The battered woman. NY: Harper and Row.
Watts, C., & Zimmerman, C. (2002). Violence against women: Global scope and magnitude. The Lancet, 359 (9313), 1232-1237.
Pickup, F. (2001). Human rights and development responses to violence against women. In Pickup F., Ending violence against women: A challenge for development and humanitarian work ( pp. 46-75). London: Oxfam.
Yllo, K.A. (1993). Through a feminist lens: Gender, power, and violence. In R.J. Gelles & D.R. Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp. 47-62). Newbury Park: Sage.
Yick, A. G. (2007). Role of culture and context: Ethical issues in research with Asian Americans and immigrants in intimate violence. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 277-285.
Yick, A. G., & Agbayani-Siewert, P. (2000). Dating violence among Chinese American and White students: A sociocultural context. Journal of Multicultural Social Work, 8, 101-129.
Yick, A. G., Shibusawa, T., & Agbayani-Siewert, P. (2003). Partner violence, depression, and practice implications with families of Chinese descent. Journal of Cultural Diversity, 10, 96-104.
Yick, A. G.& Oomen-Early, J. (2009). Using the PEN-3 model to plan culturally competent domestic violence intervention and prevention services in Chinese American and immigrant communities. Health Education, 109 (2), P. 125-139.
Yoshihama, M. (1998). Domestic Violence in Japan: Research, Program Development and Emerging Movements. In A. Roberts(Ed), Battered Women and Their Families: Intervention and Strategies and Treatment Programs (2nd,pp.405-447). New York: Springer.
Yoshihama, M. (1999). Domestic violence against women of Japanese descent in Los Angeles.Violence Against Women, 5(8), P. 869-897.
Yoshihama, M. (2001). Immigrants-in-context framework: understanding the interactive influence of socio-cultural contexts. Evaluation and Program Planning. 24,P. 307-318.
Yoshihama, M. (2002a).Breaking the Web of Abuse and Silence: Voice of Battered Women in Japan. Social Work, 47(4), 389-400.
Yoshihama, M. (2002b). The Definitional Process of Domestic Violence in Japan: Generating Official Response Through Action Oriented Research and International Advocacy. Violence Against Woman, 8(3), 339-366.
Yoshihama, M.(2005). A web in the patriarchal clan system-Tactics of intimate partners in the Japanese sociocultural context. Violence Against Woman, 11(10),1236-1262.
Yoshihama, M. (2009). Literature on intimate partner violence in immigrant and refugee communities: Review and recommendations. In Family Violence Prevention Fund (Ed.), Intimate partner violence in immigrant and refugee communities: Challenges, promising practices and recommendations (pp.34-64). Princeton, NJ: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
Yoshihama, M., Ramakrishnan, A., Hammock, A.C. & Pasha, M.K. (2012). Intimate partner violence prevention program in an Asian immigrant community: Integrating theories, data, and community, Violence Against Women, 18(7), 763-83.
Yoshihama & Dabby(2009). Facts & Stats: Domestic Violence in asian, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander Homes.CA: APIAHF Health Forum.
Yoshihama, M. & Sorenson, S. B.(1994). Physical, sexual, and emotional abuse by male intimates: Experience of women in Japan. Violence and Victims, 9 , 63-77.
Center for women’s Global Leadership , Rutgers, The State university of New Jersey(2011,Jan. 25). 16 Days of Activism Against Violence Against Women. Retrieved from http://16dayscwgl.rutgers.edu/



 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE