To document the viewpoints on intimate partner violence (IPV) of Québec practitioners working with violent partners and of program managers of batterer intervention programs (BIPs). Based on Loseke’s (2003) theory of the construction of social problems, a qualitative study was carried out with 25 practitioners working with violent partners and with18 program managers of BIPs so as to explore their conceptions of IPV and their representations of perpetrators and victims. Study participants primarily defined IPV as a way of taking control, while nonetheless noting other motivations. They also insisted on the diversity of contexts of IPV and its numerous manifestations. For them, IPV was a complex, multifactorial problem, involving individual risk factors for the most part, though also including contextual and social ones. Not only did they not see a single type of IPV, but they also saw no single perpetrator or victim profile. They saw both perpetrators and victims as accountable for their choices, even though they posed some limitations on this general principle of accountability. Complexity and diversity seemed to characterize their conceptions of IPV and their representations of perpetrators and victims. Findings are discussed in the light of current debates about IPV, of implications for BIPs, and of contexts that may influence IPV conceptions.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
The government enacted a new action plan in August 2018 (Gouvernement du Québec 2018).
à cœur d’homme is a Québec association bringing together 29 organizations providing BIPs. Its mission is, among other things, to consolidate and update assistance to male perpetrators of IPV (ACDH 2018).
This research was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Sincere thanks to Rémi Bilodeau, Valérie Meunier and Mario Trépanier.
À coeur d’homme (ACDH). (2016). Violence conjugale et familiale: Vers une politique gouvernementale renouvelée [Domestic and family violence: Toward a renewed politic]. Québec: ACDH.
ACDH. (2018). Rapport d’activités 2017–2018 [Activity report]. Québec: ACDH.
Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651–680. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.126.5.651.
Audet, J. (2002). Violence conjugale, comment les intervenants dans une communauté algonquine la conçoivent, l’expliquent et envisagent l’intervention auprès des conjoints violents [IPV: How practitioners in an aboriginal community see it, explain it and deal with violent partners]. Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Rouyn-Noranda, Canada.
Babcock, J., Armenti, N., Cannon, C., Lauve-Moon, K., Buttel, F., Ferreira, R., et al. (2016). Domestic violence perpeprators programs: A proposal for evidence-based standards in the United States. Partner Abuse, 7, 355–460. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-65188.8.131.525.
Bates, E. A. (2016). Current controversies within intimate partner violence: Overlooking bidirectional violence. Journal of Family Violence, 31, 937–940. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-016-9862-7.
Brasfield, R. (2015). Revisiting the derivation of batterer subtypes: Towards profiling the abuser. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 3467–3478. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514563832.
Brodeur, N., Lisieux, E., Rinfret-Raynor, M. & Pépin-Gagné, J. (2014). Portrait des programmes québécois d’aide aux conjoints ayant des comportements violents [A portrait of BIPs in Quebec]. Service Social, 60, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.7202/1025130ar.
Cannon, C., Hamel, J., Buttell, F., & Ferreira, R. J. (2016). A survey of domestic violence perpetrators programs in the United States and Canada: Findings and implications for policy and intervention. Partner Abuse, 7, 226–276. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-65184.108.40.206.
Corbally, M., Hughes, J., & Delay, D. (2016). Gender arguments and paradigmatic challenges within intimate partner violence research: A call for a more inclusive paradigm of understanding regarding physical partner violence perpetration. Journal of Family Violence, 31, 1009–1012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-016-9875-2.
Cordeiro, L., Soares, C. B., & Rittenmeyer, L. (2017). Unscrambling method and methodology in action research traditions: Theoretical conceptualization of praxis and emancipation. Qualitative Research, 17(4), 395–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794116674771.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Dallaire, L.-F., & Brodeur, N. (2016). Points de vue de professionnels intervenant auprès des conjoints ayant des comportements violents au sujet de la concomitance de violence conjugale et de troubles mentaux [Viewpoints of practitioners working with violent partners about the concomitance between IPV and mental health disorders]. Canadian Social Work Review, 33, 5–25. https://doi.org/10.7202/1037087ar.
Dalton, B. (2009). Batterer program directors’ views on substance abuse and domestic violence. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 18, 248–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926770902809795.
Dankwort, J., & Rausch, R. (2000). Men at work to end wife abuse in Quebec: A case study in claims making. Violence Against Women, 6, 936–959. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778010022182227.
DeKeseredy, W. S. (2016). Understanding woman abuse in intimate heterosexual relationships: The enduring relevance of feminist ways of knowing. Journal of Family Violence, 31, 1043–1046. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-016-9861-8.
Dunn, J., & Power-Williams, M. (2007). “Everybody makes choices”: Victim advocates and the social construction of battered women’s victimization and agency. Violence Against Women, 13, 977–1001. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801207305932.
Edin, K. E., Lalos, A., Högberg, U., & Dahlgren, L. (2008). Violent men: Ordinary and deviant. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 225–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260507309342.
Edin, K., Hogberg, U., Dahlgren, L., & Lalos, A. (2009). The pregnancy put the screws on: Discourses of professionals working with men inclined to violence. Men and Masculinities, 11, 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X06294010.
Eisikovits, Z., & Bailey, B. (2016). The social construction of roles in intimate partner violence: Is the victim/perpetrator model the only viable one? Journal of Family Violence, 31, 995–998. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-016-9879-y.
Gondolf, E. W. (2012). The future of batterer programs: Reassessing evidence-based practice. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Gouvernement du Québec. (1995). Politique d’intervention en matière de violence conjugale. Prévenir. Dépister. Contrer la violence conjugale [Intervention policy on IPV: Preventing, detecting, ending IPV]. Québec: Gouvernement du Québec.
Gouvernement du Québec. (2018). Plan d’action gouvernemental 2018–2023 en matière de violence conjugale [IPV action plan 2018–2023]. Québec: Gouvernement du Québec.
Harris, S. (2013). Studying the construction of social problems. In J. Best & S. Harris (Eds.), Making sense of social problems. New images, new issues (pp. 1–9). Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 283–294. https://doi.org/10.2307/353683.
Kelly, J. B., & Johnson, M. P. (2008). Differentiation among types of intimate partner violence: Research update and implications for interventions. Family Court Review, 46, 476–499. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2008.00215.x.
Labarre, M., Brodeur, N., Roy, V., & Bousquet, M.-A. (2019). Practitioners’ views on IPV and its solutions: An integrative literature review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 20, 679–692. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838017728709.
Lessard, G. (2004). Concomitance de violence conjugale et de mauvais traitements envers les enfants: Représentations des intervenants et défis de collaboration pour l’offre d’une aide cohérente [Concomitance between IPV and child maltreatment: social representation of practitioners and collaboration challenges for a coherent offer of services]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (NR04563).
Loseke, D. R. (2003). Thinking about social problems: An introduction to constructionist perspective (2nd ed.). Piscataway: Transaction Books.
McGinn, T., McColgan, M., & Taylor, B. (2017). Male IPV perpetrator’s perspectives on intervention and change: A systematic synthesis of qualitative studies. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838017742167.
Ministère de la sécurité publique du Québec. (2017). Les infractions contre la personne commises dans un contexte conjugale au Québec: Faits saillants 2015 [Crimes against persons related to IPV: Highlights 2015]. Québec: Gouvernement du Québec.
Morrison, P. K., Cluss, P. A., Miller, E. P., Fleming, R., Hawker, L., Bicehouse, T., George, D., Wright, K., & Chang, J. C. (2017). Elements needed for quality batterer intervention programs: Perspectives of professionals who deal with intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 32, 481–491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-016-9835-x.
Morrison, P. K., Hawker, L., Miller, E. P., Cluss, P. A., George, D., Fleming, R., Bicehouse, T., Wright, K., Burke, J., & Chang, J. C. (2019). The operational challenges for batterer intervention programs: Results from a 2-year study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34, 2674–2696. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516662307.
Muehlenhard, C. L., & Kimes, L. A. (1999). The social construction of violence: The case of sexual and domestic violence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 234–245. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_6.
Nichols, T. L. (2003a). Voices of social problems: A dialogical constructionist model. Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 26, 93–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/SO163-2396(02)26009-3.
Nichols, T. L. (2003b). Rethinking constructionist agency: Claimsmakers as conditions, audiences, types and symbols. Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 26, 125–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/SO163-2396(02)26010-X.
Pallatino, C., Morrisson, P., Miller, E., Burke, J., Cluss, P., Fleming, R., et al. (2019). The role of accountability in batterers intervention programs and community response to intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 34, 631–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-019-00050-6.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Perrin-Robin, D., & Miller-Perrin, C. L. (2011). Interpersonal violence as social construction: The potentially undermining role of claims making and advocacy statistics. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 3033–3049. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510390947.
Rondeau, G. (1989). Les programmes québécois d’aide aux conjoints violents: Rapport sur les seize organismes existant au Québec [Quebec programs for violent partners]. Québec: Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux.
Stark, E. (2010). Do violent acts equal abuse? Resolving the gender parity/asymmetry dilemma. Sex Roles, 62, 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9717-2.
Stark, E., & Hester, M. (2019). Coercive control: Update and review. Violence Against Women, 25, 81–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801218816191.
Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family. Garden City: Doubleday/Anchor Books.
Virkki, T. (2015). Social and health care professionals’ views on responsible agency in the process of ending intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 21, 712–733. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801215577213.
Walby, S., & Towers, J. (2018). Untangling the concept of coercive control: Theorizing domestic violent crime. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 18, 7–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895817743541.
Walker, K., Bowen, E., Brown, S., & Sleath, E. (2018). The process of primary desistance from intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 24, 843–875. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801217722238.
Winstok, Z. (2011). The paradigmatic cleavage on gender differences in partner violence perpetration and victimization. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 303–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2011.04.004.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Roy, V., Brodeur, N., Labarre, M. et al. How Do Practitioners and Program Managers Working with Male Perpetrators View IPV? A Quebec Study. J Fam Viol 35, 877–888 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-019-00104-9
- Intimate partner violence
- Program managers
- Batterer intervention programs
- Construction of social problems