This comprehensive and accessibly written introduction provides state-of-the-art information on the aetiology, prevalence, treatment and prevention of family violence. Each chapter leads with a topic-specific interview that sets the stage for discussion on topics such child physical, sexual and emotional abuse; courtship violence and date rape; partner abuse, battered women and batterers; and elder abuse. The authors - leading authorities in the field - incorporate research findings from psychology, sociology, criminology and social welfare to provide a broad coverage of current viewpoints and debates. Their research discussions, while firmly based in science, are enlivened with passion, humour and informal interviews.
This is a college textbook, which one of my old uni friends who studied sociology recommended when I asked him what the most impactful lecture he took was.
(Disclaimer: this textbook is from 2005, so there is probably a more up-to-date resource on the topic.)
This book presents an overview of the different types of family violence that occur, along with a detailed analysis on the data related to each of these categories. It also asks a series of important questions related to care and treatment for both victims and perpetrators.
Readers are encouraged to analyze the information and ask: what does the data tell us about the perpetrators of abuse, and about the circumstances in which victims are most likely to be abused? What resources are most effective for mitigating violence? How can our studies on abuse gather the most accurate information? How can we advocate for more effective policy changes?
“Family violence is the most widespread form of violence in the United States and is the leading cause of injury and death among women and children.”
I finished this a while ago and can honestly say that I read most of it. I think that's pretty good for a textbook. It is an incredible resource with a lot of information, but at the same time it was very frustrating. The field of domestic violence can be grey, so the authors had to be ambiguous at times, which is understandable, but complicated too.