<%BANNER%>

The Development of Family Violence Research: A Retrospective Analysis


PAGE 1

THE DEVELOPMENT OF FAMILY VIOLENCE RESEARCH: A RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS By RACHEL BIRMINGHAM A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2007 Rachel Birmingham

PAGE 3

To following your passion in life and to ne ver settling, and to Doug Diekow, whose inspiration taught me this.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank various individuals for their suppor t over these past years. First I thank my parents, who have kept me centered in love above all else. I thank them for sacrificing time and energy to ensure I had the best possible opportunities, and for teaching the value of education. My mother gave me the primary example of what it means to be a perseverant woman in times of struggle. My stepfather taught me the importance of never wavering from my authenti c self and instilled in me a strong social consciousness. The Fieler family adopted me and taught me more about myself than I could have ever anticipated. Jean Fieler taught me about life, love and self-acceptance, Lessons I will carry with me throughout my life. Also, speci al thanks go to Shiloh Birmingham, Aaron Birmingham, Jennifer Hogsette, Edith Clar k, Angel Marino and many others for their continued encouragement and suppo rt throughout this process. This work would not have been possible without the guidance of my committee. I thank Dr. Constance Shehan for her continuous support throughout this process, and for encouraging my scientific curiosities and a llowing me explore them. Dr. Rose Barnett, has been a strong ally throughout these years, and her wisdom has given me the strength and courage to overcome and succeed. The lessons I learned from her throughout my graduate experience are very powerful and far-reaching. Finally, I would like to ac knowledge Dr. Suzanna Smith, my advisor and mentor. I am incredibly thankful for her patience, motivation and compassion throughout this process. This would not have been po ssible without her wonderful guidance and encouragement. She has been an inspiration for those who seek to make a difference in the lives of children and familie s throughout our communities.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...................................................................................................4 LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................viii ABSTRACT.......................................................................................................................ix CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Purpose of Study...........................................................................................................2 Definitions of Terms.....................................................................................................3 Domestic Violence/ Intimate Partner Violence.....................................................3 Sibling Violence and Abuse..................................................................................3 Behavior Classifications...............................................................................................3 Physical Abuse......................................................................................................3 Emotional Abuse...................................................................................................4 Sexual Abuse.........................................................................................................4 Financial Abuse.....................................................................................................4 Neglect...................................................................................................................4 Drug Abuse/Chemical Restraint............................................................................5 Theoretical Introduction...............................................................................................5 Limitations....................................................................................................................6 Significance of Study....................................................................................................7 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................8 Child Maltreatment.......................................................................................................9 Child Physical Abuse............................................................................................9 Child Emotional/Psychological Abuse................................................................10 Child Sexual Abuse.............................................................................................11 Child Neglect.......................................................................................................12 Summary..............................................................................................................12 Domestic Violence/Intim ate Partner Violence...........................................................13 IPV and Physical Abuse......................................................................................14 IPV and Psychological/Emotional Abuse...........................................................15 IPV and Sexual Abuse.........................................................................................16 IPV and Financial Abuse.....................................................................................17

PAGE 6

vi Other Forms of Domestic Violence............................................................................17 Domestic Violence in LGBT couples..................................................................17 Abuse During Pregnancy.....................................................................................18 Summary..............................................................................................................19 Elder Abuse................................................................................................................19 Elder Physical Abuse...........................................................................................20 Elder Psychological/Emotional Abuse................................................................20 Elder Financial Abuse.........................................................................................21 Elder Neglect.......................................................................................................22 Elder Drug Abuse/Chemical Restraint................................................................22 Summary..............................................................................................................23 Sibling Abuse..............................................................................................................23 Sibling Physical Abuse........................................................................................24 Sibling Emotional/Psychological Abuse.............................................................25 Sibling Sexual Abuse..........................................................................................25 Outcomes.............................................................................................................26 Summary.....................................................................................................................26 Policy Overview.........................................................................................................27 Significant Policies in Relation to Family Violence...................................................28 Decade in Review from the Journal of Marriage and Family....................................30 The Decade of the 1960s.....................................................................................30 The Decade of the 1970s.....................................................................................32 The Decade of the 1980s.....................................................................................33 The Decade of the 1990s.....................................................................................33 Theory Overview........................................................................................................34 Research Questions and Hypotheses..........................................................................41 Conclusions.................................................................................................................41 3 METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................43 Research Design.........................................................................................................43 Data Collection...........................................................................................................44 Sample Selection.................................................................................................44 Procedure.............................................................................................................45 Content Analysis.................................................................................................46 Instrument for Family Violence Content in the Literature..................................47 Data Analysis..............................................................................................................48 Limitations..................................................................................................................49 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................50 Journals Sampled........................................................................................................50 General Publication Trends by Decade......................................................................51 Trends in Family Violence Abuse Category..............................................................52 Behaviors Identified in the Literature.........................................................................54 General Trends in Family Violence Concerning Issues.............................................55 Hypotheses Testing.....................................................................................................56

PAGE 7

vii 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS......................................................................60 Research Questions.....................................................................................................60 Hypotheses..................................................................................................................61 Instrument...................................................................................................................62 Overall Trends in Family Violence Publication.........................................................62 Trends in Category of Family Violence Research......................................................64 Trends in Behavior Associated With Family Violence Research..............................65 Decade Reviews from The Journal of Marriage and Family......................................66 Policy Exploration......................................................................................................67 Theory.........................................................................................................................70 Limitations..................................................................................................................73 Future Research Recommendations...........................................................................75 Implications for Practice.............................................................................................78 Implications for Policy...............................................................................................79 Conclusions.................................................................................................................80 APPENDIX A CONTENT ANALYSIS CODEBOOK.........................................................................82 B CITATION INDEX TABLE..........................................................................................84 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................85 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................92

PAGE 8

viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 Changes in Frequency of Publicatio ns about Family Violence Over Time.............51 2 Trends in Family Violence Categor y-Related Publication Over Time....................53 3 Trends in Publication by Abuse Behavior Over Time.............................................54

PAGE 9

ix Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science THE DEVELOPMENT OF FAMILY VIOLENCE RESEARCH: A RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS By Rachel Birmingham May 2007 Chair: Suzanna Smith Major: Family, Youth and Community Sciences Our study examined the trends in family vi olence research literature over the past 5 decades in relation to significant public policies. Although social science research pertaining to family violence has grown trem endously in the latt er portion of the 20th century, few studies have focused on the proce ss of research growth and development. Our study used a retrospec tive longitudinal design to id entify changes in family violence research literature over the past 5 decades, using 5 year intervals for the collection of data. A content analysis was u tilized, based on information gathered from the titles and abstracts of 505 articles. Thes e articles were taken from the four most frequently cited social science research jour nals in the field of family studies, in the social science citation index: The Journal of Marriage and Family, Child Abuse and Neglect, The Journal of Interpersonal Violence, and The Journal of Family Psychology. Category of family violence was measured in terms of type of abuse (i.e., intimate partner violence, child abuse, elder abuse, sibling abuse, and abuse in lesbian, gay,

PAGE 10

x bisexual and transgender relationships). Behavi or in association with abuse (i.e., physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, ne glect, abandonment and fatality) was also measured. Each received a numeric code for purposes of data collection. The data were analyzed using chi-square tests to determin e differences in relative representation of family violence article classifications. Signifi cant chi-square analyses were followed with tests of standardized adjusted residuals to determine the nature of article representation (i.e. over-representation or unde r-representation of certain areas) in greater detail. Trends identified in this study reflected an overall in crease in research publication across all points in time afte r 1980, followed by a slight declin e within the past 5 years. No articles were identified in the sample before 1980. The greatest influx in research publication from this sample occurred in the 1990s. Across all decades, the majority of articl es in this sample were on the topic of child abuse. Only two articles were on si bling violence and abus e, and no publications were identified on elder abus e. Regarding behaviors, sexual abuse received most attention, with physical abuse moderately represented. Little existed on neglect, emotional abuse, and fatality; and no arti cles were identified on abandonment. Based on these findings, recommendations were made to increase research attention to underrepresented areas. This is essential to increas e the knowledge base concerning these areas of family violence. This can enable both researchers and practitioners to better serve vulnerable families.

PAGE 11

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Family violence is a significant social issue in the United States. Scholars report that one in three female trauma victims, one in six pregnant women, and one in ten primary care clinic visitors come from an abusive relationship (F isher & Shelton, 2006). The damage inflicted on children is pervasive as well. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Servi ces Childrens Bureau (2004), a total of 851, 000 cases of child abuse occurred in 2004. Furthermore, 1,49 0 children died from abuse or neglect in the same year (elevated from 1,460 in 2003). Sign ificant as these numbers are, the actual occurrence of family violence may be much higher because many abusive behaviors go undetected (Neufeld, 1996). Contrary to popular belief, family viol ence is not just a problem concerning women and children. In fact, estimates indicat e that at least 200,000 men are victimized each year (Harley, 2006). Also, the elderly are maltreated at a rate of 550,000 annually (Thompson & Priest, 2005). The estimated annual cost in medical care to the victims of family violence is 5 billion dollars (Harley, 2006). The process of social science research pertaining to family violence has grown tremendously in the latter portion of the 20th century. What began with an inquiry by a physician and his colleagues into the physic al symptoms of child abuse (Kempe, Silverman, Steele, Droegemueller & Silver, 1962) has expanded into a field of study dedicated to multiple forms of family viol ence (Gelles & Maynard, 1987). This research has not only been descriptive, identifying forms of violence; but also explanatory,

PAGE 12

2 attempting to explain the reasons behind violen t and abusive behavior within families and intimate relationships. In addition to increased research interest a great deal of pol itical and social attention has been directed to the problem of family violence. Legislation has been developed to protect adult a nd child victims, and to punish perpetrators. Importantly, political attention has resulted in the regulation and standardiz ation of criteria that aid in abuse identification and reporti ng; and in the allocation of funds for the development of prevention and intervention programs. Although scholarly interest in family vi olence has grown, theres been little reflection or systematic anal ysis on how it has developed an d changed. It appears from examining the literature that th e field is attending to differe nt concerns compared to 20 years ago. However, little careful documenta tion confirms this, nor do we recognize gaps in the literature that need to be addresse d. This information would help us better understand our thinking about family violence and its sub-areas. Research could further explore our understandi ng of a specific aspect of family violence or of this phenomenon more generally. Purpose of Study The purpose of this study was to examine the growth and development of family violence research literature in the past 5 decades. This includes trends in research publications, including the level of overall research interest in areas of family violence over time. In addition, this study situated family violence research into a larger social context by examining family violence policy development.

PAGE 13

3 Definitions of Terms Family Violence Family violence is an umbrella term encompassing intimate partner violence/domestic violence, child maltreatment elder abuse, and si bling violence. Each form of abuse will be discussed more specifically, followed by a brief description of common behaviors associated with th ese forms of family violence. Domestic Violence/ Intimate Partner Violence Domestic violence refers to violence a nd abuse between intimate partners. This category includes married and non-married, as well as heterosexual and homosexual couples. Child Maltreatment Child maltreatment includes abusive or ne glectful behavior to ward a child by an adult. This can include physical abuse, emo tional abuse, sexual a buse, and/or neglect. Sibling Violence and Abuse Sibling violence and abuse includes beha viors such as physical, emotional and sexual abuse that occur between siblings. Behavior Classifications Physical Abuse Physical abuse is described here as any behavior that involves unwanted or coercive physical contact within the famil y. This can include behaviors such as punching, kicking, slapping, choking, pus hing, or using an object or weapon against a family member (Wiehe, 1997).

PAGE 14

4 Emotional Abuse Emotional abuse refers to behaviors th at involve harsh, derogatory and/ or negative language or actions toward an intima te partner or family member. This behavior is usually characterized by threatening, harassing and intimidating and causes psychological distress to the victim. It is importa nt to note that this behavior often occurs in conjunction with other forms of abuse su ch as physical violence (Wiehe, 1997), which makes detection difficult. Sexual Abuse Sexual abuse involves unwanted physical or verbal contact in a sexual manner. Examples include: touching, fondling, unwanted exposure, and/or coercion into behaviors such as intercourse or sodomy. Also included here is inapprop riate verbal contact, or use of sexual imagery, such as exposure to pornogr aphy. On a final note, sexual abuse also applies in situations where the victim is et her too young or disabled and unable to consent sexual to behavior (Wiehe, 1997). Financial Abuse Financial abuse will be used here in refe rence to behaviors such as stealing or exploiting someones financial assets. This usua lly occurs in situations where the victim is dependent on the perpetrator, and/or is una ble to manage his or her own expenses (Fern & Younger-Lewis, 1997; Paretti & Majecen, 1991). Neglect Neglect can be considered any behavior th at fails to provide basic needs such as food, water, adequate clothing, shelter, nutri tion, hygiene, medical car e, or educational needs. Also, lack of adequate supervision or failure to prevent harm is considered neglectful behavior (Sneedon, 2003). Victims of neglect are us ually individuals that rely

PAGE 15

5 on their abuser for essential needs, such as he lp with activities of daily living. Thus, this population is usually composed of children, el derly, and the disabled (Shugarman, Fries, Wolf & Morris, 2003). Drug Abuse/Chemical Restraint An additional category is drug abuse, or chemical restraint; that is, using substances to control an indi vidual against his or her wi ll. This tends to occur in situations where victims are dependent on their abusers for help with activities of daily living (Shugarman, Fries, Wolf & Morris, 2003). Theoretical Introduction Because the primary goal of this study wa s to examine the development of family violence research literature over time, a theo ry would need to be one that provided a framework for understanding the development of knowledge. Ultimately, the basic components of Giddens structuration theory we re applied in relation to the development of knowledge and social policy in the area of fa mily violence. A central construct of this theory is structuration, or th e intricate and interdependent relationship between structure, defined as informal institutions existing acro ss time and space; and agency (also referred to as action) consisting of individuals, groups and masses that act within structure to sustain and perpetuate it (Cuff, Sharrock & Francis, 1998; Giddens, 1984; Phipps, 2001). The relationship between the tw o is one of high complexity, because they are dependent on each other for the creation and perpetuation of societal norms, values, institutions, and practices. This relationship was applied to the pro cess of knowledge development in the area of family violence research and policy (as a re flection of social change). In other words, structuration theory will be applied to exam ine the relationship between the growth of

PAGE 16

6 family violence knowledge and the process of policy development pertaining to family violence research, to determine if the process of structuration is present (i.e., there is a mutually interdependent relationship between family violence research and policy). Although no other studies have been found that apply structuration theory to family violence literature development and social and policy change, its usefulness in application to general processes and change has been cited (Gynnild, 2002). In addition, research that employs the use of secondary data (such as a hi storical review of publications in family violence research literatu re), is considered an excellent application of structuration theory (Phipps, 2001). This theo ry will be discussed further in chapter 2. Limitations One limitation to this study was its use of archival data. That is, it depended on various publications from diffe rent points in time, taken ou t of historical context for purposes of data collection. Content of dated material has the potential to be misinterpreted, thereby losing the authors intended meaning. One scholar notes that, Content analysts whose work concerns histor ical documents often make the mistake of ignoring the fact that linguistic conventions are unstable over long periods of time, that past readings could dramatically differ from contemporary ones, and that the institutions that accounted for the document s creation are not comparable to the ones with which the analyst is familiar (Krippendorf, 2004, p.187). Thus, validity could be threatened, as content analysis decreases confidence in th e accurate description or evaluation of any category. However, a safeguard has been bui lt through the careful construction of a codebook with strict criteria for the classifi cation of data. Furthermore, contextual differences did not threaten this study to a large degree, as the criterion used in coding has been determined through an extensive re view of the research literature. This

PAGE 17

7 instrument not only decreased the likelihood of coding misinterpretation and error, but also enabled replication of this study in the future. Significance of Study Researching trends within family violence literature is an important contribution to this field of research. Not only can such an analysis provide an overview of where the literature has gone (i.e., the various forms of family violence that have been recognized), but can also provide information regardi ng areas that have been neglected. This knowledge can help family scholars assess where the field is at this point in time, to determine directions that will help us to better understand family violence, and to suggest appropriate directions for inte rventions and policies. In addi tion, this study is significant in that it used a theory that had been prev iously unapplied to family violence research, thereby further testing an emerging theoretica l perspective. This process supports one of the central purposes of research, the buildi ng and testing of theory (DeVaus, 2001).

PAGE 18

8 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Family violence is a pervasive and signifi cant social problem affecting millions of family members of the course of their lives, often with se vere and long lasting impacts (Carter & McGoldrick, 2005; Gelles, 1997; Johnson & Ferarro, 2000). However, due to various factors, including social norms rega rding the privacy, sovereignty, and autonomy of the family unit, family violence was a la rgely unrecognized issue unt il the latter half of the 20th century (Straus, 1992). Many credit this change to the public ation of Kempe and colleagues (1962) landmark work, The Battered Child Syndrome (Gelles, 1987; Sneedon, 2003), which provided evidence of chil d abuse and neglect being perpetrated by family members. Within a decade, an influx of research was dedicated to the issue of child maltreatment, and laws were establ ished for reporting and protecting children against abuse. Also during this time, an intere st in other forms of abuse such as intimate partner violence emerged; and by the mid-1970s family violence had become recognized as a significant social problem (Kelly, 2004). The family was no longer assumed to be the safe haven, as previously idealized in U. S. society. Scholars began to identify and examine many other forms of family violence including not only chil d maltreatment and domestic violence, but also elder abuse, sibl ing abuse, and later, violence between samesex partners. This chapter first provides an overview of each category of family violence. Included here are current definitions and classifications pertaining to the types of perpetrators, victims, and interactions that encompass current notions of each type of

PAGE 19

9 family violence. In addition, the pervas iveness and outcomes for individuals (and families), impacted by this social problem are addressed. Child Maltreatment The first category that will be discussed is child maltreatment. Behaviors associated with this form of abuse primarily include phys ical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, and neglect. Child Physical Abuse The United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has defined physical abuse as physical injury (ranging fr om minor bruises to severe fractures or death) as a result of punching, beating, kicking, biting, shaking, throwing, stabbing, choking, hitting (with a hand, stick, strap, or other object), burning, or otherwise harming a child. Such injury is considered abuse re gardless of whether the caretaker intended to hurt the child (Department of Health and Human Services [HHS], 2004). Similarly, researchers have defined physic al abuse as encompassing behaviors such as beating, whipping, shaking, bur ning, or the use of weapons to inflict harm on a child (Hamner & Turner, 2001). Others have de fined physical abuse to encompass any deliberate injury to a child, or willful or neglectful failure to prevent physical injury or suffering to a child (Sneddon, 2003, p. 238). Annually, of the estimated 851,000 children who are abused, 17% are physically abused (HHS, 2004). In 2004, there were 152,250 confirmed cases of child physica l abuse (HHS, 2004). Children who are physically abused are significantly more likel y to die before age five than nonabused children (Rosenberg, 2003). Outcomes for ch ildren who are physically abused include: poorer interpersonal relationships, probl ematic behavior in adolescence and young

PAGE 20

10 adulthood, and increased incidence of perpet rating physical violence (Swinford, DeMaris, Cernkovich & Giordano, 2000). Child Emotional/Psychological Abuse Emotional/psychological abuse has been de fined by the Department of Health and Human Services as a pattern of behavior that impairs a child's emotional development or sense of self-worth (Child Welfare Info rmation Gateway, 2). This may include constant criticism, threats, or rejection, as well as withholding love, support, or guidance. Similarly, researchers often describe emo tional abuse as involving such behaviors as degrading, rejecting, belittling, terroriz ing, or isolating a child (Sneddon, 2003). Also, the destruction of physical property, and the th reatening or harming of a childs animals have been discussed (Wiehe, 1997). In 2004, there were 61,272 confirmed cases of emotional abuse reported in the United States. In addition, emotional abuse cases represent about 6.5% of confirmed child abuse cases (HHS, 2004). However, it is important to recognize that this statistic may not be representative of its total occurr ence, as many cases of emotional abuse occur in conjunction with other forms of abuse. Psychological abuse is cited as the most devastating form of child abuse (Romeo, 2000), resulting in lowered self esteem, lear ned helplessness, and poor social skills (Hamner, et. al., 2001), with these impacts last ing into adulthood (Bar nett, Miller-Perrin & Perrin, 2005). Other negative outcomes resu lting from emotional abuse include issues with boundaries, trust, and ge neral distress (Barnett, Perri n & Perrin, 2005). However, this form of maltreatment has received little at tention in the research literature. This may be due to several factors including the only recent recognition of ps ychological abuse as a problematic occurrence within families (G ondolf, Heckert, & Kimmel, 2002; Klien &

PAGE 21

11 Orloff, 1999). Also, it has been asserted that co-morbidity of emotional abuse in conjunction with other, more visible forms of abuse makes its detection difficult (Wiehe, 1997). Child Sexual Abuse According to The Department of Hea lth and Human Services, Sexual abuse includes activities by a parent or caretaker such as fondling a child's genitals, penetration, incest, rape, sodomy, indecent exposure, a nd exploitation through prostitution or the production of pornographic materials (HHS, 2004) In the literature, sexual abuse has been defined as the involvement of children and adolescents in sexua l activities they do not truly comprehend, or that they are unabl e to give informed consent to (Sneddon, 2003, p.237). This can involve behaviors such as touching, fondling, petting, forced penetration, exhibitionism (of the adult), voy eurism, or forced exposure of the child (Wiehe, 1997). Literature has reported that at least on e in four adolescent females have been reportedly sexually abused in some way (Zi nn & Eitzen, 2005). In addition, according to the Department of Health and Human Serv ices, there were 84,398 confirmed cases of child sexual abuse in 2004, which represented about 10% of confirmed child abuse cases (HHS, 2004). Furthermore, studies show that in these cases of sexual abuse, the median age of first occurrence is age 12 (Zinn & Eitz en, 2005). Outcomes for the victims of child abuse include problems with self-esteem, problems with boundaries, difficulty forming and maintaining intimate relationships, and an increased likelihood for teenage promiscuity and adolescent pregnancy (Anda, Felitti & Marchbanks, 2001).

PAGE 22

12 Child Neglect Child neglect has been defined in fede ral law by The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (2005) as any re cent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker, which results in death, serious phys ical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, or exploitation, or an act or failu re to act which presents an im minent risk of serious harm (p. 1). Also, child neglect can exist in several forms failu re to provide physical needs (i.e., food, water, clean clothi ng, shelter); emotional needs (love, affection, boundaries); or educational needs (i.e., failure to en roll child in school) (Sneedon, 2003). Research shows that neglect is most likely to occur in disorganized family settings, families of lowered socioeconomic status, and/or in fa milies with depressed or substance-abusing parents in the home (Orange, 2005). In comparison to each common form of ch ild abuse, neglect is most commonly reported, with a rate of 544, 050 cases in 2004, representing about 60% of all confirmed cases. Outcomes for victims of child neglect can be devastating. In fact, in 2004 one-third of the 1,490 child fatalities we re the direct result of negl ect (HHS, 2004). Furthermore, it is more likely that a child w ill die as a result of chronic neglect than from a single incident of physical violence (Berry, Charison & Dawson, 2003). Summary Overall, child maltreatment has been cited as the sec ond leading cause of death among young children (Johnson, 2002). Furthermore, research shows that the outcomes for children can often include problems with ment al health, such as depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder; problem s with bonding and social relationships; low self-worth; and high levels of shyness (Gracia, 1995; Romeo, 2002). Also, children who have been abused show higher rates of suic idal ideation, attempt and completion (Zinn &

PAGE 23

13 Eitzen, 2005). In addition, these ch ildren are arguably at a great er risk to perpetuate these behaviors in their adult relationships via the intergenerational transmission of violence (Gelles & Maynard, 1987; Noland et. al., 2004; Zinn & Eitzen, 2005). Domestic Violence/Intimate Partner Violence Domestic violence, also calle d intimate partner violence (IPV), is a form of abuse that impacts couples that are married, dating, and cohabiting. According to the 1998 Violence Against Women Act, The te rm, domestic violence, includes acts or threats of violence, not including acts of self defense, committed by a current or former spouse of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabita ting with or has c ohabitated with the victim, by a person who is or has been in a continuing social relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the vi ctim, by a person similarly situated to a spouse of the victim under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction, or by any other person against a victim w ho is protected from that persons acts under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction. (Violence Against Women Act [VAWA], 1998) Current definitions of domestic violence in the research literature encompass many forms of violence including physical, psychologi cal, sexual, and financial abuse (Fern & Younger-Lewis, 1997). Furthermore, intimate pa rtner violence (IPV) includes common couple violence and intimate terrorism, al so called patriarchal terrorism (Johnson & Ferraro, 2000). Common couple violence refers to the nature of intimat e relationships that share instances of expressive violence. That is, th ese violent episodes are not severe, and are the result of a disput e (Johnson & Ferraro, 2000). This vi olence is typically two sided, and does not escalate over time (Gelle s & Maynard, 1987; Olson, 2004). Intimate terrorism, on the other hand, references a spec ific type of relationship in which one partner uses instrumental violence and/or a buse to maintain a level of power and control over the other partner (Gelles & Maynar d, 1987). These relationships are often

PAGE 24

14 characterized by levels of severe violence, is olation, fear, and helplessness on the part of the victim. It is important to note the dis tinction between these diverse forms of intimate partner violence, as they represent two comp letely diverse interpersonal situations, and have different effects (Henning & Feder, 2004) Behaviors associated with intimate partner violence include: physical abuse, psychol ogical abuse, sexual abuse, and financial abuse. IPV and Physical Abuse According to the Center for Injury Preven tion and Control (CDC), physical abuse is defined as the intentional use of physical force with the potential for causing death, disability, injury, or harm. P hysical violence includes, but is not limited to, scratching; pushing; shoving; throwing; grabbing; biti ng; choking; shaking; slapping; punching; burning; use of a weapon; and use of restrain ts or ones body, size, or strength against another person (Center for Di sease Control [CDC], 2006, p.1). Physical abuse has been defined in th e literature in many diverse ways. These diversified definitions are often associat ed with the methodological stance of the researcher (Hegarty et. al, 2004). It is estimated that 9 million couples (one in six marriages), experience some form of intimat e partner violence. This form of violence accounts for 20% of all cases of violen ce perpetrated against women (CDC, 2006). Disparities in definitions of physical abus e have caused what some consider a gap between various theoretical and epistemological orientations within th e research field, as well as in the practiti oner community (Gelles, 1982). The problematic nature of having such contrasting definitions and classifi cations across various academic and social organizations has been cited again and agai n (Helie, Clement & Larrivee, 2003; Holden, 2003; Tham, Ford & Wilkenson, 1995). The lack of unified theory, re search, and practice

PAGE 25

15 has been identified as a signifi cant culprit in relation to the current troubles that plague family research and protection overall (Ge lles, 1982; Shugarman, Fries, Wolf & Morris 2003). IPV and Psychological/Emotional Abuse The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control defines psychological abuse as any behavior that involves trauma to th e victim caused by acts, threats of acts, or coercive tactics. Psychological or emotiona l abuse can include, but is not limited to, humiliating the victim, controlling what the victim can and cannot do, withholding information from the victim, deliberately do ing something to make the victim feel diminished or embarrassed, isolating the vic tim from friends and family, and denying the victim access to money or other basic resour ces. It is considered psychological/emotional violence when there has been prior physical or sexual violence or pr ior threat of physical or sexual violence (CDC, 2006). Psychological abuse among couples, like ch ild psychological maltreatment, has received significant attention over the past 15 to 20 years. When defining psychological abuse, the literature often identifies behaviors such as degradation, manipulations, withholding affection, and making verbal threats (Fern & Younger-Lewis, 1997). The prevalence of this form of abuse in relations hips is difficult to as certain (Barnett, MillerPerrin & Perrin, 2005). Neverthele ss, there are repeated findi ngs that psychological abuse does more long-term damage than other forms of abuse (Lewis, Griffing, Chu, et al., 2006). In fact, female abuse victims reportedl y would rather endure physical abuse than be emotionally battered (Fern & Younger-Lewis 1997), and some suggest an association between the experience of emotional abuse a nd negative outcomes in future relationships (Coning, 2005). Despite the documented severity of emotional abuse, it has only been

PAGE 26

16 since the 1990s that legisl ation has recognized the thre at caused by psychological maltreatment (Klein & Orloff, 1999). IPV and Sexual Abuse According to The U.S. Department of H ealth and Human Services (2006), sexual assault can be verbal, visual, or anything that forces a person to join in unwanted sexual contact or attention. Examples of this are voyeurism (when someone watches private sexual acts), exhibitionism (when some one exposes him/herself in public), incest (sexual contact between family members), and sexual harassment (HHS, 2006). Definitions of sexual violence in the resear ch literature usuall y include some form of unwanted advances or behavior asserted upon the victim in an intimate relationship. Most definitions include exp licit behaviors such as rape sodomy, unwanted touching, petting, and fondling. Other authors have gone so far as to include behaviors such as sexual language, and exposure to pornographic material (Wiehe, 1997). Research shows that a significant amount of sexual victimization in the U.S. occurs within the context of a roma ntic partnership (Tjaden & Theonnes, 1998). Furthermore, studies show that 10%-14% of wives have been forced into sexual activity by their partners (Strong, Devault & Cohen, 2001). Accord ing to the Center for Disease control, victims of sexual abuse are at an increased risk of being abused more than once. Other negative outcomes for victims include an increased risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases, and a greater chance for unintended pregnancy. In fact, 32,000 pregnancies result from rape each year (C DC, 2006). Psychological outcomes for victims of sexual abuse often include depression, su icidal ideation, eating disorders, and posttraumatic stress disorder (CDC, 2006).

PAGE 27

17 Despite statistics that cite the pervasiven ess of sexual abuse, it has been widely ignored in the literature. This lack of empirical attention ha s been attributed to social norms and values regarding appropriate behavi or inside of and outsi de of relationships that has attributed to th e acceptance of violence agains t women (Gelles, 1997). IPV and Financial Abuse An additional category of domestic abuse that is prevalent in the research is financial abuse. This type of abuse usually entails withholding funds stealing assets or property, or taking anyones financial liberties (Fern & Younger-Lewis, 1997; Peretti, 1991). Research also finds that financial abuse is highly likely to o ccur in situations of domestic abuse that would be considered intimate terrorism; that is, situations where one partner uses methods of power and control to isolate and dom inate the other. Often, this involves forced financial reliance of the subordinate partner on the dominant one. Other Forms of Domestic Violence This final section on domestic violence encompasses other forms of family violence covered within the literature in cluding domestic violence in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transsexual (LGBT) rela tionships; and domestic violence involving pregnant women. Domestic Violence in LGBT couples As with heterosexual relationships, abus e in lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual relationships includes physical, emotional, sexual and financia l abuse. Although the behaviors in this category are similar to t hose in general intimate partner violence, this abuse is often undetected. One reason is th at LGBT couples often do not come to the attention of practitione rs due to the ambiguous nature (l ack of traditional dominant and submissive gender roles) of power distribut ion within these relationships (Burke &

PAGE 28

18 Owen, 2006). Issues that plague the LGBT co mmunity involve increased isolation caused by a lack of social support over lifestyle, control under the threat of being outed by a partner, and a lack of legal protection agai nst same-sex batterers (Zinn & Eitzen, 2005). Only within the past few decades has the inci dence of abuse in LGBT couples been given much research attention, and even so, most studies are conducted with small, nonrepresentative samples. An estimated 32% of LGBT individuals have experienced some form of abuse in a past relationship, a nd as many as one in four women in same-sex relationships are physically abused Also, emotional abuse is present in an estimated 83% of LGBT relationships (Peterman & Dixon, 2003; Turell, 2000), suggesting that the incidence of violence appears to be highe r in this group than in the heterosexual community (Burke & Owen, 2006). Despite the apparent prevalence of abuse in LGBT relationships, little research has been located concerning the outcomes faced by victims of abuse in LGBT relationships. Scholars have claimed that research c oncerning LGBT domestic violence has a preoccupation with gender which takes away fr om issues of power and control that are central to the dynamics of thes e types of abusive relationshi ps (Barnett, Miller-Perrin & Perrin, 2005; Johnson & Ferarro, 2000; Zinn & Ei tzen, 2005). That is, current theory has devoted a great deal of attention to gender a nd in the process has sh ifted attention away from the importance of unequal power dist ribution within abus ive relationships. Abuse During Pregnancy An additional form of domestic violence involves the abuse of pregnant women. Physical abuse has the potential to harm both mother and unborn child and in fact, is the leading cause of birth defects and infant mort ality in the U.S, (Gelles, 1997). Another Additional risks related to abuse during pre gnancy include: anxiety, stress, depression,

PAGE 29

19 substance use, infections, failure to gain we ight during pregnancy, and labor and delivery complications. In addition, th ere is preliminary evidence that women abused during pregnancy are more at risk for being murder ed by their partner than nonpregnant abused women (Sagrestano, 2004). Summary Despite variations in defi nition, identification, and repor ting, domestic violence is still recognized as a significan t social problem. Studies have found that as many as four women die on a daily basis at the hands of their partners (Lerner, 1997). Furthermore, research shows that over half of the home less population is com posed of women (and their children) who have fled a violent domestic partner (Zinn & Eitzen, 2005). More stunning still are statistics that report that more women are treated in emergency rooms across the United States as a result of dome stic violence than are treated for muggings, rapes, and auto accidents combined (Gelle s, 1997); and that at least 1200 women are killed by an intimate partner annua lly (Fisher & Shelton, 2006). Victims of domestic violence are often se vere and long-lasting negative outcomes. Survivors of this form of abuse are repor ted to have higher levels of anxiety and depression, as well as a higher incidence of chronic pain symptoms and suicide attempts (Fisher & Shelton, 2006). Elder Abuse The abuse of older adults is a phenomenon that is receiving an increasing amount of attention, possibly due to the growi ng elderly population (McCauley, 2006). Some scholars anticipate that research attention will increase as the large population of Baby Boomers continues to fill the ranks of those aged 65 and older. Also, as medical advances over the past century have extended life exp ectancy, research has shifted focus to the

PAGE 30

20 quality of life in the later years (Jayawar dena & Liao, 2006). Existing literature often cites instances of abuse and neglect that o ccur in families with lowered socioeconomic status, and among adult child caregivers who ar e under an incredible amount of stress and strain. Categories of elder abuse involve be haviors such as physical abuse, emotional abuse, neglect, financial abuse, and drug abuse (Zinn & Eitzen, 2005). Elder Physical Abuse The National Center on Elder Abuse (NCEA) defines physical abuse as the use of physical force that may result in bodily inju ry, physical pain, or impairment. Physical abuse may include but is not limited to such ac ts of violence as stri king (with or without an object), hitting, beatin g, pushing, shoving, shaking, slap ping, kicking, pinching, and burning. In addition, inappropriate use of drugs and physical re straints, force-feeding, and physical punishment of any kind also are exam ples of physical abuse (National Center on Elder Abuse [NCEA], 2006). Approximately 15% of all individuals ag e 65 and older have experienced physical abuse. Furthermore, they represent 12% of a ll murder victims and 7% of all violent crime victims (NCEA, 2006). Finally, older adults w ho are physically abused are more likely to die at an earlier age than those who are not abused. Elder Psychological/Emotional Abuse The National Center on Elder Abuse define s emotional or psychological abuse as the infliction of anguish, pain, or di stress through verbal or nonverbal acts. Emotional/psychological abuse includes but is not limited to verbal assaults, insults, threats, intimidation, humiliation, and harassment. In addition, treating an older person like an infant; isolating an elderly person from his/her family, friends, or regular

PAGE 31

21 activities; giving an older pers on the silent treatment; and en forced social isolation are examples of emotional/psyc hological abuse (NCEA, 2006). It is often reported that emo tional abuse of the elderly us ually is perpetrated in the form of fear and guilt, such as fear for physic al safety, or of the reoccurrence of physical abuse (Paretti & Majecen, 1991). Also, victim s of elder abuse often report guilt over feeling as if they are a bu rden to their own children. Approximately 7.3% of elderly individuals are victims of emotional abus e. Outcomes for victims of emotional maltreatment are very difficult to distingui sh. The most common result seems to be depression. However, according to the Nationa l Center on Elder Abuse, little is known about the degree to which abuse impacts the em otional state of abused elderly individuals (NCEA, 2006). Elder Financial Abuse The NCEA (2006) defines financial or mate rial exploitation as the illegal or improper use of an elder's funds, property, or assets. Examples include, but are not limited to, cashing an elderly person's ch ecks without authorization or permission; forging an older person's signature; misusi ng or stealing an older person's money or possessions; coercing or deceiving an older person into signing any document (e.g., contracts or will); and the improper use of conservatorship, guardianship, or power of attorney (The Basics, 6). Loss of income, assets, and financial indepe ndence is a significant concern to older adults today. Research often defines financial abuse through general behaviors perpetrated against the elderly, such as stealing, withholding money, misleading, removing financial assets, or failing to provi de means of living (Bar nett, Miller-Perrin & Perrin, 2005). Reports have indicated that 12 % of the elderly have been financially

PAGE 32

22 exploited (NCEA, 2006). Once again, this population is highly vulnerable to such behaviors when they rely on others for assi stance with activities of daily living. Also, discrimination based on age can prove problemat ic for those older adults who attempt to fight for their rights, as they may not be taken seriously (Ped rick-Cornell & Gelles, 1982). Elder Neglect Neglect is defined by the Nati onal Center on Elder Abuse as the refusal or failure to fulfill any part of a person's obligations or duties to an elder. Neglect may also include failure of a person who has fiduciary responsib ilities to prov ide care for an elder (e.g., pay for necessary home care services) or the failure on the part of an in-home service provider to provide necessary care (The Basics, 4). Scholars often include behaviors such as failing to provide safe and clean living conditions and medical care to those in need. The prevalen ce of elder neglect is quite striking, with 58.5% of confirmed elder abuse ca ses being classified as neglect. However, it is also reported that as many as 84% of abuse incident s are unreported and undetected (NCEA, 2006). Also, individuals over the age of 80 are neglected at a rate two to three times that of all other older adults. Ou tcomes can include malnutrition, dehydration, bedsores, hazardous or unclean living condi tions, and many negativ e health outcomes (NCEA, 2006). Elder Drug Abuse/Chemical Restraint A fairly new category of elder abuse that has emerged to some extent within the literature is drug abuse, as perpetrated by a caregiver for the purpose of controlling or abusing the elder. Specificall y, this refers to behaviors such as withholding needed medications, whether for current medical conditions or pain control, as a form of

PAGE 33

23 punishment; threatening the wit hholding of medication; or us ing medication as a tool for bribery. On the other hand, providing an exces sive amount of medication also constitutes drug abuse (i.e., using medications or medica tion dosages above the needed amount as a resource to control the elderl y person). Little is known regarding th e pervasiveness or outcomes associated with elder drug abuse. Summary Current statistics reveal that each year in the U.S. over 450,000 elderly persons are abused or maltreated in some way (Joge rst, Brody, Dyer & Arias, 2004; Rothman & Duntop, 2001). Although the popular image of elder abuse is usually composed of medical practitioners and careg ivers who use cruel and abus ive or neglectful tactics against the helpless nursing home patient, this is usually not the case. That is, research consistently has shown that the majority of elder abuse takes place within the family (McCauley, 2006). Overall, the incidence of el der abuse is significant and severe. It has been classified as a form of family vi olence because research reflects that most incidences of maltreatment occur within th e home where the perpetrators are overworked, highly stressed, usually female, and the children of the person in need. It is reported that victims of elder abuse face higher levels of depression, increased risk of injury and fracture, and greater inciden ce of malnutrition, dementia, and death (Levine, 2003). As elder abuse is an emerging area of family viol ence research, much still needs to be done in relation to research, preven tion, and intervention of this social problem (Jayawardena & Liao, 2006). Sibling Abuse Scholars have repeatedly stated that si bling abuse the most pervasive form of family violence (Gelles, 1997; Noland, Lille r, McDermott & Coulter, 2004; Wiehe,

PAGE 34

24 2002). Overall, the incidence of sibling abuse is quite high. Reports in dicate that nearly 60% of individuals have reported experiencing abuse at the hands of a sibling at some time during childhood (Noland, et al., 2004). Sibli ng abuse appears to occur most often in homes that are of lower socioeconomic stat us and with single parents who are often absent. Reportedly, the majority of sibling abuse occurs in the context of babysitting (while a parent is often working). The resu lt is often one sibling being left with responsibilities that exceed their developmental level (Wiehe, 1997). Behaviors that are typically classified as abusive include physical abuse, emotional abuse, and sexual abuse. Yet, due a lack of re search attention to this topic and recognition of sibling abuse as a social problem, no legal definitions we re located pertaining to forms of sibling abuse. Sibling Physical Abuse Physical abuse among siblings includes actions such as punching, kicking, choking, using weapons, or any other behavior acted out with the intent of causing physical harm. Physical violence is typically the more visible form of abuse, and is most likely to receive public attention. Gelles (1997) reports that be tween 63% and 68% of all siblings engage in violent behaviors against each other. Anot her study reveals that 85% of males and 95% of females report that they have been the vi ctim of aggression fr om a sibling (Barnett, Miller-Perrin & Perrin, 2005). Ou tcomes for victims of sibli ng physical abuse are usually negative. Not only does this maltreatment ofte n result in physical harm, but the lack of recognition and interven tion often results in invalidati on of the victims experiences (Wiehe, 2002).

PAGE 35

25 Sibling Emotional/Psychological Abuse Behaviors that are emotionally abusiv e include excessive teasing, degrading, threatening, exacerbating a fear, and destroying personal property. This form of sibling abuse is considered to be the most pervasiv e (Wiehe, 1997). However, as is the case with many other forms of abuse, little information exists regarding the in cidence of emotional abuse. This is due to the difficulty in detec tion of psychological abuse, perhaps as a result of the normalization of this form of abuse between siblings; or as a result of its occurrence in conjunction with other, mo re visible forms of abuse (Haskins, 2003; Wiehe, 2002). Research shows that emotional abuse among siblings has similar impacts on growth, development, and the maintenance of social relationships as emotional abuse between other family members (i.e., among c ouples, between the el derly and caregiver, and parent to child). However, these behavi ors are often overlooked or masked as simple teasing among siblings. Also, research show s that the co-morbidi ty of emotional and physical abuse that occurs in nearly every form of family violence is present here as well. Outcomes for victims of sibling emotional abuse suffer from lowered self-esteem and trust issues (Wiehe, 1997). Sibling Sexual Abuse Sexually abusive behaviors include unwante d touching, fondling, forced or coerced penetration of any form, exploitation, e xposure, and voyeurism of a sibling (Wiehe, 1997). This form of abuse among siblings is very difficult to detect, and is rarely reported. Therefore, little statistical informa tion is available regard ing the incidence of this form of abuse. This lack of informati on has been attributed to the taboo nature of incest and other forms of sexual exploitation w ithin the family (Wiehe, 1997). In fact, it

PAGE 36

26 is argued that because of the unmentionable nature of sexual abuse, especially among family members, identifying victims of this behavior becomes very difficult (Haskins, 2002; Wiehe, 1997). Not only is there insufficient attention to sibling sexual abuse in the practitioners realm, but there is also a lack of theory in th e research arena. That is, the focus of theory (and thus, research), has been on dealing with only father-daughter offenses (Haskins, 2003). Very little litera ture addresses the abuse of one child by another child. Some believe this to be another reflection of social biases in our desire to not label any child as a pe rpetrator (Wiehe, 1997). Outcomes Outcomes for the victims of sibling viol ence are long-lasting and severe. Studies reflect difficulties faced by survivors of si bling abuse, including problems with conflict resolution in future relati onships, lower self-esteem, and problems with deviance and criminal activity (Reese-Weber & Kahn, 2005; Rowe, Rodgers & Meseck-Bushey, 1992). The emotional distress of surviving this abuse is often compounded by the lack of attention and valida tion of victims experiences by society (Wiehe, 1997). Also, outcomes for siblings who perpetrate violen ce are negative. Behaviors associated with violent sibling inter action include alcohol and drug a buse, violent criminal activity, depression, spousal abuse, neglectful and abus ive parenting styles, a nd increased risk of suicide (Trenblay et al., 2004). Summary Awareness concerning the high incidence of si bling abuse is crucial, as research has repeatedly shown the importance of siblings in child and adolescent development, as well as the influence of sibling experien ces on peer relationships, dating and adult intimacy (Howe, Rinalidi, Jennings & Petrakos 2002). However, despite this evidence,

PAGE 37

27 sibling abuse is one of the l east researched forms of family violence. This has been attributed to attitudes of the normalization of abusive behavior among siblings (Wiehe, 2002). Also, scholars have attributed the lack of attention to sibling abuse to the lack of knowledge concerning its occurrence within the family unit. Policy Overview Historical evidence indicates that the types of violence reviewed above have been part of U.S. society for centuries (Ohlin & Tonry, 1989). However, it wasnt until the latter half of the 21st century that family violence was not recognized as a social problem (Gelles, 1997), and laws and policies addres sing this problem did not emerge until the 1970s or later. In fact, before the 1970s fam ily violence was seen as a private problem, in which the government should have no involvement (Lemon, 1999). Furthermore, because laws of the time supported the Family Privacy Doctrine all cases of abuse within the family, except for homicide, grie vous assault and incest, were excluded from legal intervention (Zimering, 1989). Intimate pa rtner violence and marital rape were ignored as well. In fact, the normative proced ure in law enforcement was to discourage arrest in situations of domestic violence if officers thought that the victim would not leave the relationship (Lemon, 1999). However, as social perceptions began to change with the recognition of The Battered Child Syndrome states began to develop child protection laws. By the 1980s, mandatory reporting and abuse shelters were made available to victims of domes tic violence (Zimering, 1989). More recently, the legal system has taken other, less visible, forms of family violence into consideration. This includes in terpreting forcible se x within marriage as rape, considering parental kidnapping as a criminal offense, and recognizing

PAGE 38

28 psychological damage caused to children w ho witness domestic abuse between parents (Lemon, 1999). Nevertheless, policy continues to neglect cer tain areas of family violence, such as sibling violence and violence in LGBT c ouples (Wiehe, 1997; Zinn & Eitzen, 2005). The lack of protection and intervention in these areas may be due to the lack of social awareness and understanding of these forms of family violence (Wiehe, 1997; Zinn & Eitzen, 2005). Significant Policies in Relation to Family Violence Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA)(1974) The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act established the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, as well as the National Cl earinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information. Also, it provided assistance for individual states to build child abuse and neglect identification and prevention pr ograms and increased th e role of federal government in child abuse detection, pr evention and treatment. CAPTA also provided grant money for research, pr ogram evaluation, and the training of professional workers in the area of outr each and prevention. CAPTA was amended in the following years: 1978, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, and 2003. Indian Child Welfare Act (1978) The Indian Child Welfare Act awards the control of adoption and custody of Native Am erican children to tribal members. This autonomy takes precedence over any state law that may conflict with the interests of the tribe CAPTA Revised (1978) The Adoption Reform Act added to CAPTA to include issues surrounding adoptions. This included locating permanent homes for disabled children, establishing better standards for adoptive placement, and provided for annual summaries of research on child abuse an d neglect. Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (1980) The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act established the reunification families as the primary goal of child protective services. Included here are goals of incr easing and improving services available to children and their families, and establishing permanency as early as possible through reuniting children with their family or through adoption. Social Security Act Amendments (1981) Block grants are pr ovided to states for the funding of child protective services. CAPTA Revised (1984) Revisions to CAPTA provide for attention to medically disabled infants, and for the reporting of maltreatment by car egivers out of the

PAGE 39

29 home. Also, a change in the definition of child sexual abuse to include exploitation was established. CAPTA Revised (1988) CAPTA became Child Abuse Prevention, Adoption and Family Services Act, which provided assist ance to states in or der to improve their child protective programs. CAPTA Revised (1992) CAPTA was amended and r eauthorized by the Child Abuse, Domestic Violence, Adoption, and Fa mily Services Act. This act provides assistance to the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect under the requirement that more research be co nducted focusing on cultural diversity and child abuse and neglect. Also, provides gr ants to state community-based prevention programs. Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) (1994) The Violence Against Women Act established a response to domestic violence and the sexua l assault of women. Also, laws establishing protective services (such as the enforcement of interstate protective orders) were enacted. In a ddition, focus was given to battered immigrants, and support for various form s of community outr each programs was expressed. Sex Crimes Against Children Prevention Act (1995) The Sex Crimes Against Children Prevention Act strengthens the pe nalty for the pornographic exploitation of children. This applies to those who crea te, advertise or tra ffic child pornography. CAPTA Revised (1996) CAPTA amended to include services for children of families who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Act (1999) The Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Act was established to increase efforts to achieve permanence for foster children. This law re quires that efforts be made to locate permanent homes for children who cannot be placed back in the home, and provides incentives for increasing number of adoptions. This law also takes emphasis off of the importance of fam ily reunification, and instead focuses on establishing permanency for the child. Older Americans Act Amendments (OAA) (2000) The OAA of 2000 established the National Family Caregiver Support Program. State grants were also awarded for the development of organizations to provide services for the families that care for older adults. VAWA Revisions (2000) Amendments were made to the violence against women act, which identified stalking a nd dating violence to be included in crimes against women. Also, increased attention was given to the protection of battered immigrants and sexual assault. This bill al so created a legal services program for the victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.

PAGE 40

30 CAPTA Revised (2003) CAPTA was last amended by the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act, which provided community-based grants for the prevention of child abuse and neglect. Domestic Violence Screening and Prevention Act (2003) The Domestic Violence Screening and Prevention Act es tablished research centers on family violence (which will encompass resear ch on child, domestic, and elder abuse). Also, this bill provides funding for the tr aining of healthcare professionals on how to identify and treat forms of family violence. In addition, this bill establishes that all Medicaid recipients and all federal em ployees receive family violence screening and treatment through their insurance plans. Decade in Review from the Journal of Marriage and Family One of the most cited journals in the field of family studies is the Journal of Marriage and Family. It has been published for over 60 years and continues to be one of the most widely cited journals in the area of family research. In addition to addressing concerns pertaining to many areas of family life, this journal also provides decade reviews on family-related topics dating back to the 1960s. A brief summary of each decade review in relation to family violence had been provided here in attempt understand what was considered noteworthy dur ing each ten year period included in this research. Prior to the 1960s, the Journal of Marriage and Family existed under another name (Marriage and Family Living), and did not produce decade reviews. Although many articles focused on issues concerning family relations, violence in the family was not addressed. Instead, conflict in relationships was discussed in terms of power structure within the family (Safilos-Ro thschild, 1970). The first deca de review was published in November 1970, and reviewed research of the 1960s. The Decade of the 1960s No articles featured in the decade review of the 1960s addressed the issue of family violence. Instead, research activity, as cited from other articles in the decade review, will

PAGE 41

31 be discussed here. In addition, potential re asons behind the lack of family violence research attention in this d ecade will be discussed. Resear ch that was published in the 1960s took a clinical perspective, focusing only on medical evidence pertaining to the occurrence of family violence. As previously mentioned, this attention is often accredited to the publication of the Kemp e et. al.,(1962) study, which id entified the physical signs and medical symptoms of child abuse. Through an examination of article titles and abstracts within this JMF decade review, it was determined that domestic viol ence was not a topic of interest, nor were forms of family violence other than child physical abuse. Although, there was recognition of psychological impacts of growing up in a broken home, family violence was not addressed. This may be due to the fact that a broken home was often characterized as a result of the following classifications: death of mother, death of father, death of both parents, divorce, separation and other (Kaplan & Pokorny, 1971), i.e., a change in family structure. During this time period, family violence wa s seen as an isolated issue, with pathological factors (such as mental illness) behind the perpetration of abuse (Gelles, 1985). In fact, the existing rese arch often labeled the abuser as being psychopathic or sociopathic. Little was discusse d regarding reasons associated with family violence. Most of the research that did exist focused on po ssible reasons for the a ssertion of power and authority within the family, and did not que stion that the legiti macy of that power belonged to men. Researchers did not identify factors re lated to family violence that need greater scholarly attention in the future (Rothschild, 1970).

PAGE 42

32 The Decade of the 1970s The 1970s review focused more attention on family violence, and the article on this topic recognized violence against both women and children as a social problem (Gelles, 1980). Reasons for th is recognition were social in nature, and the following assertions were made, first, social scientists and the public alik e became increasingly se nsitive to violence due to a war in Southeast Asia, assassin ations, civil disturbances and increasing homicide rates in the 1960s. Second, th e emergence of the womens movement played a part-especially by uncovering a nd highlighting the problems of battered women (Straus, 1974, p.874). According to the review, a central focus of research during this decade was on determining the nature and ex tent of violence within the family. For instance, a good portion of studies published during this decad e focused on determining how often acts of abuse occurred within the family. Also, during this time theories that focu sed on explanatory factors behind family violence emerged. These theories included: resource theory, the ecological perspective, systems theory, evolutionary th eory, and concepts in relation to patriarchy and wife abuse (Gelles, 1980). Potential factors related to family violence occurrence were identified, such as low socioeconomic status, stress and isolation (Gel les, 1985). Greater attention was also given to the need to develop research methodologies for the study of family violence (Gelles, 1985). Prior to this time, conducting research on violence in the family was considered impossible, as most research designs were not applicable (i.e., researchers could not predict or control for th e occurrence of abuse). Areas identified as needing attention in the field were primarily for the development of methodology to assist in bette r understanding the sc ope and dynamics of

PAGE 43

33 family violence. Also, the development of th eory was identified as needed to overcome societys reliance on stereotyping and myth s concerning violence within the family (Gelles, 1980). The Decade of the 1980s According to research in family viol ence during the 1980s, attention was awarded to causes and outcomes of family violence. Included in the outcomes was a focus on the psychological implications of victimization. In addition, the classification of family violence into various categor ies was refined to include in timate partner violence, child abuse, elder abuse, and courtship violence (Gelles & Conte, 1990). The sexual abuse of children was also heavily researched and discussed during this decade. A great deal of emphasis was placed on the causes, incidence and consequences of child sexual abuse. The strongest theoretica l representation during this time period was on the intergenerational transmission of violence (a concept often asso ciated with social learning theory). Also, a small number of studies de dicated to program evaluation emerged with the purpose of better understanding the effectiven ess of intervention. At the close of this decade, areas identified as having a need fo r future attention were theory, methodology (specifically, a need for longit udinal studies on family violence ), and the need to examine the co-morbidity of abuse forms within the family (Gelles & Conte, 1990). The Decade of the 1990s The decade review article on family vi olence (Johnson & Ferraro, 2000) observed that research in the 1990s focused on classifi cation of family violen ce abuse forms with more refined definitions and greater inclusi on. Forms of intimate partner violence, such as common couple violence and intimate terrorism were identified. In addition, violence impacting specific groups such as cohabi ting couples, immigrants, the homeless, and

PAGE 44

34 lesbian, gay, bisexual and tran ssexual couples was addresse d. During the 1990s a greater focus was placed on the occurrence of fam ily violence throughout the world, and the threat to basic human rights family vi olence causes (Johnson & Ferraro, 2000). In relation to theory, a great deal of focus on power and control in abusive relationships was present in the literature. This was part in conj unction with a growing dissatisfaction with the reliance on intergenerational transmission as the primary model of family violence. Finally, research began to address negative imp lications of witnessing violence in the home (Johnson & Ferraro, 2000). At the end of the decade, the primary area identified as needing increased attention was the development of theories to account for the various forms of family violence. Also, there was a call for greater precision in distinctions within data produced, in order to promote public awareness and policy develo pment. The next decade review will take place in November of the year 2010. Theory Overview This research examined the overall growth and development of published family violence research over the past 5 decades. Because my research explores the emergence of research and policy regard ing family violence, theoretic al foundations may best be found in theories of knowledge development (ra ther than family violence per se). Yet, it appears that few theories of knowledge development exist (Ylikoski, 2004). This is not to say that no general epis temological frameworks exist. In fact, schools of thought such as the Strong Programme have focused a great deal of attention to the development of scientific knowledge (T hagard, 1994). Social scie ntists adhering to this school of thought argue that human knowle dge is formed within, and is influenced by, the social context through which it is deri ved. Considerable at tention (both positive

PAGE 45

35 and negative), has been directed at the St rong Programme. For example, it has been asserted that the reliance on pure social ex planations for the generation of knowledge ignores the role of reason, ra tionality, and logic in the deve lopment of science (Slezak, 1991). Another relevant area of study pertaini ng to the development of knowledge has been labeled sociological meta -theory (also referred to as reflexive sociology, or the sociology of sociology) (Yukoski, 2004). Thinke rs who adhere to this framework are concerned with examining the development of sociological theory and epistemology over time (Ritzer, 1988). Scholars have maintained that the process of meta-theoretical analysis has been present and crucial since be fore the inception of sociology as its own science. Such scholars who adhere to this orientation often poi nt to the importance of the process of theoretical and philo sophical thought in re lation to such works as that of Marx on Hegel, or Parsons on Durkheim, Weber, a nd Pareto (Ritzier, 1988). Others, however, consider meta-theoretical anal ysis to be bogged down in phi losophy and argue that this can prevent social science progress through hindering the de velopment and strengthening of new theoretical frameworks (Ritzer, 1988). This research sought to examine the de velopment of social science research focusing on family violence. The various and emerging categories of family violence have been, arguably, related to the theoretica l and epistemological thought of the time. For instance, before Kempes publication on th e battered child syndr ome, little attention or questioning was given to safety of children in the home (Gelles, 1987). The importance of the theoretical and epistemologi cal framework can also be referenced with social movements such as the rise in the feminist ideology and the identification of

PAGE 46

36 violence against women as a problematic so cial issue; or the prevalence of conflict theory-oriented reasoning in the developm ent of the power a nd control model of explaining domestic violence (Ingoldsby, Sm ith & Miller, 2004). Finally, newer theoretical developments, such as th ose under the umbrella of postmodernist epistemology, have been tied to the recent (within the past 15 years) surge of literature pertaining to racial, ethnic, a nd sexual orientation in relati on to family violence (Mills, 1996). It can be asserted that all examples are situations in which theoretical and sociohistorical shifts have influenced the t ypes of questions social science researchers have asked, and the knowledge they have derived. Various theories have been applied in a ttempts to answer pressing questions asked about family violence. These theories seem to fall into one of the three following categories: intrapersonal, interpersonal, a nd cultural (Eckhardt & Dye, 2000). Earlier studies pertaining to family violence often took an intraper sonal perspective, focusing on the individual (Eckhardt & Dye, 2000). This is due, at least in part, to the medical grounds on which this social problem was firs t defined. However, as the field progressed, more studies emerged that took on a more in terpersonal perspectiv e. Some of these prominent theories were social learning theo ry, conflict theory, and feminist theory. The first of these, social learning theory, is one of the most widely used theories of family violence. The widespread recognition of this perspective came about as a result of the development and use of the intergenerationa l transmission of violence model. This model focuses on the interactions within th e family, and the transmission of certain abusive behaviors from parent to child through experience, observation and modeling (Hoffman & Edwards, 2004). Another theory th at grew in popularity was conflict theory,

PAGE 47

37 which focused on the unequal distribution of and the constant struggle for power and control within relationships (Hoffman & Edwards, 2004; Van Wormer & Bednar, 2002). Feminist theory, which focuses on gender and pa triarchal norms, has become prevalent in family violence literature (Hoffman & Edwa rds, 2004). That is, this theory focuses a great deal on how gender and gender roles impact power distribution and experiences within relationships. All three theories tend to share a focus on interpersonal relationships when applied to family violence. However, certain scholars claim that by focusing only on the interactions between family members, important sociocultural influe nces are missed (Mills, 1996). This is not to say that existing theories do not take cultural and envi ronmental influences into consideration. In fact, theories such as family stress and family systems theory take both interpersonal and environmental characteristi cs into account. Multi -level perspectives concerning the causes and consequences of fa mily violence have also been utilized (Eckhardt & Dye, 2000; Mills, 1996). Finally, newer theories such as the ecological model, which takes a multilevel approach to family violence in society, are being used more and more. This is partially due to th e recognition of the usefulness of a multilevel approach to family violence, as opposed to specific individua l or interactional perspectives (Mills, 1996). An overview of the literature pertaining to family violence research has been very beneficial. However, there are patterns within the literature that need to be addressed. First, as previously stated, there seems to be a great deal of debate within the field pertaining to definitions and taxonomy of abus e within the family. Furthermore, there also seems to be a mutual agreement within th e literature that certain forms of abuse have

PAGE 48

38 been neglected within the field. However, it has been very difficult to locate adequate statistics about the amount of neglect that is occurring among the various areas of family violence research. Instead, what can be found is a cycle of reference. That is, repeated assertions of neglect within the researc h, followed by recurring (often circular), referencing of others making the same cl aim. This is a phenomenon that is not uncommon within social science research, and is what Straus and Gelles refer to as a Deterministic Truism That is, certain assertions, often ones that appear logical in nature, become so widely accepted within a field, that they often become referenced as concrete fact (s & Gelles, 1995). This is not to claim that there is no validity to the assertions made by scholars in these situations. However, this study aimed to avoid making similar assertions, and focused only on evidence present within the examined trends. This study utilized Giddens Structurat ion Theory (Giddens, 1984). The theorys basic concepts focus on the relationship between agency (action) and structure Structure usually entails informal institutions that are relatively stable across time and space. Agency usually consists of individuals, groups and masses that act within structure to sustain and perpetuate it. Gidde ns asserts that structure needs agency to exist just as agency needs structure. He terms this effect, the duality of structure and the process as s tructuration (Cuff, Sharrock & Fracis, 1998). Furthe rmore, structure is said to both enable and constrain agency. That is, through the rules and values of structure we come by assets that enable us to pursue our own goa ls (these can be tangible like wealth or intangible like social status). It is also im portant to note that stru cture is often composed of the social norms and values of a given time, and can be changed (over time) by the agents who actively re produce structure.

PAGE 49

39 According to Giddens, social practices are not random and purely voluntaristic, but ordered and stable across space and time, in short they are routinized and recu rsive. In producing social practices, which make up the visible patterns which constitute society, actors draw upon structural propert ies (rules and resources ) which are themselves institutionalized features of societies. Structure is therefore activity-dependent. It is both the medium and outcome of a process of Structuration the production and reproduction of practices acro ss time and space. This process is what Giddens has called the double hermeneutic, the doubl e involvement of individuals and institutions. Put perhaps more truistically: we create society at the same time as we are created by it.(Giddens, 1984, p.14, Rose, 1998, p. 6). This thesis involved structur ation theorys component of structuration Specifically, the study explored organized forms of agency that adhere to shared rules and constraints, in order to reach some co mmon goal. For purposes of this thesis, the relationship between social science research and policy were examined as a social process, adhering to the same developmenta l constraints and allo wances as any other social institution, which can be exemplif ied as a process of structuration. The relationship that exists between fam ily violence research and policy has been discussed elsewhere, and the following was stated: The producti on of sociological research depends on the interplay between the main currents of the broader culture and social structure, and the main currents of research (Strau s, 1992, p. 20). That is, much like Giddens idea of agency social science research acts within the set of cultural norms, values and rules. Also, research often depends on existing institutions (i.e. structure) for tools and assets needed to function (i.e., f unding and publication). Th rough this process, research is done; and ideally, theory is built and changed, publication (a structural tool) is accomplished, and communication of knowledge within society persists. Also, this research in turn, is often relied upon h eavily by policy-makers when determining

PAGE 50

40 legislative action; thus, exemplifying the mutu ally interdependent relationship between these processes. Within family violence research, this process has been cited again and again, although not in the context of structuration th eory. For instance, ma ny publications have alluded to the influence that research publication and academic communication has had on social movement and policy developmen t (Miller & Mullins, 2002). Furthermore, many meta-analytical studies point to the process of scientif ic questioning, and specifically, the events and structures th at determine which questions are deemed acceptable to ask (Yukoski, 2004). Such an exampl e can be seen in th e recent literature pertaining to violence against women. That is the act of defining vi olence against women as a social problem has influenced the t ypes of questions, as well as the amount of questioning scholars designate to the topic (Kelly, 2004; Klien & Orloff, 1999; Zinn & Eitzen, 2005). Another example within fam ily violence research can be found in the realm of domestic violence research pertaini ng to gay and lesbian relationships. It was not until postmodern trends in society (incl uding trends in resear ch) began to change definitions of family, that battery within same-sex couples was given attention (Zinn & Eitzen, 2005). Thus, keeping in mind assertions rega rding the continuous interplay between agency and structure (in this case, family vi olence research development and policy), the goal of this research was to examine th e progression of our collective knowledge pertaining to family violence. This was at tempted through an examination of trends within research publications over the past 60 years in conjunction with social movements and policy changes during this time period. By incorporating an an alysis of publication

PAGE 51

41 frequency and type in relati on to public policy development, it may also be possible to gain a better understanding regard ing the process of structurat ion of the field of family violence research. Research Questions and Hypotheses Q1. What are the trends in the family violence literature within the past 60 years? Q1. 1 What is the relative representation of eac h area of family violence in the family research literature at selected points in time? H1o : There will be no significant differences in the relative representations of categories of family violence in the family research literature at selected points in time. H1a : There will be significant differences in th e relative representations of categories of family violence in the family research literature at selected points in time. Q2: What are the trends in policy related publ ications pertaining to family violence within the past 60 years? Q2.1 What is the relative representation of policy related articles to all articles on family violence at selected points in time? H2o : There will be no significant differences in the relative representation of policyrelated journal articles pertaining to family violence in the family research literature at selected points in time. H2a : There will be significant differences in th e relative representation of policy-related journal articles pertaining to family violence in the family research literature at selected points in time. Q3: Will there be changes in the number of published articles on family violence during times of greater public policy activity? H3o : There will be no significant differences in the number of publications of family violence-related journal articles in times of greater public policy activity. H3a : There will be significant differences in the number of publications of family violence-related journal articles in times of greater public policy activity. Conclusions Various forms of family violence covere d in scholarly publications, practice and policy were discussed in this chapter. Fo rms of family violence discussed include:

PAGE 52

42 intimate partner violence, child abuse, sib ling violence and abuse, elder abuse, and violence within LGBT couples. Behaviors identified within these categories are: physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, fina ncial abuse, drug abuse, and neglect. Common theories used in family violence research we re also discussed, as we ll as the applicability of structuration theory to the field of family violence re search. Finally, ch anges in policy pertaining to family violence we re also addressed, including shifts in social norms and the increasing recognition of va rious forms of family viol ence as a social problem.

PAGE 53

43 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Research Design The central purpose of this study was to desc ribe the historical trends in social science literature pertaining to family viol ence in the past 5 decades by examining the published literature for the a ppearance of articles on the major categories of family violence during this time frame. An additional purpose was to situate trends in family violence research within the context of a ch anging society by observi ng the appearance of articles pertaining to family violence policie s. Taking the temporal component required in evaluating change into consideration, this study implemented a retrospective longitudinal research design, using archival data. This type of research design le nds itself to studies that involve rebuilding past events and allowed the resear cher to process data in a sequential and temporal pattern. A final aim of this project was to provide a springboard for discussions pertaining to the future de velopment of the field of family violence research. This study may be considered descriptive rather than explanatory. Although this type of research is considered by many to be somewhat less desirable than explanatory research (Timmer, 1997), it is also necessary in developing research on understudied topics. That is, descriptive re search provides an essential basis for future scientific inquiry. Because this design was retrospective, many of the common issues surrounding longitudinal design, such as variance in inst rumentation or variance in measurement over

PAGE 54

44 time, did not pose a threat (DeVaus, 2004). Furt hermore, the use of archival data reduced many of the problematic effects related to fo llowing human participants over time, such as individual dropout or panel attrition (DeVaus, 2004). Thus this form of research design was useful in this type of study, as it enabled the review of various documents published over a long period of time and from various sources. In addition to the benefits listed above, a retrospective longitudinal study wa s convenient in that it lent itself well to the application of structuration theory to family violence research. That is, the analysis of data from various periods of time prepared the researcher to describe contextually situated scientific progress a nd processes in the evolution of this field of research. Data Collection Sample Selection This research utilized a non-probabilis tic or purposive sample, focusing on a selection of articles pertaining to family violence research p ublished in selected journals. The sampling frame consisted of 505 family vi olence-related journal articles published in selected social science journals in the Un ited States during the past 5 decades. An exclusive focus on journals pertaining only to family violence was not possible for several reasons. First, there are few in existe nce, and the goal was not to examine trends in family violence journals but rather, to describe trends in the content of articles in the field overall. Also, some of the journals that are current ly publishing articles on family violence were not established during the early portion of the study frame time, and selecting only these journals would not ade quately represent changes in the field over time. The Social Science Citation Index

PAGE 55

45 Four family journals were identified based on the frequency of publications appearing in the Social Science Citation Inde x. This search engine provides researchers with information concerning bi bliographic information, abstr act information, and journal citation information from a current or re trospective point of view across various disciplines (Thomson Scientific, 2007). For this study, a search was conducted that limited results to journals in family studies only, and provided a list of research journals in ranked order based on the total number of annual citations of articles app earing in that journal. This enabled the researcher to identify the four most frequently cited journals in the field of family studies. These journals were: The Journal of Marriage and Family, with 4211 citations Child Abuse and Neglect with 3141 citations, The Journal of Interpersonal Violence, with 1572 citations, and The Journal of Family Psychology, with 1263 articles. Procedure From these journals, the researcher se lected all articles published on family violence over the past 5 decades for inclusion in the study. From the four most frequently cited journals, all family violence articles were identified through an examination of all volumes and issues published in selected ye ars. A content analysis was conducted based on the content of the title, content of the abstract, a nd year of publication. This information was collected beginning with the mo st recent journals in the selected time frame (2005) and traced back to the earliest publication in the year 1960 (for pre-existing journals), or the earliest public ation of the journal (as many of the used journals were not in existence in the 1950s). The year 1960 was chosen because it dated before the publication of the landmark 1962 study of child maltreatment, by C. Kempe.

PAGE 56

46 Five-year markers (i.e. 2005, 2000, 1995, 1990, 1985, etc.) were chosen for purposes of data collection. These dates allowe d for the collection of a sample of articles over the designated time period in a time fram e that was suitable for this study. Also, using 5 year intervals within each decade enabled the examina tion of trends in relation to significant policy developments throughout this time period. That is, sampling in 5 year intervals allowed for the examination of increas es or declines in article publications in time periods both before and after developm ent of subject-signifi cant policies (i.e., policies pertaining to the same subject matter as research publication). Content Analysis Content analysis has been found to be part icularly useful in research that tracks categories and frequencies over time and in si tuations where groups are difficult to access (Bryman, 2004). It has been described in ma ny ways, and can involve diverse approaches and practices. This method has been credited with an ability to apply an objective and systematic method of analysis to data that are more qualitative a nd abstract in nature (Berelson, 1952; Bryman, 2004; Holsti, 1969). In this situation, the manifest content of communication was applied to the titles and ab stracts of selected article publications. A significant weakness of content analysis resides in what some claim to be its atheoretical nature. According to Bryman (2004) this is due to the ease with which data can be systematically measured, making it an objective method th at does not require strong theoretical support. Howe ver, in this situ ation, the very purpose of the content analysis was to provide a systematic me thod of showing process over time, thereby alleviating concern about theory. That is, this research aims to build structuration theory by utilizing it in a new area.

PAGE 57

47 Instrument for Family Violen ce Content in the Literature No instruments have previously been cr eated to examine the content of family violence articles in such a way that coul d be applied to this study. Therefore, an instrument was created for pur poses of data collection. A content analysis codebook was created and used to count and classify articles on family violence. However, as discussed in Chapter Two, the operationalization of the abstract term, family violence, proved to be difficult. Therefore, an extensive review of the literature was conducted to ensure adequate co nstruct validity of this instrument. Members of the researchers committee further ensured face validity and proper categorization regarding forms of family viol ence during the process of data collection by reviewing and recommending. This instrument was used to analyze each selected article and the results were compiled into a spreadsheet. The following cat egories of family vi olence were included: intimate-partner violence (IPV); child abus e; violence in lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual couples (LGBT); elder abuse; sib ling violence and abuse; and general family violence. This final category was applied to those journal artic les that focused on generalized aspects of family violence, and/ or did not denote any sp ecific form of abuse involvement or participation. In instances wh ere the article identifie d the perpetrator and the victim in greater detail, a more speci fic code was given, de pending on information provided. For example, an article that di scussed intimate partner violence where the perpetrator was a heterosexual woman was categorized as female to male IPV. This captured more specific details regarding th e focus of research in a given area. In addition to abuse category, articles were also coded according to abuse behavior. Behaviors included in the in strument were: physical abus e, emotional abuse, sexual

PAGE 58

48 abuse, general neglect, medical neglect, e ducational neglect, abandonment, financial abuse drug abuse/chemical Restraint, homici de /fatalities, and ot her/unspecified abuse forms. Unspecified abuse was coded for situations where the abuse form was not identified in the article. Data Analysis A frequency analysis was conducted for the occurrence of each code to locate specific trends within selected published litera ture over the past 5 decades. This included influxes or declines in the t ypes of violence represented in the literature. In addition, a frequency analysis of articles concerning em erging policy trends in relation to family violence was conducted. Two chi-square analyses were used to analyze the data by both category and abuse form to test for differences in distribution of article public ation over time. This analysis was designed to reveal if the differences (where present) in the frequency counts regarding the representation of family violen ce categories were representative of changes in the field (i.e., and not caused by char acteristics unique to the sample). The chi-square analysis was followed by a te st of standardized adjusted residuals. This analysis was designed to reveal areas wi th extreme values in relation to the expected distribution of values. For the standardized test of residuals any values gr eater than the absolute value of three (positive or negative three), were considered significant. This is due to the understanding that zero equates to complete evenness of distribution, and anything with a value greater than three (positive or negative), will indicate a significant discrepancy within that particular area. Having both positive and negative residuals allows understanding concerning direction of representation (i.e., over-representation or under-representation). Thus, areas with very strong positive or very strong negative

PAGE 59

49 residuals provided information regarding the degree to which all selected categories of family violence have been addresse d in the research literature. Limitations One potential limitation of this study is the inability to account for contextual variables due to the nature of the data. That is, political and social events specific to a historical time period, or changes in agency and structure, such as technological advancement and changes in administration, are not accounted for. This establishes a need to avoid making conclusions concerning causality, as potential spuriousness cannot be avoided. Furthermore, this project was built on the premise that contextually situated knowledge is potentially conflictual in natu re to this form of research. That is, retrospective longitudinal research depends, to some degree, on the interpretation of the reviewer and, therefore, cannot be completely objective. A final limitation of this research rested with the use of chisquare on a purposive sample. However, the primary predictive power of chi-square analysis is strongest with a random sample; when a sample is random, chi-s quare is able to predict a samples true representation of its population. However, in this circumstance random sampling was not desirable because it would have severely redu ced the ability to obtain data (i.e., using a random sample of family-related publications would significantly reduce the amount of family violence-related publications in the sample). Therefore, due to the need for purposive sampling (in order to measure what needs to be measured), the predictive power of chi-square analysis ca nnot be as strong as in other circumstances. Yet, because this study is more concerned with descriptiv e data, this was not an overriding concern.

PAGE 60

50 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS This study examined the growth and deve lopment of family violence research literature over the past 5 decades, as reflect ed by publication trends in selected family research journals. The focus was on the diffe rence in publication rates and subject matter of articles pertaining to vari ous types of family violence featured in the research literature. In addition to examining trends in publications, this study explored the potential implications of significant social policies in family violence. This chapter will describe the study fi ndings, including the general trends in publications over the time period utilized in data collection, and more specific information about these trends including: (a) the distribution of rela tion type, and (b) the abuse type among overall publication rates. This will provide knowledge regarding general proportions of each fo rm of family violence among a ll family violence research in selected journals, and how these ratios changed over time. Journals Sampled The content analysis of the four selected family journals began in the most recent year in the study time frame, and worked back through each decade in five year intervals. A total of 505 articles were reviewed. Of the four journals sampled, only one ( The Journal of Marriage and Family ) existed in the early portion of the study time frame. The other journals, The Journal of Child Abuse and Neglec t, The Journal of Interpersonal Violence and The Journal of Family Psychology, date back to 1977, 1987 and 1986, respectively. Therefore, a ll entries before 1980 can incl ude only one journal.

PAGE 61

51 In addition to the establishment of new j ournals during this tim e frame, publication rates within the journals changed over time. For instance, the Journal Child Abuse and Neglect, increased its annual publication rates from four issues to twelve issues in the early 1990s. The coding process for the content analysis used an ad hoc approach to allow for the emergence of topics on family violence du ring the process of data collection. Topics that emerged and were added to the code book were: parenting styles, criminality and deviance, cohabitation, religiosi ty, risk-taking behaviors, an d general incidence rates. General Publication Trends by Decade The mean year of publication for th is sample was 1997.14, and the standard deviation 6.953. That is, 68% of all articles in this sample were published within seven years of 1997 (i.e., between 1990 and 2004). 2010 2005 2000 1995 1990 1985 1980 1975 Year 125 100 75 50 25 0 Frequency Mean =1997.3 Std. Dev. =6.642 N =505 Figure 1. Changes in Frequency of Public ations about Family Violence Over Time

PAGE 62

52 Results indicate that there has been a large increase in the publication rate of family violence research articles in the study tim e frame, 1960-2005 (as shown in Figure 1). This increase began in the 1980s (as there were no articles located before this date), with a large influx between 1980 and 1985 from approxi mately nine articles (1.8%) in 1980, to 48 articles (9.5%) in 1985. However, the gr eatest increase between any two measurement points occurred between 1990 and 1995, with pub lication rates more than doubling from 51 to 124 (10% to 24.6%). This may be attr ibuted to both the es tablishment of The Journal of Interpersonal Violen ce, as well as an increase in the annual publica tion rate of Child Abuse and Neglect. The peak of article publication within this sample occurred in 2000 (140 articles), with a small (1.4 %) decline in 2005 (133 articles). Trends in Family Violence Abuse Category One of the three major classifications in the coding process was that of family violence category. These relationships (i.e., chil d abuse, intimate partner violence, sibling abuse, elder abuse, etc.) have been classifi ed under perpetrator/victim because the code enables the researcher to identify the perpetra tor, the victim, or both parties in the forms of family violence addressed w ithin each research article. Th e distributions for each of these forms of family violence differed by decade. Once again, no articles emerged within this sample in the 1960s and 1970s. Thus this analysis only accounts for articles published between 1980 and 2005 (see Figure 2). The decade of the 1980s saw an upswing in ar ticles pertaining to child abuse (with 14 articles identifying a perpet rator and 38 not), totaling 52 p ublications or 91.3% of all articles published in the 1980s This was followed by general and unspecified family violence, with four publications (7%); a nd intimate partner violence, with only one

PAGE 63

53 publication (1.8 %). There were no articles in the areas of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender violence, sibling violence and abuse; or abuse of the elderly. The decade of the 1990s brought an influx of articles related to several categories of family violence. Again, the largest categor y was child abuse, totaling 134 articles for 76.5% of all articles, (with 21 articles that specify perpetrator a nd 113 that did not); intimate partner violence with a total of 22 or 12.6% of articl es (with six articles that specified perpetrator and 16 th at did not); and unspecified family violence, with 14 or 8.5% of articles. 2005 2000 1995 1990 1985 1980 Year 100 80 60 40 20 0 Count Sibling Abuse General Child Abuse General IPV General General Family Violence Child Abuse NonRelative Child Abuse Relative LGBT IPV men IPV male female catagory Figure 2. Trends in Family Violence Category-Related Publication Over Time For the first time in these four journals, articles were published on sibling violence, although only two or 1.2% appeared. Finall y, publication on LGBT violence was also present with two or 1.2% of articles. There were no valu es for publications on elder abuse.

PAGE 64

54 The period between 2000 to 2005 produced da ta that were distributed into the following areas: Child abuse, with 170 or 62.3% of articles (28 articles with specified perpetrator and 142 without); intimate partne r violence with 83 or 30.4% of articles (31 with specified perpetrator and 52 without), uns pecified family violence with 18 or 6.6% of articles, and LGBT violen ce with two or 0.7% of article s. There were no values for publications in the areas of sibling vi olence and abuse, or elder abuse. Behaviors Identified in the Literature The second indicator of trends in public ation by topic is th e type of abusive behavior that the article addresses. The di fferences in distribution for each decade are depicted in Figure 3. 2005 2000 1995 1990 1985 1980 Year 80 60 40 20 0 Count Fatalities Unspecified Abuse Form Abandonment Neglect Sexual Abuse Emotional Abuse Physical Abuse Behavior Figure 3. Trends in Publication by Abuse Behavior Over Time

PAGE 65

55 These areas include physical a buse, emotional abuse, sexua l abuse, general neglect, medical neglect, educational neglect, aba ndonment, financial abuse, drug abuse, unspecified abuse, and fataliti es as a result of abuse. For the decade of the 1980s, data were distributed as follows: 32 articles or 56.1% on unspecified abus e; 12 articles or 21.1% on sexual abuse; nine artic les or 15.8% on physical abuse; and four articles or 7% on neglect. No articles were published on emotional abuse, fi nancial abuse, educational neglect, medical neglect, dr ug abuse, or fatalities related to family violence. The 1990s distribution was: 85 articles or 48.6% on sexual abuse; 62 articles or 35.4% on unspecified or general abuse; 19 ar ticles or 10.9 % on physical abuse; four articles or 2.3% on emotional abuse; three ar ticles or 1.1% on abuse related fatalities; and two articles or 1.1% on neglec t. No articles were published on abandonment, financial abuse, drug abuse, educational neglect or medical neglect. During the time period of 2000 to 2005, data were distributed into the following areas: 142 articles or 52% on ge neral or unspecified abuse forms; 73 articles or 26.7% on sexual abuse; 45 articles or 16.2% on physical abuse; six articles or 2.2% on emotional abuse; two articles or 0.7% on neglect; a nd one article or 0.4% on abandonment. No articles were published on fatalities associated with family violence, financial abuse, drug abuse, educational neglect, or medical neglect. General Trends in Family Violence Concerning Issues In addition to coding for behavior and rela tionship by year, various issues discussed within these articles were included in data co llection as well. Some themes that were built into codebook included: theo retical development, methodol ogical development, policy, social services for victims and batterers, service program evaluati ons, judicial and law enforcement issues, the child welfare system, substance abuse, medical care and physical

PAGE 66

56 health outcomes, mental health outcomes, ho melessness, immigrant violence and abuse, cohabitation, as well as demographic indi cators such as race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, and religiosity. The most common themes in relation to family violence were: Mental health outcomes with 97 articles or 19.2%; resear ch methodology with 58 articles or 11.5%; trends and incidence rates with 52 articles or 10.3%; child welfare with 45 articles or 8.9%; parenting styles and skill s with 42 articles or 8.3%; in ternational family violence with 33 articles or 6.5%; serv ice programs for victims with 27 articles or 5.4%; and general theoretical developmen t with 22 articles or 4.4%. In addition to the common themes listed above, articles focusing on demographic characteristics such as race, gender, socio economic status, and religiosity were also coded. The results of the frequency analysis revealed that articles focusing on these factors were small in number, with 14 articl es or 2.8% focusing on ge nder; seven articles or 1.4% on socioeconomic status; six articles or 1.2% on race; and two articles or 0.4% focusing on religiosity. Hypotheses Testing Several hypotheses were tested to determ ine whether there were significant trends within the data. These hypotheses are review ed below and the results of chi square analyses used to test for differences in dist ribution of article pub lication over time are presented. H1o : There will be no significant differences in the relative representations of categories of family violence in the family research literature at selected points in time. H1a : There will be significant differences in th e relative representations of categories of family violence in the family research literature at selected points in time.

PAGE 67

57 Two separate chi-square analysis were c onducted. The first tested for a difference in distribution concerning rela tionship type, and the second for differences in abusive behavior type. In addition, in cases wher e the chi-square test was significant, a standardized test of adjusted residuals was conducted to determine degree of deviation from equal distribution. Statisti cal significance is reached if ad justed residuals are greater than positive or negative three (with zero indicating equal distribution). The value of the chi-square for family violence category publication by year was 85.725 (with statistical significan ce at p=0.000). This reflects that across all decades, there were significant discrepancies in th e publication amounts for various articles on family violence. In relation to abuse categor y, very few areas had significant adjusted residuals. However, these residu als are telling, as they can show points in time that the influxes and declines in each area of resear ch occurred. For example, intimate partner violence (male to female violence), had a nonsignificant, but negative residual in every period of this study. Yet, the residual increase d to a significant 5.1 (the strongest positive residual value), in 2005, indicating an increase of research representation over the past 5 years; despite the slight ove rall decline in research publication. Another significant residual was for child abuse (by a relative), which was 3.3 in 1985, indicated overrepresentation in relation to other forms of family violence research publication. However, all other years following had non-signif icant, negative resi duals, indicating that the slight decline in child abuse research publ ications that identified a relative perpetrator occurred after 1985. No other residuals for family violence category were significant; however, it is notable that in 1995, publication rates in sibling violence and abuse had a positive

PAGE 68

58 residual approaching significance (2.5). This occurred in the only year where publication on sibling violence and abuse was present, a nd all other year point s were negative. The value of chi-square for behavi or by year was 60.846 (with statistical significance at p=0.001). Signifi cant adjusted residuals were found in 1990 (3.1) and 1995 (3.6) for sexual abuse, and decreased in 2005 for a negative re sidual (-3.6). This indicates that the representation of sexual a buse in the research literature declined in relation to other forms of research. No othe r areas of abuse beha vior have significant residuals. However, it is intere sting to note that neglect is near significance in 1985 with a positive residual (2.7). This was the only year with a positive resi dual for neglect. These residuals provide useful informati on regarding the development of each area of family violence across time. However, cautio n must be given in that because this is a purposive sample, the explanatory power of the chi-square (which residuals are directly dependent on) is limited. Regardless, in rela tion to the findings of this analysis, the alternative hypothesis, that significant differe nces in the relative representations of categories of family violence in the family res earch literature at selected points in time would be found, was supported. We turn now to the second hypothesis. H2o : There will be no significant differences in the relative representation of policyrelated journal articles pertaining to family violence in the family research literature at selected points in time. H2a : There will be significant differences in th e relative representation of policy-related journal articles pertaining to family violence in the family research literature at selected points in time.

PAGE 69

59 Descriptive statistics were run to examin e activities in publication related to policy issues. The overall representation of family vi olence policy-related articles in this sample, over all decades, was a mere 0.6%. This can be broken down by decade to reveal that in the 1980s and 1990s no articles were published in direct relation to family violence policy, in the selected journals. In the firs t part of the decade of 2000 there have been three (one in 2000 and two in 2005). Although th ese frequency counts reveal that policy articles have been under represented in thes e journals, no statistical information can be given regarding significant changes over this time period, due to the small amount of data obtained. Consequently, there is insufficient evidence to reject th e null hypothesis that there were no differences in policy-related article publication. H3o : There will be no significant differences in the number of publication of family violence-related journal articles in times of greater public policy activity. H3a : There will be significant differences in the number of publication of family violence-related journal articles in times of greater public policy activity. No statistical methods of an alysis could be employed in testing this hypothesis due to insufficient data. However, a descriptiv e investigation was c onducted in attempt to identify commonalities between research public ation trends and policy development. This analysis will be discussed in Chapter 5.

PAGE 70

60 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS This study was designed to examine trends in the publication of re search literature pertaining to family violence in selected family research journals ove r the past 5 decades. The research sought to identify areas of fam ily violence that have been neglected in research and publication. The results were telling, and provided information concerning the relative representation of various topics in family violen ce selected for examination in this study. Research Questions The central research question for this study was: What are the trends in the family violence literature within the past 60 y ears? There has been a steady and noteworthy increase in overall publication of articles on family violence across five-year intervals, with a decline occurring after 2000. Another research question in relation to the first was: What was the relative representation of each area of family violence research at the points in time selected for this study? Clearly, child abuse and intimate partner violence accounted for the majority of publications. However, violence among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender relationships seems to be an emerging area of research. Finally, there was little to no representation of elder abus e, or sibling abuse. The second research question was: What was the relative representation of policy related articles to all articles on family viol ence at selected points in time? Policy articles were highly underrepresented rela tive to other topics of fam ily violence. In fact, the

PAGE 71

61 overall representation of policy-related articl es across decades was less than 0.6%, and in many individual year points was 0%. The final question was: Will there be changes in the number of family violence related articles during times of greater public policy activ ity? There was no concrete answer reached for this question because stat istical analysis coul d not be conducted due to insufficient data. Instead, an assessment of significant policies pertaining to family violence with trends identified in th is study was conducted. The findings will be discussed later in this chapter. Hypotheses The first hypothesis of this study read: Th ere will be signific ant changes in the relative representations of categories of family violence in the family research literature at selected points in time. This hypothesi s was supported. A significant discrepancy was found to exist in the re lative representation of various areas of family violence in the time frame selected, as well as in the overall re presentation of family violence publications. Specifically, research on child abuse was overrepresented, whereas, intimate partner violence, elder abuse, LGBT violence, a nd sibling abuse were underrepresented. The second hypothesis read: There will be significant changes in the relative representation of po licy-related articles pert aining to family violence in family research literature at selected points in time. This hypothesis was not supported because insufficient data were available to confirm or refute the presence of significant changes in policy-related articles during the time period of this study. The third hypothesis read: There will be significant change s in the amount of publication of family violence related articles in times of greater policy activity. This hypothesis not supported because insufficient data were available. However, because the

PAGE 72

62 evidence obtained from a general policy expl oration also does not directly support or contradict the hypothesis; furt her study is required to put this statement under higher scrutiny. Instrument The open-ended content analysis codebook wa s useful in classifying material in this situation, as it allowed for identification and coding to continuously emerge and develop throughout the data co llection period. The codebook a ssigned numeric values to various categories, forms and issues in relati on to family violence. The applicable codes were entered for each article featured, based on title and ab stract, along with information about the journal volume, issue, year, and ar ticle author information. Also, only articles published in English were included, so the research published in other languages could not be considered. A content analysis was conduc ted on four journals se lected from the field of family studies on the basis of their representa tion in the Social Science Citation Index, i.e., the journals chosen had the greatest num ber of article citations. The sample consisted of 505 articles published between 1960 and 2005, gathered from volumes published at the beginning, middle, and end points of each decad e within this time fr ame. However, all articles sampled were taken from volume s dated on or after 1980, because no family violence-related articles appeared in the sample before this time. Overall Trends in Family Violence Publication Significant trends were identified in the incr ease in overall publica tions in this area of research (as well as increas ed proportion of all articles published in these journals). More attention has been awarded to the problem of violence within the family with each passing decade. Interestingly enough, the only decline noted in the overall research

PAGE 73

63 literature was identified with in the last five years (sin ce 2000). Potential indicators behind this decline are not known, however one could speculate a rela tion between social and political changes following September 11, 2001, as a possibility. Pe rhaps a decline in attention to this area of family violence re search is a result of a shift in the pull of resources toward research in the areas of nati onal defense, global relations, and terrorism; and away from domestic social problems such as violence in the family. Further empirical research is needed to explore a ny potential link between shifts in social and political climate, resources and publicat ion in the area of family violence. The most heavily represented type of publication was on child abuse. This was found to be the case in every decade that produc ed testable data featured in this study. Therefore, it can be determined that a great deal of attention in the research community has been devoted to and continues to be focused on child abuse. However, the proportion of publications in abuse category has shifted closer to equal distribution over time, as other forms of family violence have rece ived more attention in recent years. A small number of articles focused on dem ographic information such as race, class and gender. Almost half of these articl es focused on issues related to gender. Surprisingly, only seven articles were published on socioecono mic status. This is despite the fact that issues related to social class and poverty have been shown to be directly correlated with most forms of family viol ence (Barnett, Miller-P errin & Perrin, 2005). It is important to note that the delimita tions of this study must be taken into consideration when discussi ng the trends identified here. There may be many family violence-related topics that ar e not of interest to the journa ls chosen for this study; which would influence frequency counts and proportion s by topic. That is, because only the four

PAGE 74

64 most frequently cited journa ls were used, it is impossibl e to capture a completely generalizable idea of what is occurring in the field overall because these journals may not be completely representative of ove rall activity in the research field. Trends in Category of Family Violence Research It is evident that the largest proportion of family violence related articles have been consistently on child abuse. Within these artic les, the majority (82.3%) have an identified victim (i.e., a child), but no clear perpetra tor. Those where a perpetrator has been identified usually involve a batterer that is a relative caregiver to the child. More attention has been given to intimate partner violence in recent years than in previous decades. Also, although it is a sma ll percentage, the emerging representation of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transg ender research is very tell ing about shifts in how we define intimate partner violence; as well as what we consider worthy of research attention. Finally, within this sample, no arti cles focusing on elder abuse were identified, and a very small percent on sibling violence and abuse emerged in only one decade. An additional finding in relation to representation of family violence categories has been the identification of underrepresented cate gories in the research literature. Of all categories identified in this study, the most neglected were sibling violence and abuse, with only two articles published, and elder a buse, with no articles published. That is, the number of articles published from this sa mple frame on elder abuse was such that no analyses could be run due to insufficient numeric values (i.e., not enough cases were identified). This is important also because it reflects another highl y neglected area in the research literature. It is also fascinating to note that there were no relevant articles identified before 1980. The common topics appearing in the 1960 s and 1970s were divorce and the sexual

PAGE 75

65 deviance of women, which was often defi ned in articles as premarital sex and extramarital sex. This is once again a good ex ample of how society has changed over the past 60 years, especially in relation to what is considered a social problem worthy of empirical scientific research and publication, and how resear chers and journals may focus on topics reflecting key social changes of the period. Finally, although abuse during pregnancy ha s been recognized as a significant social problem (Gelles, 1997), only one articl e was published on this category from this sample. This article was published in the 1990s and accounted for 0.6 % of all research literature that decade. Trends in Behavior Associated With Family Violence Research Important findings emerged in relation to behaviors associated with family violence. For example, the most common types of abuse discussed in the research were sexual abuse and unspecified abuse. In th e articles pertaining to sexual abuse, the perpetrator was seldom identified (i.e., info rmation was not given regarding whether or not the abuser was a family member, acquain tance or stranger). However, more often than not, when a perpetrator was identifie d, it was a parent or family member. Another highly occurring form of abuse in publications was found to be physical abuse. However, once again, the perpetrato r was not identified. The least published topics were emotional abuse, ne glect, fatality and abandonment. Once again, the gaps in the proportions of articles about various forms of family violence have narrowed over time, suggesting greater representation in areas that have been previously ignored; this seems to be the case with emo tional abuse and neglect. An ironic finding was that many articles focuse d on the mental health outcomes for abuse victims, while research on emotional abus e appears to be lacking. This trend is

PAGE 76

66 fascinating because it is evident that ther e is an interest in mental health and psychological well being, but not on the abus e form that most directly impacts the victims mental health. It is also interesting to note that the publication rate for neglect, although minimal in all time periods, has actually decreased sli ghtly in frequency and proportion over time. Also notable is that with the high amounts of sexual abuse-related ar ticle publications, the vast majority focused on the sexual abuse of children and not sexual abuse in intimate partner relationships. Finally, with all decade s, a good proportion of articles (over half in the 1980s and in 2000) did not specify any behavi or in association with family violence. Instead, these articles focused on abuse category (i.e., IPV or child abuse), or occasionally on other factors such as soci al services, policy and program evaluation. Decade Reviews from The Journal of Marriage and Family Several interesting trends in family vi olence research have been identified, including areas that have been overrepresen ted as well as neglected, as well as overall changes in family violence publication rates over time. For purposes of comparison, the decade reviews from the Journal of Marriage and Family ( JMF) are discussed again here. In the 1960s there were no articles pertai ning to family violence research. This is congruent with the findings presented here for the entire sample of journals, as no articles were identified in the sample during the 1960s. In the decade review of the 1970s, the first review article focusing on family vi olence appeared, recognizing that family violence research was emerging; most of the articles discussed the nature and extent of violence in the family. In contrast, no arti cles in the study sample were identified from this time period. This suggests that the st udy strategy of sampling articles in 5 Year

PAGE 77

67 intervals missed articles appearing at other tim es, or that these articles appeared in journals not included in the sample (i .e., not the most cited journals). According to the JMF 1980s decade review, many areas of family violence were present in the research liter ature, including IPV, child a buse, and elder abuse. The findings here are in accordance with the excep tion of research on elder abuse, which did not appear in the sampled articles. In addition, the JMF decade review for the 1980s also discussed the emphasis that was placed on ch ild sexual abuse. This was also supported here, in that child sexual abuse accounted for th e largest proportion of articles represented in the sample during the 1980s (91.3%). According to the JMF decade review, th e 1990s was a very active time period in family violence research. Research focused on refining categories of family violence, and addressing violence in populations that had been previous ly unrecognized (LGBT couples, immigrant groups, the homeless, and international family violence). Although articles on many of these issues did appear (excluding homelessness) in this study during the 1990s, they were very small in number and proportion. For example, only two articles were published on immigrant violence (1.1%), and seven on international violence (4.0%). Interestingly, the number of articles on international family violence more than doubled in the decade of 2000, to 23 (8.4%). It wi ll be interesting to se e if this trend will be reflected in the next decade review for The Journal of Marriage and Family, scheduled for publication in November 2010 Policy Exploration Findings indicated that only a very small nu mber of articles related to any form of family violence policy were published. In f act, the frequency of publications was so minute that analyses could not be performed. One possible explan ation is that the selected

PAGE 78

68 journals are not as concerned with policy as journals not selected for this study. For example, the Journal of Family Policy the Journal of Family Law and the Journal of Family History may include more policy related ar ticles. It is important to note, however, that publishing on the topic of policy is not necessarily indicative of the impacts of policy development and social movement on the field of family violence research. That is, the potential impact s of policy on research initiatives, funding and resources is not a relationship that can identified simply through an examination of articles that focus directly on policy, as policy can influence the entire process of rese arch, publication and development of the field. To examine the potential relationship between research and policy when statistical analyses could not be run, the research e xplored policy development in relation to the trends revealed in this study was done. Seve ral major policies that were passed over the past 5 decades that apply to the issue of violence in the family were identified, then mapped on a time line and examined in relation to trends in the publication of articles pertaining to the subject matter of the po licy. Because this study examined trends according to five-year markers, points dire ctly before and after the policy was passed were examined. This investigation does not attempt to imply a causal relationship between research public ation and policy; instead, it aims only to examine the potential evidence of an association that may exist. Th e areas of research interest were designated as overall publication in family violence, specific pub lications in child abuse, and specific publications in intimate partner violence. Th ese precise areas were chosen because child abuse and intimate partner violence policies have been at the forefront of family violence related policies.

PAGE 79

69 Several interesting similarities emerged fr om the comparison of research trends and policy development. First, in several circ umstances, times of low policy development were also marked by minute increases, or even declines in research activity. For instance, for trends in child abuse literature, the only period in this study that had no new policy development, 1985 to 1990, excluding the revisi on of an existing policy, was also marked by a decline in the research lite rature pertaining to this subject matter. Despite the decline in article frequency between 1985 and 1990, the decade of the 1980s had the highest proportion of articles published on child abus e, and the policies pa ssed in relation to family violence were focused primarily on child abuse (i.e., Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare act of 1980, Social Security Act Amendments of 1981, and three CAPTA Revisions). An additional finding of interest was in relation to intimate partner violence research and the passing of The Violen ce Against Women Act. VAWA, which was established in 1994, was passed shortly before the period of the la rgest increase of intimate partner violence research, 1995 to 2000. During this time period a revision was also made to the original VAWA (2000); thus, the time period of highest research publication on domestic violence was situated directly in between two periods of intimate partner violence policy development. Si milarly, in 1995, the Sex Crimes Against Children Act was passed, and the highest num ber of articles on the sexual abuse of children was published. This five-year period also included a revi sion to CAPTA (1996), and ended with the passing of the Child A buse Prevention and Enfo rcement Act (1999) as well. However, in this investigation, several areas of publication do not appear to be related to policy development. For instance, th e first sharp increase in publication of child

PAGE 80

70 abuse-related articles did not occur until nearly six years following the passage of the original Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (1974). Furthermore, there were time periods in this study that actua lly revealed declines in rese arch during periods of policy activity. For instance, the greatest decline in both child abuse and intimate partner violence research, as well as overall family violence research, occurred between the years 2000 and 2005, yet important policy activity wa s occurring at that time, including revisions to both VAWA and CAPTA, and th e enactment of the Domestic Violence Screening and Prevention Act (2003). Also, de spite the passage of the Older Americans Act (2000), there continued to be no research articles published on elder abuse in this sample. Thus, although several interesting sim ilarities emerged from this descriptive analysis, the findings are too preliminary and mi xed to assert any type of relationship that may exist between research tre nds and policy development. Theory Family violence research development is a dynamic process that is continuously changing over time, as shown by the publicati on trends identified in this study. Strong evidence of changes in family violence know ledge development were identifie d through changes in distribution of articles on family violence over time. The development of new journals and the dramatic increases in newer ar eas of research, as well as marked declines in existing areas of research publication, re veal the constantly changing nature of scientific research in this area. This study sought to utilize stru cturation theory to explain the patterns of change in family violence research publication. That is, the trends identified in research publication were examined in relation to significant so cial policy development on family violence.

PAGE 81

71 This theory was used in attempt to identify a relationship between these areas, and to use this dynamic relationship to better unde rstand the development of this field. Central components of stru cturation theory, including ag ency (action), structure, and the process of structuration, were all appl ied to the field of family violence. Agency was examined in the form of research publica tion trends, structure in the form of policy, and the process of structuration through the interdependent relationship that may exist between the two. In other words, this st udy sought to identify a relationship between family violence research publication and family violence social policy that may reveal the presence of an intricate process of stru cturation (i.e., a mutu ally interdependent relationship between research and social policy that is present in the creation and perpetuation of the field of family violence research). The development of policy on family viol ence within this time period reflects changes in social acceptability, legal defin itions and regulations, and political shifts where family violence is concerned. Potential commonalities identified between trends in research publication and policy development may demonstrate the intricate relationship between research public ation and policy, as a reflection of the culturally contextual and somewhat subjective nature of scientific re search. That is, viewing family violence research as a process influenced by social movement and change (indicated by policy development) allows for the understanding of how this area of scientific research has developed, and how it can be influenced by, a nd in turn, influences social action and cultural change, which is th e process of structuration. Because no statistical analysis coul d be conducted, the dynamic relationship between family violence research trends and policy development was explored in an

PAGE 82

72 attempt to better understand the process of st ructuration pertaining to family violence research. Although these findings were mixe d, there was sufficient evidence of a potential relationship between agency (family violence research activity) and structure (family violence policy), to warrant further em pirical investigation. That is, the various commonalities found, such as increases in publ ication on research areas pertaining to policy subject matter during time periods of so cial policy development, may be evidence of the dynamic relationship (i.e., the pro cess of structuration) between policy development, and research activity within this sample. Just as plausible, it seems there is a re lation between social change and research. For instance, as U.S. society has become more accepting of same sex couples, we have seen an interest in same sex violence. Also, as society ages, we would expect to see the emergence of an interest in el der abuse. With the occurrence of specific tragic events, such as horrific child rapes and homicides the research community may respond with increased attention to this area. Other exam ples of the tie between social change and family violence research have been made. Such ties include the early emergence of family violence research literature decades a go as a result of greater sensitivity of violence due to war, social activism, increase d crime rates, and othe r societal issues of the time (Straus, 1974). Another area that is in need of further i nvestigation in relation to family violence research is changes in theoretical and epistemo logical orientations. Th at is, it is apparent that there may be a relationship between em erging trends in rese arch, and theoretical development. For example, changes in theory over the study time frame, such as the growth in popularity in the feminist and conflict perspective may be related to the

PAGE 83

73 increases in research initiative in areas of violence against women and other forms of violence in the family. This also may be the case with the rise of postmodernist theories and changes in definitions concerning what constitutes as family, as well as the increasing attention to forms of family violen ce such as violence and abuse in same-sex marriages. Thus, examining trends in family violence research in re lation to the growth and development of general social theory may produce interesting and useful findings. Although it was difficult to peg down a connection between social policy and family violence research, the possibility of this connection still seems evident, and worthy of investigation. In short, further studies are needed regarding the potential application of this theory to the pr ocess of family violence research. Limitations The most significant limitation was the in ability of this study to adequately measure policy as a representation of social change or its impact on family violence research. This made it difficult to strongly s upport structuration theory, as statistically sound research on the relationship between pol icy and publication, a nd therefore, on the process of structuration, could not be identified. One potential reason for this may be that the selected journals are not emphasizing the publication of family violence policyrelated writings. Instead, such articles ma y more likely be found in journals in the disciplines of law, criminal justice, and political science, as well as policy reports issued by agencies and organizations. So, by virtue of the sampling focus on family journals, policy related publications ma y have been overlooked. In addition, the small journal sample limite d the scope of this study in that there may not have been a valid representation of the many areas of publication in family violence research. Therefore, rate of citation may not have been an adequate method of

PAGE 84

74 selection of journals. This became particul arly apparent in the time period before 1980, when the journal selected for this study wa s apparently publishing very little on family violence. However, there is still valid info rmation in that the most frequently cited journals in the field were not publishing in the underre presented areas identified. An additional limitation identified in relati on to the journals selected was that the change in volume and issue publication could not be controlled for. That is, during this time frame, spikes in frequency may have been attributed to increases in annual publication rates. For example, the Journal of Child Abuse and Neglect increased publication rates from four issu es a year to twelve issues a year after 1990. Although this activity may represent an increased interest in family violence research, it also may have skewed the proportion balance to reflect a greater amount of child abuse research publications than is actually occurring within the field. This is a nother example of how the study sample is limited in scope concer ning general applicabil ity, as frequency of child abuse article publication may have skewed the results to reflect higher rates of publication than may actually be occurring overall in the field of family violence research. Another limitation to this st udy is in the limited number of year points. It was not possible to sample every year in the past fi ve decades in the study time frame. Therefore, the number of articles taken into consideration for analysis was small in relation to total field activity (i.e., 505 articles in this sample as opposed to 1572 in the sample frame). However, by choosing to only include five-yea r markers, this study was still able to gather a good amount of inform ation regarding trends in publ ication over a long period of

PAGE 85

75 time (as opposed to using every year in a shor ter amount of time). Thus, this method was chosen as opposed to sampling every year in a shorter period of time. Finally, the difficulty of a pplying structuration theory to this study was a limitation. This may be associated with the nature of th e theory itself, that is, scholars have stated that structuration theory may be difficult to test empirically (Cuff, Sherrock & Francis, 1998). Also, as was previously stated, the lack of historical contextu al factors in this study may have limited the extent to which stru cturation theory could have been applied. For example, in a recent study, th e applicability of st ructuration theory in various areas of social science research was investigated. The results reflected that the most successful studies had ethnographic information about actors across time and space. Those that used a broader, more collective approach (i.e., following overall institutional progress as opposed to change among individuals or groups ), had a more difficult time utilizing the theory (Phipps, 2001). Future Research Recommendations The primary recommendation of this study fo r future research is to address those areas of family violence that have been iden tified as underrepresent ed in the literature. This lack of research attention must be addr essed if we are to gain knowledge that can be applied to outreach, educa tion, policy and prevention. First, elder abuse research did not arise in the time frame utilized. Although this may be due to the fact that the sample journals do not publish on elder abuse, the complete omission of this area in these journa ls is still alarming. Research that does exist tells us that this is a widespread prob lem (i.e., over 450,000 elders maltreated annually), with significant negative victim outcomes (Jogerst, Brody, Dyer & Arias, 2004; Rothman & Duntop, 2001). Therefore, increased research attention needs to fo cus on elder abuse.

PAGE 86

76 In addition, the limited knowledge we have on sibling violence and abuse tells us that the incidence of this form of family violence is estima ted at nearly 60% (Noland, et al., 2004), and that victims suffer long lasti ng, negative outcomes exacerbated by the lack of validation received from a society that does not recognize this as a social problem (Wiehe, 2002).Yet, sibling viol ence and abuse was one of the two topics in family violence category that was the most underrepr esented in the literature. Special focus should be given to this area if we are to in crease professional and public awareness of this form of family violence. Posing questions about why sibling abuse exists, how it has gone unrecognized for so long, whether or not it has been normalized in our society (and if so, in what ways), what constitutes a h ealthy versus unhealthy sibling relationship, and how we can address the problem for better prev ention and intervention would be a start in better understanding sibling violence and abuse. However, before we can tackle this social problem, shifts in the research fiel d, policy arena, and overall public perception must take place to recognize and accept that abuse among siblings is in fact, a social problem. Another area of family violence that is in need of research attention is neglect. Despite the fact that neglect accounts for ove r 60% of confirmed child abuse cases (HHS, 2004), This topic was underrepresented among ar ticles considered in this study. Similar points have been made regarding the lack of research on neglect. One such study stated that despite the growing incidence rate of neglect (a 100% increase between 1986 and 1993), research on neglect has accounted for a very small proportion of research (of the 489 articles published in the fi rst five volumes of Child Abuse and Neglect, only 25 were on child neglect) (Bloom, 2000; Zuravin, 1999). In another study, there were only 559

PAGE 87

77 articles of neglect published in a psychology index that published a total of 5,848 entries (Garbarino & Collins, 1999). Thus, the neglect of research on neglect continues to be a significant issue in family violence research. For further understanding of the influen ces of social context on the process of scientific research and public ation, an additional suggestion fo r future research would be to conduct decade-specific analyses that can ta ke contextual variables into consideration when examining trends in research literature. For example, an in depth analysis of the 1970s, using a larger sample (every year) fr om journals that focus more on policy could allow for a more in depth analysis a nd a greater understand ing of the potential relationship between policy activ ity and research developmen t. Also, a more detailed examination of research development would be beneficial. That is, because this study was only able to examine article publications from very specific journals, a great deal of research activity was not addressed. This in cludes research published in journals from other disciplines, as well as research activity that may not have been published at all. Therefore, a more detailed examination of social science research on family violence could potentially provide useful information on the growth and development of the field. As previously stated, a limitation of this study was the potential incompatibility of social science journal articles and family violence policy-related pub lications. Therefore, an additional research recommendation would be to explore alternative sources of policyrelated information. One such source would be the Thomson West law search engine. This source contains over 23,000 databases concerning case law, state and federal statutes, administrative codes, newspaper a nd magazine articles, public records, law journals, law reviews, treatises, legal forms and other information resources. Therefore, it

PAGE 88

78 may be suitable in accessing more information concerning policies, media coverage, public response, and details surrounding the le gislative process in relation to family violence policy overall. Finally, selecting specific po licies on family violence and examining publications in time periods directly before and after le gislation has been passed may be a useful approach to examining the potential rela tionship between scholarly publication and policy activity. With research that meets this goal, structuration theory could be better applied and supported to the de velopment of the field of family violence research. Implications for Practice The first recommendation for practice based on this research would be to apply the knowledge gained here regarding the neglect of certain forms of family violence to public education campaigns. Increasi ng public awareness of areas that we now know to be underrepresented can help to change percepti ons and values regarding various forms of violence in the family. These changes in awareness can better enable outreach organizations to serve populations that ma y be struggling with family violence. For example, victim advocacy training that inco rporates information about less known areas of family violence may be influential in he lping in the identifi cation, intervention and prevention of these forms of abuse. A second recommendation would be to expand efforts to educate families themselves about family violence. That is, th rough education, we may be able to increase awareness and recognition of the presence of abuse forms that are not widely known or understood (i.e., elder abuse and sibling abuse) and increase the lik elihood of reporting and intervention for families in crisis.

PAGE 89

79 We can start to educate families by educat ing those in practitioner positions that involve direct outreach and community invol vement. Giving them any information (as research information has proven to be lim ited), to use in educational programs, counseling, prevention, lobbying, and other services has the potent ial to reach a great deal of the population. These small steps can go far in increasing public awareness, changing public perception of unhealthy family relationships, and assisting families themselves. Implications for Policy Although the results pertaini ng to policy were mixed, implications based on the trends identified for social pol icy are extensive. Because the nature of this study was to examine the relationship between family vi olence research publication and family violence social policy, many of the reco mmendations offered here touch upon this relationship. More specifi cally, these policy recommendations emphasize the importance of policy development on research initi ative and knowledge development. To begin with, legislation th at recognizes the nature a nd extent of underrepresented areas of family violence is needed. For ex ample, policies focusing on elder abuse are needed to increase research funding and ini tiative, enact stronger protective legislation, and promote educational programs that can increase public attention regarding maltreatment of the elderly. Another area in need of policy attenti on is that of abuse between siblings. Legislation that recognizes the presence of a nd consequences that result from sibling violence and abuse can increase public attent ion of this social problem. Also, having protective guidelines in place can aid practitioners in the identification, intervention and prevention of this form of abuse. Finally, public policy that recogni zes this problem is intrinsic to increasing soci al awareness and redefining how we define healthy and

PAGE 90

80 unhealthy sibling relationships; thus, promoti ng change in social norms regarding the acceptability of abusive behavior between siblings. In addition, policy attention that recogni zes the nature and extent of domestic violence in lesbian, gay, bisexual and transg ender relationships is needed. The legal rights of same-sex couples is currently a highly controversial issue. Most debate surrounds family-related issues such as the right to marry and the right to adopt children. However, attention that focuses on abuse in th ese relationships is la cking. As is the case with other forms of underrepres ented research identif ied in this study, increases in public awareness are needed. This can be addressed by the development of policies that increase funding to the development of programs th at can aid this population. Such programs include service programs that aid this population through in creasing resources, education, and general public recognition. Also, funding that increases research initiative is needed to generate knowledge, as well as promot e methodological advances and theoretical development addressing violence in the LGBT community. Conclusions This study has identified trends in the pub lication of journal articles on family violence over the past 5 decades. Trends id entified include the lack of research publication on family violence in selected journals before 1980. Popular topics of publication, such as research on child abuse and specificall y, child sexual abuse, were identified. Also trends such as the increasi ng proportion of research on intimate partner violence emerged. Finally, areas of family violence research articles from selected journals that have been underrepresented in publication, such as elder abuse, sibling violence and abuse, LGBT abuse, neglect, emotional abuse and abandonment, have been identified.

PAGE 91

81 Although many areas identified were thought to have been neglected previously, this study is unique in that it produced statistical ev idence, not only identifying underrepresented areas but also showing the degree to which these areas have been neglected. With this knowledge, we can move foreword and work towards providing more empirical research in these areas. Fu rthermore, we can avoid what Straus and Gelles (1995) have referred to as the deterministic truism, as when we discuss areas that have been overlooked in the research literature, we now have statistical evidence to support our claims. Having the understanding that family violence research is a social process that is contextually situated, culturally influenced, a nd subjective to the resear cher can help us to be aware of how definitions and perceptions of what constitutes family violence, and what warrants research atten tion has changed over time. W ith this understanding, we can be aware of and open to potential changes in future research, especially regarding how we define violence in the family. That is, as we have seen a portion of the historical shift in research, policy, definition, classification and awareness concerning family violence, we may be more open to the reality that these ar eas will continue to sh ift and change. It is possible that family violence fo rms that may emerge in future research and be accepted as social problems may not enter our consciousness today. To be open to this possibility, and to pursue areas of research that have been previously neglected, may be the immediate future of this field; and the time to entertain the possibili ty that our awareness may continue to shift concerning these areas is now.

PAGE 92

82 APPENDIX A CONTENT ANALYSIS CODEBOOK Family Abuse Categories: 1IPV (male to female) 2IPV (female to male) 3IPV (LGBT men) 4IPV (LGBT women) 5Child Abuse (parent/guardian or relative to child). 6Child Abuse (non-relative to child) 7Sibling Abuse (male to female) 8Sibling Abuse (female to male) 9Sibling Abuse (male to male) 10-Sibling Abuse (female to female) 11-Elder Abuse (IPV male to female) 12-Elder Abuse (IPV female to male) 13-Elder Abuse (family caregiver to victim) 14-Elder Abuse (non-family caregiver) 15-Family violence General/Unspecified 16-IPV unspecified 17-Child Abuse Unspecified 18-Sibling Abuse Unspecified 19-Elder Abuse Unspecified Family Abuse Behaviors: 100Physical abuse 101Emotional/psychological abuse 102Sexual abuse 103General neglect 104-Medical neglect 105-Educational neglect 106Abandonment 107Financial abuse 108Drug abuse/Chemical Restraint 109Other/Unspecified 110Homicide/Fatalities Family Violence Issues 200Intergenerational tr ansmission of violence 201Theoretical development 202Family violence policy

PAGE 93

83 203Service programvictim oriented 204Service programbatterer oriented 205Service program evaluation 206DemographicSES 207-Demographic-Race/ethnicity 208-Demographicgender 209Immigrants 210Legal services (judicial) 211Legal services (law enforcement) 212Child Welfare Services 213LGBT 214Pregnancy 215Methodological development 216-physically or developmentally disabled 217International 218Substance Abuse 219Healthcare/Medical treatment 220Homelessness 221-Mental Health/Wellbeing 222Service program-family 223Parenting 224-Criminality 225Cohabitation/Dating 226Demographic-Religiosity 227-risk taking behavior 228-incidence/rates 229-age Year Numeric Value of year

PAGE 94

84 APPENDIX B CITATION INDEX TABLE Rank Journal Title Number of Citations 1 Journal of Marriage and the Family 4211 2 Child Abuse and Neglect 3141 3 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 1572 4 Journal of Family Psychology 1263 5 Family Relations 901 6 Journal of Family Issues 848 7 Family Process 829 8 Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy 801 9 Journal of Family Violence 729 10 Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 698 11 Child Welfare 660 12 Journal of Research on Adolescence 643 13 Journal of Early Adolescence 600 14 Future of Children 590 15 Children and Youth Services Review 544 16 Families In SocietyThe Journal of Contemporary Social Services 418 17 International Family Planning Perspectives 377 18 Journal of Comparative Family Studies 280 19 Family & Community Health 263 20 American Journal of Family Therapy 255 21 Journal of Family Therapy 236 22 Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect 204 23 Perspectives on Sexual & Reproductive Health 204 24 Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Healthcare 198 25 Child & Family Behavior Therapy 185 26 Family Law Quarterly 163 27 Journal of Family History 153 28 Culture Health & Sexuality 110 Note From ISI Web of Knowledge (2007) Social Science Citation Index. The Thomson Cooperation. Retrieved April 1, 2007, from h ttp://scientific.thomson.com/products/ssci

PAGE 95

85 REFERENCES Barnett, O., Miller-Perri n, C.L., & Perrin, R.D.(2005). Family violence across the lifespan: An introduction (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communication research New York: Free Press. Berry, M., Charison, R. Dawson, K., (2003). Promising practices in understanding and treating child neglect. Child & Family Social Work 8 (1), 13-24. Bloom, S.L. (2000). The neglect of neglect. Psychotherapy Review 2 (5), 208-210. Bryman, A.(2004). Social research methods (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Burke, T. W., & Owen, S. S. (2006). Same-sex domestic violence: Is anyone listening? Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide 13 (1), 6-7. Carter, B., & McGoldrick, M. (2005). The expanded family life cyc le: Individual, family, and social perspectives (3rd ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2004) About CAPTA: A legislative history. Retrieved on September 8, 2006, from http://childwelfare.gov/pubs /factsheets/about.pdf Coning, S.F. (2005). Effects of interpers onal violence on intention toward permanency Unpublished, University of Florida. Cuff, E. C., Sharrock, W.W ., & Francis, D.W. (1998). Perspectives in sociology (4th ed.). New York: Routledge. DeVaus, D. (2001). Research design and social research Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Eckhardt C. I., & Dye, M. L. (2000). The cognitive charac teristics of martially violent men: Theory and evidence. Cognitive Therapy & Research 24 (2), 139-159. Fern, M., & Younger-Lewis, C. (1997). More than meets the eye: Recognizing and responding to spousal abuse. Canadian Medical Associ ation Journal, 157( 11 ). Fisher, J.W., & Shelton, A.J. (2006). Survivors of domestic violence. Family & Community Health 29 (2), 118-130.

PAGE 96

86 Garbarino, J., & Collins C.C. (1999). Child neglect: The family with the hole in the middle. In H. Dubowitz (Ed) Neglected children: rese arch, practice and policy ( pp. 1-23). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Gelles, R.J. (1980). Violence in the family: A review of research in the seventies. Journal of Marriage and the Family 42 (4), 873-885. Gelles, R. J. (1982). Applying research on family viol ence to clinical practice. Journal of Marriage & Family, 44 (1), 2-21. Gelles, R.J. (1985). Family violence. Annual Review of Sociology 11 347-367. Gelles, R.J. (1997). Intimate violence in families (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Gelles, R.J., & Conte, J.R. (1990). Domestic violence and sexu al abuse of children: A review of research in the eighties. Journal of Marriage and the Family 52 (4), Family Research in the 1980s : The Decade in Review, 1045-1058. Gelles, R. J., & Maynard, P.E. (1987). A st ructural family systems approach to intervention in cases of family violence. Family Relations, 36 270-275. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society Cambridge: Polity Press. Gondolf E.W., Heckert, D. A., & Kimmel, C. M. (2002). Nonphysical use among batterer program participants. Journal of Family Violence 17 (4), 293-314. Gracia, E. (1995). Visible but unreported: a case for the not serious enough cases of child maltreatment. Child Abuse and Neglect, 19 (9), 1083-1093. Gynnild, V. (2002). Agency and structure in engineering education: Perspectives on educational change in the light of Anthony Giddens' structuration theory. European Journal of Engineering Education 27 (3), 297-304. Hamner, T.J., & Turner, P.H. (2001). Parenting in contemporary society Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Harley, A. M. (2006). Domestic violence screening. Plastic Surgical Nursing 26 (1), 2428. Haskins, C. (2003). Treating sibling in cest using a family systems approach Journal of Mental Health Counseling 25 (4) 337-351. Hegarty, K., Sheehan, M., & Schonfeld, C. (2004). A multidimensional definition of partner abuse: development and preliminar y validity for the com posite abuse scale. Journal of Family Violence 14 (4), 399-415.

PAGE 97

87 Helie, S., Clement, M., & Larrivee, M.C. ( 2003). Epidemiological considerations in the conceptualization and utilization of preva lence and incidence rate in family violence research: A reply to Brownridge and Hall (1999). Journal of Family Violence 18 (4), 219-225. Henning, K., & Fedder, L. ( 2004). A comparison of men and women arrested for domestic violence: Who pres ents the greater threat? Journal of Family Violence. 19 (2), 69-80. Hillis, S.D., Anda, R. F., Felitti, V. J., & Marchbanks, P. A. (2001). Adverse childhood experiences and sexual risk behaviors in women: A retrospective cohort study. Family Planning Perspectives 33 (5), 206-212. Hoffman K. L., & Edwards, J. N. (2004). An integrated theoretical model of sibling violence and abuse. Journal of Family Violence 19 (3),185-200. Holden, G.W. (2003). Children exposed to domestic violence and child abuse: Terminology and taxonomy. Clinical Child Psychology Review 6 (3), 151-160. Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis fo r the social scien ces and humanities. Journal of Peace Research 4 (2), 398. Howe, N., Rinaldi, C.M., Jennings, M., & Petr akos, H. (2002). No! The lambs can stay out because they got cozies: Constructive and destructive sibling conflict, pretend play, and social understanding. Child Development, 73 (5), 1460-1473. Ingoldsby, B., Smith, S.R., & Miller, J.E. (2004). Exploring Family Theories. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company. ISI Web of Knowledge. (2007). Social science citation index. The Thomson Cooperation. Retrieved April 1, 2007, from http:// scientific.thomson.com/products/ssci Jayawardena, K. M., & Liao, S. (2 006). Elder abuse at end of life. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 9 (1), 1123-1127. Jogerst, G. J., Brody, M.J., Dryer, C.B., & Ar ias, I. (2004). Elder abuse and the law: new science new tools. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 32 (4), 62-63. Johnson, C.F. (2002). Child maltreatment 2002: Recognition, reporting and risk. Pediatrics International 44 554-560. Johnson, M.P., & Ferraro, K.J. (2000). Resear ch on domestic violence in the 1990s: Making distinctions. Journal of Marriage and Family 62, 948-963. Kaplan, H.B., & Pokorney, A.D. (1971). Se lf-derogation and childhood broken home. Journal of Marriage and Family, 33 (2), 328-337.

PAGE 98

88 Kelly, K. A. (2004). Working together to stop domestic violence: state-community partnerships and the changing m eaning of public and private. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 31 (1), 27-47. Kempe, C.H., Silverman, F.N., Steele, B.F., Droegemueller, W., & Silver, H.K. (1962). The battered-child syndrome. Journal of the American Medical Association, 181 105-112. Klein, C.F., & Orloff, L.E. (1999) Protecting battered women: la test trends in civil legal relief. Women and Criminal Justice 10 (2), 29-47. Krippendorf, K. (2004). Content analys is: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Lemon, N.K. (1999). The legal systems res ponse to children exposed to domestic violence. The Future of Children, 9 (3), 67-83. Lerner, V. (1997). Domestic violence costs the United States between 5 and 10 billion per year and must be stopped. Off our backs 27 (4), 5-14. Levine, J.M. (2003).Elder Neglect and Abuse. Geriatrics 58 (10), 37-43. Lewis, C. S., Griffing, S., Chu, M. J., Tania; E. Sage, R., Madry, L., & Primm, B. J. (2006). Coping and violence exposure as predic tors of psychological functioning in domestic violence survivors. Violence Against Women, 12 (4), 340-354. McCauley, S. (2006). A look at elder abuse in America. RDH 26 (5), 74-100. Miller, C. E., & Mullins, B. K. (2002). Life long learning to prevent domestic violence. International Journal of Lifelong Education 21 (5), 474-484. Mills, L. (1996). Empowering battered women transna tionally: The case for postmodern interventions. Social Work 41 (3), 261-268. National Center on Elder Abuse.(2005). Th e basics: Major types of elder abuse. Retrieved August 1, 2006, from http://www.elderabusecenter.or g/default.cfm?p=basics.cfm Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2006). Intimate pa rtner violence: Fact sheet. Retrieved August 1, 2006, from http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/ipvfacts.htm Neufeld, B. (1996). SAFE questions: Overcomi ng the barriers to detecting domestic violence. Am erican Family Physician 53 (8), 2575-2581. Noland, V.J., Liller, K.D., McDermott, R.J., Coulter, M.L., & Seraphine, A.E. (2004). Is adolescent sibling violence a prec ursor to college dating violence? American Journal of Health Behavior 28 s13-s23.

PAGE 99

89 Ohlin, L., & Tonry, M. (1989). Family violence in perspective. Crime and Justice 11 118. Olson, L. N. (2004). Relational control-motivated aggression: A theoretically-based typology of intimate violence. Journal of Family Communication 4 (3/4), 209-233. Orange, L.M. (2005). Childhood sexual abuse: Wh at rehabilitation counselors need to know. Journal Rehabilitation, 71 (4), 5-11. Peretti, P. O., & Majecen, K. (1991). Emo tional abuse among the elderly: affecting behavior variables. Social Behavior and Personality, 19 (4), 255-261. Pedrick-Connel, C., & Gelles, R.J. (1982). Elde r abuse: The status of current knowledge. Journal of Family Relations, 31 457-465. Phipps, A.G. (2001). Empirical appli cations of structuration theory. Geografiska Annaler, Series B, Human Geography, 83B (4), 190-204. Peterman, L.M., & Dixon, C.G. (2003). Domestic violence between same-sex partners: implications for counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development 81 (1), 40-48. Reese-Weber, M., & Kahn, J.H.(2005). Familial predictors of sibling and romanticpartner conflict resolution: Comparing late adolescents from intact and divorced families. Journal of Adolescence, 28 (4), 479-493 Ritzer, G. (1988). Sociological metatheory: A defense of a subfield by a delineation of its parameters Sociological Theory 6 (2), 187-200. Romeo, F. F. (2000). The educators role in reporting the emoti onal abuse of children. Journal of Instructional Psychology 27 (3), 183-186. Rose, J. (1998). Evaluating the contribution of structuration theory to the information systems discipline. In W.R.J. Baets (Ed.). Proceedings of the 6th European conference on information systems Granada: Euro Arab Management Sch. Rosenberg, J. (2003). Abused women's children have an increased risk of dying before age five. International Family Planning Perspectives 29 (3), 151-153. Rothschild, C. S. (1970).The study of family power structure: A review 1960-1969. Journal of Marriage and the Family 32 (4), 539-552. Rothman, M. B., & Duntop, B.D. (2001). A silent enemy. Hemisphere: A Magazine for the Americas, 10 18p. Rowe, D.C., Rodgers, J.C., & Meseck-Bushey, S. (1992). Sibling delinquency and the family environment: Shared and unshared influences. Child Development 63( 1), 59-67.

PAGE 100

90 Sagrestano, L. M., Carroll, D., Rodriguez, A. C., & Nuwayhid, B. (2004). Demographic, psychological, and relationship factors in domestic violence during pregnancy in a sample of low income women of color. Psychology of Women Quarterly 28 (4),309-322. Slezak, P. (1991). How strong is the 'Strong Programme'? Social Studies of Science 21 (1), 154-156. Sneddon, H. (2003). The effect of maltreatme nt on childrens health and well-being. Child Care in Practice 9 (3), 236-249. Shugarman, L. R., Fries, B.E., Wolf, R.S., & Morris, J.N. (2003). Identifying older people at risk of abuse during routine screening. American Geriatrics Society 51 (1), 25-31. Straus, M.A. (1974). Forward In R.J. Gelles (Ed.), The violent home: A study of physical aggression between husbands and wives (p.13-17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Straus, M.A. (1992). Sociologi cal research and social po licy: The case of family violence. Sociological Forum 7 (2), 211-237. Strong, B., DeVault, C., Sayad, B.W.,& C ohen, T.F. (2001).The marriage and family experience. (8th ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Thomson Learning Inc. Suprina, J. S., & Chang C. Y.,(2005). Child abuse, society, and individual psychology: What's power got to do with it? Journal of Individual Psychology 61 (3), 250-268. Swinford, S. P., DeMaris, A., Cer nkovich, S.A., & Giordano, P.C. (2000). Harsh physical discipline in childhood and viol ence in later romantic i nvolvements: The mediating role of problem behaviors. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62 (2), 508-519. Tham, S.W., Ford, T.J., & Wilkenson, D.G. ( 1995). A survey of domestic violence and forms of abuse. Journal of Mental Health, 4 (3), 317-322. Thagard, P. (1994). Mind, society, and the growth of knowledge. Philosophy of Knowledge 61 (4), 629-645. Thompson H., & Priest, R. (2005). Elder abuse and neglect: c onsiderations for mental health practitioners. Adultspan: Theory Research & Practice 4 (2), 116-128. Timmer, C.P., (1997).Valuing social science rese arch and policy analysis American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 79 (5), 1545-1550. Tjaden, P., & Theonnes, N. (1998). Prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women survey Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

PAGE 101

91 Tremblay, R. E., Nagin, D. S., Sguin, J. R ., Zoccolillo, M., Zelazo, P. D., Boivin, M., Prusse, D., & Japel, C. (2004). Physical aggression dur ing early childhood: Trajectories and predictors. Pediatrics 114 (1), 43-50. Turell, S. C. (2000). A descriptive analysis of same-s ex relationship violence for a diverse sample. Journal of Family Violence 15 (3), 281-293. U.S. Department of Health and Human Serv ices. (2004). Child maltr eatment. Retrieved, August 1, 2006, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/index.htm U.S. Department of Health and Human Se rvices Office on Womens Health. (2005a). Violence against women: Domestic and intimate partner violence prevention. Retrieved August 1, 2006, from http://womenshealth.gov/violence/domestic U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2005b). Violence against women: Elder abuse. Retrieved August 1, 2006, from http://womenshealth.gov /violence/elder/ U.S. Department of Health and Huma n Services (2006). Sexual Assault. Retrieved April 18, 2007, from http://womenshealth.gov/faq/sexualassault.htm VanWormer, K., & Bednar, S.G. (2002). Work ing with male batterers: A restorative strengths perspective. The Journal of Contemporary Human Services: Families in Society 83 (5/6), 557-565. Violence Against Women Act. (1998). Retrieved July 27, 2006, from http://www.now.org/issues/violence/vawa/vawa1998.html Wiehe, V.R. (1997). Sibling abuse: Hidden physical, emotional, and sexual trauma Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Wiehe, V. R. (2002). What parents need to know about sibling abuse Springville, UT: Bonneville Books. Yikoski, P. (2004). Interests, folk psychology and the sociology of scientific knowledge. Philosophical Explorations 7 (3), 265-277. Zimring, F.E. (1989).Toward a jurisprudence of family violence Crime and Justice, 11 547-569. Zinn, M.B., & Eitzen, D.S. (2005). Diversity in Families (7th ed). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. Zuravin, S.J. (1999).Child neglect: A review of definitions and measurement research. In H. Dubowitz (Ed.) Neglected children: Research, practice and policy (pp. 24-46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

PAGE 102

92 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Rachel Susannah Birmingham was born on May 2, 1982, in Syracuse New York. She is the youngest for four children, and has sp ent most of her life in rural north Florida. She attended Santa Fe Community College as a dual enrollment student, and graduated in the top 10% of her dual enrollment class wh ile also earning her high school diploma. During this time, Rachel worked as a vol unteer for a juvenile justice program, and received congressional recognition for he r service to the community in 2000. She graduated from P.K. Yonge Developmenta l Research School in 2001, and earned her associates degree months later. During Rach els undergraduate years, she worked as a nurses assistant, and cared for patients with advanced dementia and Alzheimers disease. As a Florida Merit scholar, she received a B.A. in sociology from the University of Florida in 2005. Rachel is currently working on her ma sters degree in family, youth and community sciences at the University of Florida. She is a certified by the Florida Coalition against Domestic Violence and work s as a child advocate for Peaceful Paths Domestic Abuse Network. She is planning to pur sue her doctorate degree in the fall of 2007.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101113_AAAAJA INGEST_TIME 2010-11-13T11:17:52Z PACKAGE UFE0020340_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 21460 DFID F20101113_AABNHZ ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH birmingham_r_Page_034.QC.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
88ecdfc961158ff3ce373eeea266e0d9
SHA-1
aa17e4205f38827fc2ed8803c715eecb3a720cb9
9640 F20101113_AABNJC birmingham_r_Page_052.QC.jpg
67b6c24f377e53b844b27161d068a6f1
2f0e51ef1a859e344b34d8d647ba45a8efea01af
22566 F20101113_AABNIN birmingham_r_Page_042.QC.jpg
a529611d862c283c4e69802716b4d272
b33f129c730123e3054d1dce418efc4690d6c7e8
6216 F20101113_AABNIO birmingham_r_Page_042thm.jpg
98c64b110d645c15fd330871b6006888
06f79551e2f54001521e653796eb78d1c04a711c
18816 F20101113_AABNJD birmingham_r_Page_053.QC.jpg
dfaad402fba5a74195ed11bc0edcaacc
2d604469f852e73e4ecd7ca7559d582a80860ecd
23567 F20101113_AABNIP birmingham_r_Page_043.QC.jpg
2ed95a633a15574fe5c012bf3eca86f8
42fc8a7307deefdd5663be9f13134aca1f128209
5490 F20101113_AABNJE birmingham_r_Page_053thm.jpg
6df33197c8521ce6339854e433a83766
d158852c15a491c51ad194a1a8503451f145730c
6452 F20101113_AABNIQ birmingham_r_Page_043thm.jpg
00dd7420b712ca6e65aca9a954cbc1e7
6883b456d581483729c5deb5a966429587d37c6f
23052 F20101113_AABNJF birmingham_r_Page_055.QC.jpg
fac432af0cc872e817999f48237e8e50
b817180f77bd90082ac7a701e0ddad47f363b3c6
23520 F20101113_AABNIR birmingham_r_Page_044.QC.jpg
18d0d46bcd06f152b9c2bfad6acc8c6b
9fb1e45b1a78f02bdb5740cd8c29ae93085e3bd5
6207 F20101113_AABNJG birmingham_r_Page_055thm.jpg
c06f0fd17f283dae2f618f89f4b1be15
8264133541948cb0878d8ebe83c5ba7bf75335a8
6457 F20101113_AABNIS birmingham_r_Page_044thm.jpg
494ff7b5a5ee4bf150ad59305193b5bb
1ef8d8c0ab68753ca88fa93774142bc6acb8ccbb
22933 F20101113_AABNJH birmingham_r_Page_056.QC.jpg
976ec2f0d74d4fa7b503bd90bd525709
ee9965ec20721fb94691bb08ee4efb580820c6c8
23409 F20101113_AABNIT birmingham_r_Page_045.QC.jpg
f2ba3a4449c6dda2d796f36ca89e6478
fab7bce35aab77c19528314711350463ecc4bead
6484 F20101113_AABNJI birmingham_r_Page_056thm.jpg
6659b691255662cc300cb54b7cab8a85
fe3afdecee80113c37997cbdb7ef59058a434191
6524 F20101113_AABNIU birmingham_r_Page_045thm.jpg
040c8ca3fe3cbcd704ab7f7115139339
609674991f73c560874b7f79cc02cffe5ec47e2b
23939 F20101113_AABNJJ birmingham_r_Page_057.QC.jpg
97339fe1ecdc13fe9a85e3dea60c5410
9cce439ffdbc45108d234c396c7070406b73c166
23668 F20101113_AABNIV birmingham_r_Page_046.QC.jpg
76de1ff5b39e925db5efd4dc83204ad9
4529ecb22a02050373a3dff2fee652326bbe75e6
6640 F20101113_AABNJK birmingham_r_Page_057thm.jpg
273eb2074ab5140df610b2b258498b69
977f817efdbe8da1732d49273954a7233a7b0391
6528 F20101113_AABNIW birmingham_r_Page_046thm.jpg
8ab907e5bb1fd7894bce70f5a2eb7a06
7f50a06e3fb424727df74e4b55a763e34f09b0e2
21354 F20101113_AABNKA birmingham_r_Page_068.QC.jpg
4b9feb9a3903180d527d87e3285c9137
879b62630d74daee5e6450719f44daa405e78143
22947 F20101113_AABNJL birmingham_r_Page_058.QC.jpg
27086812c3458f54e5b159eede093470
aa3051aa287f1d440bd587107c9bd0fe57614ecb
F20101113_AABNIX birmingham_r_Page_048.QC.jpg
42535f61355ff1d3c0b43efde5214107
7a2905e8b9da45d733ea81fa4b1052e8c6bec9c3
6138 F20101113_AABNKB birmingham_r_Page_068thm.jpg
4f30bac12864ffd7d75ff5dec612afae
afb451e20a0c188adb3ae8b306dd87486885ffce
21940 F20101113_AABNJM birmingham_r_Page_059.QC.jpg
5eea95b2948886de889098dd0394dcf5
7cef8f70c2a5284240722b1f74a6eced0560dc33
6551 F20101113_AABNIY birmingham_r_Page_048thm.jpg
e302f5bcff9afd52a9744ac72e8841b6
cf9d707e38250d7e4c234f18be2794f6691ff52e
18492 F20101113_AABNKC birmingham_r_Page_069.QC.jpg
5abac2cf97f09a20b97e281b5e904068
5a7ad9184d6fd6a2ed33b213e1acbb5c4f38076f
19849 F20101113_AABNJN birmingham_r_Page_060.QC.jpg
612da1c465d7f7940d78da02568bd0d6
0bee8804b88cffddde41b61c4d4ff84df0b7c3a6
6397 F20101113_AABNIZ birmingham_r_Page_049thm.jpg
2f3929a68db7ae2f9deb144c13c8238b
5e9196d11dcf9b129d36637b3252f5f3f71a7364
5299 F20101113_AABNKD birmingham_r_Page_069thm.jpg
06cfd568318cd532d6a0ac110a78c03e
9506458957003dc178da0e6d70b4a803c9b0caaf
5799 F20101113_AABNJO birmingham_r_Page_060thm.jpg
cdb777505af89b068540f696a9fb96d5
0e918871c480155847289d3f7534d25a2e0dc7a5
16711 F20101113_AABNJP birmingham_r_Page_061.QC.jpg
aa72511ecbf139dc1d4be241edd8cd09
c60555cf8678ec746f8e0df5e0fa14abae2ef296
19716 F20101113_AABNKE birmingham_r_Page_070.QC.jpg
5f1b205dbd277a9c7730086f61d60a88
083191b4b4b274bef9ed35c2298c7553b5d1b673
5275 F20101113_AABNJQ birmingham_r_Page_061thm.jpg
1e562f918f974d3373ca89e1b13a5b8c
7d69a5816684ea1cd79e44d2784e4c0d416fdad9
5772 F20101113_AABNKF birmingham_r_Page_070thm.jpg
0b9dc648db575a623d60f4ef4a73ea7d
359bcd52d870ead7fd9426c7459488a56d078f83
23732 F20101113_AABNJR birmingham_r_Page_062.QC.jpg
7f5736eef4b0b76886b08a864ce313aa
eff97f3546472a42548249dd983c6954d70a64df
22753 F20101113_AABNKG birmingham_r_Page_071.QC.jpg
3794a849418548bb9a7fbe7b165ccbd8
39cf67ed282a7028708f622ca7944874eb9a0cf3
6523 F20101113_AABNJS birmingham_r_Page_062thm.jpg
0b87c4fed4ea585e5260d57ef7a17866
aacc2a89c22f986877786d516c48a315b559cc66
6508 F20101113_AABNKH birmingham_r_Page_071thm.jpg
45884704613414baf8e759f1cc7199a7
571e22234b0cb5e323c9b85ff64c86e4cd5e0903
16878 F20101113_AABNJT birmingham_r_Page_063.QC.jpg
1b797725b7371e2c4cc923c52b304138
8780e915724268bf1c2f2d7d265f75fbe4c17a96
23116 F20101113_AABNKI birmingham_r_Page_072.QC.jpg
33865293b22b765fdbe3b3d96a094d31
9ee8e72f428691cc653ac4e76c7e097000695e80
5032 F20101113_AABNJU birmingham_r_Page_063thm.jpg
cf33b31d58b0ad703fd39811d09055ea
7afe77e80150c1ff9041622d98847a277c08fa5e
23936 F20101113_AABNKJ birmingham_r_Page_073.QC.jpg
0fec22118812b32b60d2154e1c4a79fb
5f367f3856ed8ebd7362ff9e0a6061f7e6f34a7a
15092 F20101113_AABNJV birmingham_r_Page_064.QC.jpg
99f1ef774dc2b8bf668b9a9058c31f46
6a4b16968de9b6c19ffcaedf688b5e6e4e3c7482
24113 F20101113_AABNKK birmingham_r_Page_074.QC.jpg
66c33634a13ef4b628aaa7b05e44a8b2
b0506b57889621b9dab2696b7b09d999be4fa97e
4491 F20101113_AABNJW birmingham_r_Page_064thm.jpg
dc5ba6fc8694f281313ed5b6f30e4abf
774d5d107f6f5bff6f2c95350bfff441e0525a51
6739 F20101113_AABNKL birmingham_r_Page_074thm.jpg
39c1d10b677ed73fd3ed9d1abd52739c
f9bdcd3f712553be734c5e540c9e470b94eee23e
6674 F20101113_AABNJX birmingham_r_Page_065thm.jpg
3d4d83b160b39851c32b8976fdb51055
f72c9928696e95dbf4272b8bcd913cf957c01611
22331 F20101113_AABNLA birmingham_r_Page_084.QC.jpg
291f18b40cff3c61304219f4038c0e0d
483bf91b04b23e5bf1b9ec648496f1ca6d4d6f3c
23337 F20101113_AABNKM birmingham_r_Page_075.QC.jpg
f1adf2cad362491d0b93b3fa7bbda329
875d2c7be49d74b439c60da0a46a1f80ce707e8c
23619 F20101113_AABNJY birmingham_r_Page_067.QC.jpg
65caee31bf84dec4ebb4d63796341103
ab9906126bbae9835180bbc774ba4ace00d452ff
23612 F20101113_AABNLB birmingham_r_Page_085.QC.jpg
b4a12a18285b7d3bb9be4df9793e76cb
a70f61b8bad5ecd6cd138615959f7f8a34c6215b
6662 F20101113_AABNKN birmingham_r_Page_075thm.jpg
deb17fc325704c3f91a89fa2eaffc554
01613c48a0b838f2d61f2a999c0ed7718727c618
6426 F20101113_AABNJZ birmingham_r_Page_067thm.jpg
62e94d43c4a075293fcd3fa4de8a9f78
aa74190ec54580f846dda92397563bf88d5b6d78
6480 F20101113_AABNLC birmingham_r_Page_085thm.jpg
a7f09c7f5e1efcfbe0e26f6fa51c919e
b3fb07fc97180d8b757def37db5d3f8f2d792f94
6630 F20101113_AABNKO birmingham_r_Page_076thm.jpg
0f7db66e8952e67dbaae49c427b2152f
180268320444aef999a96fd3e16319ceff9513d3
6613 F20101113_AABNLD birmingham_r_Page_086thm.jpg
000f59edf19fe3c4d671305b1f0c7e4b
cc9d9895cc42fbe85668a1f8c9b2656fd3a707a7
24188 F20101113_AABNLE birmingham_r_Page_087.QC.jpg
29a769a14901e6d0104ea947f5645a39
b171566dbace1f9a9cbdb69fbb7ab2e683172e2a
23888 F20101113_AABNKP birmingham_r_Page_077.QC.jpg
d591e8eb5379c63eac9b366efe3e2c8c
5648529502103c6c14b079a76e28e48d845af7b6
F20101113_AABNKQ birmingham_r_Page_077thm.jpg
c90dad310e00f890da30e4405a485214
b4b697538b7614b1f9c13d55f939be8451fd6d1b
6605 F20101113_AABNLF birmingham_r_Page_087thm.jpg
d7a324a92353e729e5cc5036c636c775
f8ae6f31df2d74c57737332a5b93a83b2b7cc5ab
22927 F20101113_AABNKR birmingham_r_Page_078.QC.jpg
f8bf76fef410e3218f91a3088146ee09
30fdd69b7331b62c9a4bde8582c0780eca4b6071
21765 F20101113_AABNLG birmingham_r_Page_088.QC.jpg
5ebb35296cde4aee4bf819d201212502
599b65cb60f0ed95a8d8a1beaf7dad26f68a9d63
23789 F20101113_AABNKS birmingham_r_Page_079.QC.jpg
8b22590cbcddffe21e584bb35e9460fe
3fedff37dee76b74f3639aae54ca25e7b003230f
6319 F20101113_AABNLH birmingham_r_Page_088thm.jpg
39854dea6654229d66c23f925756d820
2a59ba5e4e6d8aee513a3cd78910e28d4dfcfbf1
6611 F20101113_AABNKT birmingham_r_Page_079thm.jpg
2791566cd523498d192534f49cfdcb4e
39f30962fe5af466b793312fe5d331a8f8290738
6420 F20101113_AABNLI birmingham_r_Page_089thm.jpg
4f13079fdab86aab9eb001b68589a918
ff3f3c100f04b6678dad5b018b06314b0514ee4e
23330 F20101113_AABNKU birmingham_r_Page_080.QC.jpg
26da038a05395604470cbc5076e744eb
5e0501f18325432f12df38212976e4bfc2b1d565
22867 F20101113_AABNLJ birmingham_r_Page_090.QC.jpg
3b7632a9b1b984a0ebea6883dc6d6cb2
1108de757852ce5d239f69fa161ffad9ab24d66f
6515 F20101113_AABNKV birmingham_r_Page_081thm.jpg
c10f1412c5f78990328a8fc394e7dec0
b227a6db6ebab647d1cb5d1ebf8ac0a35ba38fb9
21300 F20101113_AABNLK birmingham_r_Page_091.QC.jpg
94d89b8dab65fdf73d20802e3267ff02
489bf4ad9ed9286ae679ce831221e42ba5bc2f8f
23029 F20101113_AABNKW birmingham_r_Page_082.QC.jpg
9ac9cd7c98ab24a9d32822e716c0308c
f56387e0a9a665779aa5e00ca4ddd9f4757de902
6506 F20101113_AABNMA birmingham_r_Page_099thm.jpg
0a52772d0a8bdb92e987d0336d5c4a22
9ee0ccef91437849ee84ab367b393e949349429f
5954 F20101113_AABNLL birmingham_r_Page_091thm.jpg
41733c4234c866981c936e7c11a20878
5f497190edbc903e26b5364bfb3d58d8f4057b1e
6212 F20101113_AABNKX birmingham_r_Page_082thm.jpg
3bc27df050af3baf1b16d566fd164910
dfb7e03cd5f2c0be761ba282a103f8bb9ef531b4
24647 F20101113_AABNMB birmingham_r_Page_100.QC.jpg
726045c62feaf3503b7e530ad16e49bd
3ecc9d9c67930e607796122a4b5c07c228b2a313
13013 F20101113_AABNLM birmingham_r_Page_092.QC.jpg
d58e2561c0f9ad085e159c35c562b7d8
ef4d5dfae00652858931165deea09bdbf8436361
23627 F20101113_AABNKY birmingham_r_Page_083.QC.jpg
350f171281627faa9f8c305f4f18ae87
a5af1f0308db5bb88244a7e370f508aeab2dd054
6700 F20101113_AABNMC birmingham_r_Page_100thm.jpg
d504359099276c4aa87b77060a4c552f
b1a009ca768701a674cba6b1c90bf2195535d87f
3688 F20101113_AABNLN birmingham_r_Page_092thm.jpg
3f7f2bb0d22b2b91bf1be1778b9b4496
075ed7bc1abaf94a9807ec915dd44693e68bb4e4
6698 F20101113_AABNKZ birmingham_r_Page_083thm.jpg
b52aa61444319bc091b07c41fb33c4d7
2f1fae6156433b65b9ea03d272332d208be1039e
F20101113_AABNMD birmingham_r_Page_101.QC.jpg
395803a1669761c29de70afc0629df30
36c49ba08180a5b06b988efb46504864e93da5b7
2921 F20101113_AABNLO birmingham_r_Page_093thm.jpg
9cc5ed727c4f106282a717ee32eaeade
8964e7fb8d221102b4e2188a87bfaadcf458f7cb
6645 F20101113_AABNME birmingham_r_Page_101thm.jpg
b51b7ce1ca18941b24cb724231d73e3c
f10743f34010b074244afff2450c2bedb00db515
22469 F20101113_AABNLP birmingham_r_Page_094.QC.jpg
ba6ea890a18356d4c4c6ea6d057099bc
94d4e7bf06a8e7f68254ab8e6ad86ffe8ccf60d9
16931 F20101113_AABNMF birmingham_r_Page_102.QC.jpg
3379b6d427200dda7050ae9dc90b3923
59aec2e792e8dcfd438fca2d1bbebb23b6f4dd93
5699 F20101113_AABNLQ birmingham_r_Page_094thm.jpg
ce744f9fddbbebe389dbbad04d1b0b47
d0c056089a59672c3cb30395305b4ac4cfe6bac8
20756 F20101113_AABNLR birmingham_r_Page_095.QC.jpg
45d2556e10d67e476a66eb75897189e0
aed142fc1d7d7845750d765d7a87d22b1a1e86d6
4719 F20101113_AABNMG birmingham_r_Page_102thm.jpg
fd60d86e6b5452ccfa7be7cef6737d65
3649cc2c7a5843a4d317c8a1c42c20de0ebb5aea
5989 F20101113_AABNLS birmingham_r_Page_095thm.jpg
1f1f444620f7aac13bb49b1c9b3b94bd
69d05c276cca00420c123f61588001b77adb6097
120735 F20101113_AABNMH UFE0020340_00001.mets FULL
c1cc79e2f0c99c97ab0e5c0663d29866
ab47ed2aefbf200cad59c446023ddef85e97684a
24123 F20101113_AABNLT birmingham_r_Page_096.QC.jpg
42cab83f6bde71f90a33b43085c8c739
bcaa652a8b3b564a46e360fa3fe9a9471f5277e5
6624 F20101113_AABNLU birmingham_r_Page_096thm.jpg
7692d261d3f5e5b1c9f564ebfe71cb97
04d55a2836c41a2edad531ba5ef4ddc85cb301c7
24251 F20101113_AABNLV birmingham_r_Page_097.QC.jpg
603a61f957d91815869fabf3f15c74fd
a8c9ecceb157a530cd818c5ceaf29f3c8c1bcb56
6731 F20101113_AABNLW birmingham_r_Page_097thm.jpg
9b2abc12d07a89f6b0cc96bc372bb1cd
c9752d812ecb82f4ec9fda8c02e5142a969400a8
25143 F20101113_AABNLX birmingham_r_Page_098.QC.jpg
b0d5e56619fbe136763b999806ae637a
2e81a0e547cdd0e82f3bf9d3133c59f51ae53e95
6536 F20101113_AABNLY birmingham_r_Page_098thm.jpg
da782472bca49807e03d2cc965fc95aa
78ffe9244e3f44967c0ecbc7c1c4b2903f1942f1
24360 F20101113_AABNLZ birmingham_r_Page_099.QC.jpg
13680a8c9849969a249cc7f3ebdcfa8a
1408d5b6ba2336aa03ae315877e530e3035cbdd1
6252 F20101113_AABMLA birmingham_r_Page_072thm.jpg
9469e435aca16d25f38e0936da84a9b0
0bdc2b1cb8f3bf14f768e742bad6c10a8726877c
2989 F20101113_AABMLB birmingham_r_Page_052thm.jpg
83ac381e5e346f15593c71c28c52c178
3f151819549e3d1e4b35d339000c56f0fe7f5761
2386 F20101113_AABMLC birmingham_r_Page_100.txt
84b809a25d2df33e556b23389c350f66
043c28b178dafeb9bbb9abd8f4dbecc5d22494a3
22752 F20101113_AABMLD birmingham_r_Page_036.QC.jpg
fcc21e39b34e7ccd5fbdb9a6ec5c6635
b2b47c52eb44a38b46d691b0301a742db9a6260a
59638 F20101113_AABMLE birmingham_r_Page_053.jpg
822b5378411fb965b436cf3f816da36d
61e4c7137e2ff8ad7cf70ad88194dc7fd69534fb
1765 F20101113_AABMLF birmingham_r_Page_064.txt
0d4725a4d1238c7049c87abfd5853e62
e45d3440b774661e3205d65e7fe4293cbbf240d3
102979 F20101113_AABMKR birmingham_r_Page_030.jp2
767165d8b904dd4dfcdfc006fe3ac3d6
ca47ca93236bf71643bcf669c1a77ddfc34f7c83
653766 F20101113_AABMLG birmingham_r_Page_061.jp2
d230164b0a3dd27e571f40ccfccf58b2
f774509e2ac2552711fe8488bed0311c3612554e
99197 F20101113_AABMKS birmingham_r_Page_054.jp2
2fad5d692beae18fbae0acd747eba5e5
02ce2690f8d273ebe1cd2707b654708f660eb2e1
48394 F20101113_AABMLH birmingham_r_Page_072.pro
6990b2ad3e856abf36ba362305508ab9
7c3ee0447e9a0f748d88b959ed28f74e9a92181a
1053954 F20101113_AABMKT birmingham_r_Page_002.tif
93fbd57bc48e7271317b6272d3255dcf
0f767e12d82a0181a71f393f76f3b04e55e8057c
22196 F20101113_AABMLI birmingham_r_Page_066.QC.jpg
ea0635e7689e3c962308482e830f4acf
ae51eb6c2921f4c250a189cea04e92c8e128a468
4439 F20101113_AABMKU birmingham_r_Page_006.txt
c391099d2037764bdae285a26303dd56
e89cd455796e5ad8524e1d881428ef1fbf6517f9
6184 F20101113_AABMLJ birmingham_r_Page_059thm.jpg
201d31327adeb0f414bf286cec0983c2
fbaa330a01d70d2e7e33de4a0061a264578c570b
6347 F20101113_AABMKV birmingham_r_Page_050thm.jpg
e8f9f53eb406009d1431535dce6a18d8
e09385955d7189f669988cd1968f2a552c2f35f1
F20101113_AABMLK birmingham_r_Page_062.tif
9680254ccf8666c8b4587ead6e892eba
a09510299eedad77b67e1a1802ef292189ccda64
39127 F20101113_AABMKW birmingham_r_Page_052.jp2
3e9c62c8f8f6aa2b45e54c27353d2436
0c694dbf96ea8678c6f6c526ff75cff83e4b8fc9
124503 F20101113_AABMMA birmingham_r_Page_101.jp2
75cec9f7bd18d14b2007014f018c9188
420da32661b297d7ecd054e315df8e87b344a47c
110421 F20101113_AABMLL birmingham_r_Page_046.jp2
5df8b659701c539cbe646499a1aae84b
2fef0b38bdbb3b0731f5d2055f280d4072e3d607
F20101113_AABMKX birmingham_r_Page_035.tif
92ef3be2130bfdb72392c4e0c685ed86
c81fc92396fea3e4e78586a647ebf7b44c5624ba
F20101113_AABMMB birmingham_r_Page_058thm.jpg
e14c93d048d8e902b32457ee814c0776
56f623c44f15fb412de6a9d8213ee0905bc59138
46432 F20101113_AABMLM birmingham_r_Page_093.jp2
aac3a00b9582e6e88f75be305a0dd776
b9d6f7fd619653eca870c6296748d35687d00926
67461 F20101113_AABMKY birmingham_r_Page_029.jpg
e3bc74f139fc05348b8afa928abba939
853a6a35dbe9dface3ff699cfa768d9cf2b3ba64
1759 F20101113_AABMLN birmingham_r_Page_012.txt
573d1d1d260b6d952f585f3f4e960918
5aaa6487db8f393e265c89724782fa701cdb612e
68428 F20101113_AABMKZ birmingham_r_Page_072.jpg
17f63c6bff41356f8b90d943e3b360fc
8828919cb76d546e61164c0beed1625377a2a48f
67905 F20101113_AABMMC birmingham_r_Page_041.jpg
4fd66c7c8e95e5f62156e3f9bac7fdb3
bcf28c2e188d5488c0a3f7203b5bfbcda5280e3b
F20101113_AABMLO birmingham_r_Page_084.tif
28eac03892d2fb296932b432ea0946ea
3e112d68ad8fda4f41d8a6b40b019e0f7efe59f7
F20101113_AABMMD birmingham_r_Page_029.tif
c305cc431545667ecff86d4d95d99219
6199790b2517fac0d8d18187746e662fc53409b0
F20101113_AABMLP birmingham_r_Page_047.tif
91e2d2017914b27b1b66594789892f2c
e5cfccd2773253649e76747ae05959a0c0596f66
32321 F20101113_AABMME birmingham_r_Page_013.pro
933539b686640169b28af91539c13231
81a96cf4cb9b80f63ffcedcc10c72495ee951f7a
79682 F20101113_AABMLQ birmingham_r_Page_049.jpg
147aba3a321c68a90235137e0dc5b560
b760053d21e366b8f989b17183c257a0b3d7007a
51359 F20101113_AABMMF birmingham_r_Page_046.pro
c8ee6eb75a4996499c24d7fb2af842e6
2b5145a2263c3fd8207a0a27de13ccf0c2338222
1812 F20101113_AABMLR birmingham_r_Page_011.txt
5519edfd65a9b172741c9fba0198478d
9b1fe1d60b34407d8bdfd32521a3da75acbf5288
24371 F20101113_AABMMG birmingham_r_Page_065.QC.jpg
53ff9905056e31b8ef35095d76e69182
ea330cae12690ac21eec1ae678043472bc1c43d2
52895 F20101113_AABMLS birmingham_r_Page_065.pro
bc43deb61b8cf1255c177c24142987a9
ca70e02069a786d51e3a72c1674feba6325d5fbd
1853 F20101113_AABMLT birmingham_r_Page_041.txt
4371f75012643576151b14fc0b0808a1
526076a176cd49fbe2211f4dd6c807cecd46b6ed
2003 F20101113_AABMMH birmingham_r_Page_075.txt
0a84893ded504c08d529a1d28e1e650e
b338b5b88859983718a4415444b8eec8cabbe7f9
1506 F20101113_AABMLU birmingham_r_Page_061.txt
e618ba87d07a51c89cc0890c509297bb
29ed8306fc804e403a58f050a6dd284491d230ba
110806 F20101113_AABMMI birmingham_r_Page_057.jp2
ce87bf601422199790f99229d3d42347
e96152c9c10d5e914617b6233cc2b221f6315882
6529 F20101113_AABMLV birmingham_r_Page_078thm.jpg
b2626b1a27cb0d9ba57bacebecdbfed1
d75e12ecd4deca5bb030225f277f9900a2c2b44b
22794 F20101113_AABMMJ birmingham_r_Page_015.QC.jpg
286dcca64ea0b83b9a0fe0e0bea03158
5db9e063101d65b28fb6966c6d279f6d2ef8832d
1959 F20101113_AABMLW birmingham_r_Page_056.txt
06256827fec49acb1baab5aaca9b6bd2
1cd0e03cf705700057da2c05e365ad50b3af761a
2102 F20101113_AABMMK birmingham_r_Page_065.txt
0a829789f4e5107b518cd201f4bdeccd
2f154eb5d63bfa7a768436e13b6a021538069d12
1373 F20101113_AABMLX birmingham_r_Page_013.txt
a5d0f2c3931edfb471c9da69cd179cbc
796689c0181673746e259e1da8445ec204520cfa
24157 F20101113_AABMNA birmingham_r_Page_049.QC.jpg
8215c733f6fb58f1d05e354b7c7a9a28
febfb9bdbc16d138472362515aefda6d02ef5ee0
23305 F20101113_AABMML birmingham_r_Page_047.QC.jpg
2c097cccd10524a7c34663bac7e8e8c2
aca0939b07f6ab7e1cd2206b965254f03958004d
F20101113_AABMLY birmingham_r_Page_069.tif
b2fa241bc6a32d7a80d9ee43c5a0e501
4bd7a9131d831784ed779361539c59240647a15d
48870 F20101113_AABMNB birmingham_r_Page_084.pro
857b81b81595af8ff5177094c193adef
950dbcccbd573493a066ed7effdaac1f3c37fc36
47386 F20101113_AABMMM birmingham_r_Page_059.pro
dc0e570d33b3ee71d5e935efbf139859
e28fcf2a7d2957404cb2e7e90b6543c081087b49
89640 F20101113_AABMLZ birmingham_r_Page_053.jp2
b3d20b090ba52106df5727a74754cd5a
de5b79cb1aefd478210315809affca51d4cdcdea
74153 F20101113_AABMNC birmingham_r_Page_016.jpg
f888ae6168202b18dd2e4c07cd3a429e
07cae49566341455d66192071348911b44581759
23546 F20101113_AABMMN birmingham_r_Page_086.QC.jpg
265e51c47891b4b00b8670d5e8fe410d
343e1cdd965a76ad898b3e61310452cf0dcd33a6
F20101113_AABMND birmingham_r_Page_026.tif
c1fa9cb77f3feaf3202c4e8a810626cb
f121627b2c944037574bf219d9a06a6f2d6eb4fa
1967 F20101113_AABMMO birmingham_r_Page_072.txt
341c126ce11bc2516906433a36a52a88
81f478af1ae4011b4c8dbaba27b7eeb20ad39e80
2531 F20101113_AABMNE birmingham_r_Page_001thm.jpg
71aafda07b5a0cbfe54398e9e17a764e
578b399e401dbef0251010fe13421378fa9289ab
F20101113_AABMMP birmingham_r_Page_087.tif
783e872d59d2a0e9150e8c3951517bfb
053b5043f65e80b75539c2850133392806566512
106416 F20101113_AABMNF birmingham_r_Page_036.jp2
0982856fa8ae67f2e2b7d8143398058a
6b1a7a4929ae6aaa3732a533caf7d695fc453bb4
6197 F20101113_AABMMQ birmingham_r_Page_054thm.jpg
569ff97cf808aef4dadf4d6c25f2656c
76db4770b569f357053ad9b955c063fa5c413a9c
1903 F20101113_AABMNG birmingham_r_Page_066.txt
101c9f47e24ceb5bd15bab404d7d86ea
e26014dedb259148030906d12e60288826878552
1051985 F20101113_AABMMR birmingham_r_Page_007.jp2
296b58cee46672cfe7be399d75f8058b
89411a219bcb69683e6d4b8e5c4fb4a939b75d8a
110107 F20101113_AABMNH birmingham_r_Page_062.jp2
57eac321a9d91a3ea8c98fce9d8839dd
4a832d9dce324f3a5f72dc407fcd26ca0e50860b
67813 F20101113_AABMMS birmingham_r_Page_030.jpg
33474c85c073f8c63f01a0e6a5cea33c
1b5504a6331ff6f76db4b6194fd5c1e3bcb254b9
23080 F20101113_AABMMT birmingham_r_Page_081.QC.jpg
b0d53d9f56493070e3080cd336b748e4
4df34edee2fe535c09e26537b0c3ca2fb6eff8bf
F20101113_AABMNI birmingham_r_Page_014.tif
1ac9c75231d6c54639b82a4291b5468b
22bb94b170ad8df5dc94e4f4199ed0aaf1d25c6c
91702 F20101113_AABMMU birmingham_r_Page_038.jpg
223eb007fe5ab3692f83a25cf3217c75
deb3e775e06d7d3ef3bcbaa343bd47b2819cdfcc
50654 F20101113_AABMNJ birmingham_r_Page_079.pro
043171e0511485cc404d48c3d977bb89
e55fbce413de44c9d0017b1017b8e0d33b7c1b0c
86265 F20101113_AABMMV birmingham_r_Page_094.jp2
979e8e9cc93f0844cedc49ac9e13c138
e9deeb59721d37139d4b9ebfb821641a83ddf2aa
51086 F20101113_AABMNK birmingham_r_Page_024.pro
3004ff02662fb5d66e9d804c95cb728d
90438c45178e1ddb45b07c5c8aa16067471c90e6
2031 F20101113_AABMMW birmingham_r_Page_028.txt
e87ba610890cabb61a8108a3c015a495
7f0d7b1a3e142ecd7a2c248d85227cbdb79df4a2
60211 F20101113_AABMOA birmingham_r_Page_097.pro
5fef57ba24d379c4bebe9ff01f2dd600
36e9c86018c8b9f44f158a4418d378745b82cf34
6437 F20101113_AABMNL birmingham_r_Page_084thm.jpg
a9d694c4e4c37ec546f90af38764b0e5
a9a7f6b548c6764fb23281c8868b187ed3f15a41
2021 F20101113_AABMMX birmingham_r_Page_058.txt
6bd51ad1aa5390a20ca3a51c360c9a4c
557a8e732734a384ee54465f8e88a996561bf0eb
43584 F20101113_AABMOB birmingham_r_Page_014.pro
0434062f47d626e33f2aa96c9dbfe984
fb4430c8fa0f40b69156fdb6f4682dea43c45742
102727 F20101113_AABMNM birmingham_r_Page_032.jp2
03aef3b6ea5fcbaa58835e476d6253dd
11af6adda7f9861f905595e196791eb6c96e0d9f
F20101113_AABMMY birmingham_r_Page_016.QC.jpg
9e62e0d18afbfcfda63903aff39dfb53
91af925c7f42af1400c889aff9289846c96c7541
203 F20101113_AABMOC birmingham_r_Page_003.txt
ce2d948cbebfc799e5838b52e3f9e9f2
0183a59d07180cfe9b2ea1e8d84aad8ab0979419
48929 F20101113_AABMNN birmingham_r_Page_031.pro
424fb9188042e4353468bc12f32cdf74
c762d5a88df4d0484c5de9369fedcacfbcd90c52
F20101113_AABMMZ birmingham_r_Page_010.tif
55614ccc3e1e4e05e5aaf1b9cf0de13d
57de9c562f3b73d36d11be40687c9fd2c6aeb83a
108649 F20101113_AABMOD birmingham_r_Page_081.jp2
7c8c19d2b8bb472521b5d19fa692cd05
ef99e99bd68903d69a4d01b8feb1bd4817ba5215
50587 F20101113_AABMNO birmingham_r_Page_044.pro
47d58b0e9398ba041c3f04f60458d4c6
9baabccaae7f35d4a0c67bd90a0c59bc6a3bd2d6
72345 F20101113_AABMOE birmingham_r_Page_020.jpg
edfe094ae035409be1e0614c735fd55c
4818c5dbf512cb0d6b5f6001c6eec07fee856278
9241 F20101113_AABMNP birmingham_r_Page_093.QC.jpg
377f1c850a7d3e9381c5f36f7442b231
9f2815a667ae1ad6565d6a123d4023b2b4600d7a
21104 F20101113_AABMOF birmingham_r_Page_054.QC.jpg
ee6a4860a27c25b650c97db459b54e17
d36732716c816f2516d4d25897aeea1d6f667229
2028 F20101113_AABMNQ birmingham_r_Page_086.txt
76d61cd089e6c0b7f6d6196b305d8971
547346ff567747b828627ac525494228563f1d06
1937 F20101113_AABMOG birmingham_r_Page_033.txt
7ee6cb9d45f95e274089291de7c6304e
456b20c08ffbb838d1b9c4ded774ed52a3d637bf
22443 F20101113_AABMNR birmingham_r_Page_001.jpg
569986777a7db04af08a24a7e596513e
9c28b31cf5b79ee25d46dc0dcc1ddb6f969c346e
2008 F20101113_AABMOH birmingham_r_Page_081.txt
39dbac27545f4013d0eb13bfcdafcad1
c2d8f75eae5cc3a2ac1f1f4c5c09765a0ec0304d
25271604 F20101113_AABMNS birmingham_r_Page_061.tif
e4c14d0109b9466fe6ed394b83a52054
7a31d4875bae05470a38ea771e1732a51e93dd06
22220 F20101113_AABMOI birmingham_r_Page_051.QC.jpg
2b802421433a846662ac9c16113a804c
9ba8a45fb80be90d8e11e5468d717a9c72b787a9
110903 F20101113_AABMNT birmingham_r_Page_073.jp2
9238e6246907224b2540dfb6559e788d
5aa8280e0a919da951288fdbcc740f3e40155957
71988 F20101113_AABMNU birmingham_r_Page_075.jpg
cd555499b8500fcee43b37f7c9f3526c
7962f863ebaad3fb60fd5ac2133d2b586e285405
6660 F20101113_AABMOJ birmingham_r_Page_023thm.jpg
807fd529060f7eacd97a2a970b07ee77
9bf2dd2c7a39a2cbe209fcaa6c0cbcd9958d5781
47809 F20101113_AABMNV birmingham_r_Page_064.jpg
9d795daae00d2201585f73fb162be138
6b50f63d67d15ce93fcaf6cde3ee3f7772ab9c92
F20101113_AABMOK birmingham_r_Page_073thm.jpg
9333dfd096b19f956694bf8689e50111
ec6f65173939a780342a30a2c5fc949f6972ec4a
6283 F20101113_AABMNW birmingham_r_Page_047thm.jpg
3f22a83d408bf09974f852e58e40ed3c
d76b8be0bc8f3c6a11a7577d44a3ef6939c8ef59
88096 F20101113_AABMOL birmingham_r_Page_098.jpg
9c81e8def4099876af8f05e36e9c4040
4e4ef4d242b8993ba275093fb9c6d4aac0b7ac95
1316 F20101113_AABMNX birmingham_r_Page_002thm.jpg
b5bcdcbf609a4aae24beb2f92ddf4bcc
a40c05d59939eb9c037ca4e3b63911048d2b57ac
F20101113_AABMPA birmingham_r_Page_070.tif
cee6d3f6a6d8d1b9318dc0595fa4ffc2
862f49f555d0076330f25195a38f4b1ed48b88d3
F20101113_AABMOM birmingham_r_Page_018.QC.jpg
0cc65b2a4a234b1c3d084be78943dcc5
247b033c627acd3c8b9a33516f07afd6ee7414ef
6350 F20101113_AABMNY birmingham_r_Page_027thm.jpg
7950a90902448cdacd0fae2f46000546
533eb9fca24fd5ce79c7b7c0b20c7d37338ea22d
2017 F20101113_AABMPB birmingham_r_Page_071.txt
ff6734bcf6301f42fb49b507a378c1e0
8b76b1417b4f4067b213c09635952cbad0ea7dc1
76206 F20101113_AABMON birmingham_r_Page_051.jpg
abfcd95296019a164322dee38d9b9b2f
94292fef49a7a72834ce4818145252b690809f9b
6441 F20101113_AABMNZ birmingham_r_Page_036thm.jpg
db2aec42b9576aa3cc4162a0e08dcf7c
6e16f47601bef62833d6b39bfdcf069d4bae020a
23857 F20101113_AABMPC birmingham_r_Page_076.QC.jpg
ca966e3a8183eb61c3450cb18daf4eff
34d9f1b1d0f11cccfcc20918c3e5cf7349cf0064
F20101113_AABMOO birmingham_r_Page_012.tif
38e4ae60359aa4701490328c3c55ef29
37d1c88aae8fc421458ff1cc55b13270b0e7fca2
71168 F20101113_AABMPD birmingham_r_Page_081.jpg
324a06d5d8e60ef81c092e451cc66c6a
2c5001fb1fdd988f36b47bd19d270b5efafb16b8
1804 F20101113_AABMOP birmingham_r_Page_034.txt
61a48767e7406bc1690ba725ab028f3f
086cc47a504600b24a03aef3399b1882cc40c491
156448 F20101113_AABMPE UFE0020340_00001.xml
0829d28a98ba40b4a1b599a78b12105d
4f17e72e4a7898c1a00bc3d3a707d608e2562a41
1325 F20101113_AABMOQ birmingham_r_Page_102.txt
910535e2c0c08d6a17699af0d1f3479e
d84e734b890eec752ce17b8820750111dba24fe8
53399 F20101113_AABMOR birmingham_r_Page_063.jpg
af6157656c19034cc9b82c1c3caa3085
da6e9577ff31e7e6c22c4854f97b5cb2a0fd32a2
6429 F20101113_AABMOS birmingham_r_Page_033thm.jpg
f7b810d3cb8fe2bb80314e04dbb034e7
43fa5beabd8afc7f45f94a22da5ed487e40606e5
9941 F20101113_AABMPH birmingham_r_Page_002.jpg
d37a4e565ace7950de493a071f3bfdf1
4743251d17709c6cbfd4a9ffbbccb38e0d54c691
6149 F20101113_AABMOT birmingham_r_Page_080thm.jpg
53aea1eca4d5a5310d2611f018c13166
7b15b8a9cc4d4c839cdc7c10a787090cd9769bc1
12987 F20101113_AABMPI birmingham_r_Page_003.jpg
00f0e94bc1ba5fc8d7315976aac5eb4b
919a81489e4fcb2f77d00d47636403025f52423c
6352 F20101113_AABMOU birmingham_r_Page_090thm.jpg
94af4f8b8dcd738580966e286c72d5f4
03a63564b51f18ebbad965d80c7d7fe4256aae91
70679 F20101113_AABMPJ birmingham_r_Page_004.jpg
ba43040ef8098c1e5903dcb9cc0fc8b2
effda4fff74cef0d19021f4cca20ee77b325b072
23593 F20101113_AABMOV birmingham_r_Page_006.QC.jpg
6a1d89819a4d25321c9637d833632ea5
35ee37b09b28f1ed75cac4c99c3c33c979ed1f8e
23420 F20101113_AABMOW birmingham_r_Page_089.QC.jpg
f563ae3ce86cd95520496d4edc802b47
8254d1076056ffdef1bce5614f4efa8c41093aad
68980 F20101113_AABMPK birmingham_r_Page_005.jpg
643043a1e055d3a0fb1315e449de8db5
9dd84d87b4ef6fe0889b2c7f7f9ebc9b0fa9a047
88894 F20101113_AABMOX birmingham_r_Page_100.jpg
d814145ef52e59cb9f67bb33ff11e92e
9df2dc7f64ac635df4a429eba181f46728f36395
79680 F20101113_AABMQA birmingham_r_Page_023.jpg
4934ae1651cd65c93ccecccb7316cd3d
9bf1c5ac504e3b76f3d4f05d8436401effb185bb
96647 F20101113_AABMPL birmingham_r_Page_006.jpg
a4275cbc8bf77653e5ee2d05dc98294f
f2705c9ce13a13b649000de2743b064e8da2575e
66874 F20101113_AABMOY birmingham_r_Page_088.jpg
7b94f3488cca5b0976cf3183e8f24d6b
acb930761b69c6d33f72dc6f793689fe357fcdfa
71865 F20101113_AABMQB birmingham_r_Page_024.jpg
d67e70ad2c7985610e654a11ea435567
2aae0e26ad281c654bd6bfa812f6049708fc1630
50261 F20101113_AABMPM birmingham_r_Page_007.jpg
83eed93d7a1a4821801435f8bf78d213
43badd25104ccbec2ab23f0905303fd18fce3b8f
6268 F20101113_AABMOZ birmingham_r_Page_066thm.jpg
a0f58512ca35b535ceadddb6bee59d1e
aa66ce271d14f5917921917107881e88ce55c1f8
72403 F20101113_AABMQC birmingham_r_Page_025.jpg
cfc2827cf10cd457e8ab7ff33ae92867
25f5a40ec975ee19992019b3c7704b47775801ff
19511 F20101113_AABMPN birmingham_r_Page_008.jpg
88302b2f6c5deaebddca4d4e0300f1fc
23e5adc9863a55427b450ded604c2b7dd05a17de
68295 F20101113_AABMQD birmingham_r_Page_026.jpg
1bc2a32f1a6b0b46ad547597191355bb
6f66187ff57147734e81ac29fa44927b6535dc44
58071 F20101113_AABMPO birmingham_r_Page_009.jpg
344ec95145ae162ccefb089f8017fadc
bcf831a14ba720c10d6615591e2146579e2fd4ec
69525 F20101113_AABMQE birmingham_r_Page_027.jpg
b494efe2df2a289a9ee392e510a71ff3
26296867cf3584392b8afa5c9bf9c784809274a1
62094 F20101113_AABMPP birmingham_r_Page_010.jpg
f18227bd451eac83bdb1199c7cd58762
b54d060697780c55546f504a23b92a8397c98814
73891 F20101113_AABMQF birmingham_r_Page_028.jpg
930451c0d84ab730d753407e55374f30
f602a2f76cc1fdbc454b3e604998a7ac41fdc1c0
70500 F20101113_AABMPQ birmingham_r_Page_011.jpg
e8c4650570e2e0a9cf2faa06109a5eb6
c6f3498934e15da52bc66dbe8213bd811a6d7fea
68762 F20101113_AABMQG birmingham_r_Page_031.jpg
675e7970720e6cc0e560536fb2ecbcfa
d6f0cba68afa22e42bbb745459c9d6ca8f4c48aa
61109 F20101113_AABMPR birmingham_r_Page_012.jpg
b8e13d3a315e56f93231aeaf2e2e7870
06004a32665de8f5322994756132b51426c49787
67105 F20101113_AABMQH birmingham_r_Page_032.jpg
2dc4a10effdaade8ebb0e0b23ed9d527
05321a359607330a067d817d1c542bd90307c4a3
49500 F20101113_AABMPS birmingham_r_Page_013.jpg
5e2ba5432c19a051cb7761e1f107737d
a6ac2ad6d7ff24c5aa5a5ea7fcd0ae5c9cd03bfe
68356 F20101113_AABMQI birmingham_r_Page_033.jpg
bf4a155113277e93f3ee050c54b8295a
a935bf390774b19eafcbe669236e6f9a1ef86c17
63293 F20101113_AABMPT birmingham_r_Page_014.jpg
cc0099fbdd5f1ddc03d9538903f7fbc5
ffc639e74aa24b425add73d367031253f23a8d2f
66314 F20101113_AABMQJ birmingham_r_Page_034.jpg
ae650f15afbc76064a8f912f55b8b79c
3ac4b36060a32e569f45730404472405b62e4148
67278 F20101113_AABMPU birmingham_r_Page_015.jpg
c36fffe9505021b8bd7892b457bb8b45
3448084573cc0d18269138b602a60da7db44e7c3
70382 F20101113_AABMQK birmingham_r_Page_035.jpg
47fef5ed5a5ed0cf1000b2715de89fa6
e84184819d81430399bc0f2511a176d68b43f453
42907 F20101113_AABMPV birmingham_r_Page_017.jpg
6e830138965aaf4043d60760d5d4f78c
6384a54bf63d8809aa42900707b178249f8061a5
65548 F20101113_AABMPW birmingham_r_Page_018.jpg
ab07794ff24717930a5bd2d5a21d559b
221203206a3e7d198eb98741815bd576f87338eb
69174 F20101113_AABMQL birmingham_r_Page_036.jpg
5ea11fc7d1faba64b66ef5258b0b6b50
56294596a34c58d7d7a77358e372e5ae56cc60d4
67155 F20101113_AABMPX birmingham_r_Page_019.jpg
bd3a45b41cbef3826a78c1a601c29b54
79aa25e664176d0ed1e1f9caf9fe5d9239a9c97e
69970 F20101113_AABMRA birmingham_r_Page_056.jpg
24e877928d2248ace089922c1716d878
6ab360da93542b95f4d98f2a8615c9c3d933dcbe
70369 F20101113_AABMQM birmingham_r_Page_037.jpg
ea2fda3b941b5354dc1cb3830cba0b43
97cc44699c592f8a3e2ad1262893365ae02f4369
71470 F20101113_AABMPY birmingham_r_Page_021.jpg
2ab6c4fb17ca0d42b79649a6394130e6
56e6bbe9e0569a54380b60d836e2e3fdf4ce5531
73162 F20101113_AABMRB birmingham_r_Page_057.jpg
5c04942aade02cc860ec8462f37a775d
2e741a9172d1e9aff3880684b9dade85a816fb67
97039 F20101113_AABMQN birmingham_r_Page_039.jpg
dfac45e93952cd61f9d70447f2566b32
dc7bed50400642ab3a5a5041b4840f33a2f2c14e
71231 F20101113_AABMPZ birmingham_r_Page_022.jpg
ee32efe3ef22197fd4ee65f337d3ca4e
08334b22777a83ae2b5a49ff05eb4d4b045ef2b7
70059 F20101113_AABMRC birmingham_r_Page_058.jpg
17f81e39fb8c7b7ee4fa8b8a16342275
23da9c68a61ae596f0ba482b475a802124f0de6e
78446 F20101113_AABMQO birmingham_r_Page_040.jpg
8b680583b401500b6be8660a752d6767
214ee522cb5313c9a3e73a2cacb3f76c2addd7c3
66816 F20101113_AABMRD birmingham_r_Page_059.jpg
a5afff34daa1cc4f80a22bfa7d1a62a4
26392c86b9b3b6a4d8a50ec8c4850630c4c5766c
69960 F20101113_AABMQP birmingham_r_Page_042.jpg
8e4d6416c945c7f809f373811f46a083
b059b458354857749773ca6f2afe3cdc10d0bbfa
62835 F20101113_AABMRE birmingham_r_Page_060.jpg
4dde78f863dc6b1deb05efde9005286d
cf649252ae66e2941b973d9e252e79e27a76a2a4
71477 F20101113_AABMQQ birmingham_r_Page_043.jpg
375c52f9b180a2ed413006e863dca20c
6894214668cc601aa47e9ab7f654f66753f50d11
51457 F20101113_AABMRF birmingham_r_Page_061.jpg
0efcda6ffc3120cc499d0317012b85b2
8c8f68a83d493e87767cd4e6f168e8e2f2e63e28
71783 F20101113_AABMQR birmingham_r_Page_044.jpg
414219a021e20420ca9c90c4ac481d5e
ce0151d635033893c3e038b07e5ff08b4df2893f
73138 F20101113_AABMRG birmingham_r_Page_062.jpg
e16fe7aef35596c052db120194a3c4ac
8ad464bda51d52d81a79d5fe4a07e8edcb2e1e3a
71162 F20101113_AABMQS birmingham_r_Page_045.jpg
ec9a4f59327a12bb02986584b000158f
f5931e254471d806690a1f241f4c617eff2ec8f4
74206 F20101113_AABMRH birmingham_r_Page_065.jpg
de711fec7d9f7abf98a996915c128f2b
7cd0dbe9041a4a606187aa838e676aebebb3b95e
72891 F20101113_AABMQT birmingham_r_Page_046.jpg
58af7faeabe84cedb5ac0da0d21d96c1
4f85a9c936732c869fb42fbe186e6423ec2e1048
66974 F20101113_AABMRI birmingham_r_Page_066.jpg
2f29f3b01b9abf71d4deece0cd169e54
0b5ecda5f3ab08eb61306dcf28e5527262d9bddc
71010 F20101113_AABMQU birmingham_r_Page_047.jpg
c3395e206c7ce0275922151a2b1188cf
7eb78be66fc3bebed7d19ff4c7833c7ec3e0f3a6
72020 F20101113_AABMRJ birmingham_r_Page_067.jpg
2f0a76ce4014a4f7a33b054875f51506
0498925309b74b1149ccd21cbe9d237cfd7d7a8d
72483 F20101113_AABMQV birmingham_r_Page_048.jpg
572bd417509326402955ad1f84c82c64
0c6709f98fafdad0dbfc7732531e06f81e1e2350
66802 F20101113_AABMRK birmingham_r_Page_068.jpg
e0fa50a75481f6281f80fce621231b56
03f41f240976c863e953de3457111a57e4a971fc
69501 F20101113_AABMQW birmingham_r_Page_050.jpg
a02f553b65c442c3acd5d764eea56fc7
7b3892265cc84aa7a172429569dd455da8936cf8
57065 F20101113_AABMRL birmingham_r_Page_069.jpg
45aa7e591e5dd55e4674100a74fded66
3420421f957b1f6c8767529d8d2c7a165b970be4
28595 F20101113_AABMQX birmingham_r_Page_052.jpg
3b702568f44565420b6be5b8b6fc8d43
8492ecc77287572d0bcdba6717d08da9a1cd3ebf
73760 F20101113_AABMSA birmingham_r_Page_087.jpg
7824860b69c45e3ecb4138a1b4397b31
2a563128a367d8ae43a254cfb62a0f3655aedf45
66044 F20101113_AABMQY birmingham_r_Page_054.jpg
f1c0eb7ef53d8f74815e61d49efe774c
2ec947345c523ac559c822194607f08cd3df0089
72378 F20101113_AABMSB birmingham_r_Page_089.jpg
aea5086f3a5aa72c8390a03212b4ea2b
0538c09b3c0daeaa789cabc5764617e93651f4f7
60285 F20101113_AABMRM birmingham_r_Page_070.jpg
7df97bd83000bf1ae56672ac5058d7b8
e6e298fa0dd6137ca3d685b8decec5e035fcc36d
70106 F20101113_AABMQZ birmingham_r_Page_055.jpg
b0f7dc04d49ba91aebb352f1a9e84ccb
1de8997e717bf63ed74eb7304c8be563cbd09db3
69856 F20101113_AABMSC birmingham_r_Page_090.jpg
b17db92f117e52ec921ade249408d856
93fdad7b31a967a119d68d710aaa985247371a72
69617 F20101113_AABMRN birmingham_r_Page_071.jpg
e3f44e64a3e4c974e558d954c9c20975
76fe8b27ba72e5c55e634c4281fe2552482cd911
64992 F20101113_AABMSD birmingham_r_Page_091.jpg
c14e25c5f8245b63fc8525f2abc6f27d
95ad23202f1a9b6439c8516e1fb1064c5807a205
73214 F20101113_AABMRO birmingham_r_Page_073.jpg
83f9cda15bc0feafb963bbab01e211ef
60802f72ad27e22aa07fb9e6be2cd309868731e4
45602 F20101113_AABMSE birmingham_r_Page_092.jpg
2dcacc9d875099051aec8221f96fdc17
d655fab3ce6c05e8aa51c96e502cb50e1b506432
73224 F20101113_AABMRP birmingham_r_Page_074.jpg
c41786957abb23e0f38ff818ff8104c9
b09626f4e3888a63a47595872c1c0f1644f31a06
33112 F20101113_AABMSF birmingham_r_Page_093.jpg
7b8ff5ca225eed81f4a45b40f4df2c0e
c2c998628cd712822431e14230a2b7ba19b3c522
71654 F20101113_AABMRQ birmingham_r_Page_076.jpg
d60d11e718b8ce885bd1dd0a5c79c6e0
84022a841940776bbf8d0cc600f39a5a6d040196
75263 F20101113_AABMSG birmingham_r_Page_094.jpg
9b969b61fe5dea18a9f2ae61d7c601fa
760d0b52772f17085f729937471d89259504c698
71867 F20101113_AABMRR birmingham_r_Page_077.jpg
3cb034d96aa993731f39017e73ea5b59
5faab6a161d4e999a76c30af3d6d6aa1f62ccb3c
69556 F20101113_AABMSH birmingham_r_Page_095.jpg
d0e9a793300217699a613634a45bfef5
3eb9f4ebdf3673be9380224f842f718775c5a537
70775 F20101113_AABMRS birmingham_r_Page_078.jpg
c6ca7c787f3ac6a805a47fa89ead86e3
afb8aac6381349fe6ea774b79d5af681d4620875
82967 F20101113_AABMSI birmingham_r_Page_096.jpg
cb30927bcb60abcb458d6a26a387723f
645cfea6d816b23ad935d3bcaa6d7cad9ed19acd
72516 F20101113_AABMRT birmingham_r_Page_079.jpg
6884b776b22fc0cda4114197f6eea144
9c2152374da74eec96a568156bdb4ce56b2d6b1c
86631 F20101113_AABMSJ birmingham_r_Page_097.jpg
a88e5d8b97c8c44579b95daa3cf1a533
a5f9c1486c7f81168e11b18d0e36fe44580312ab
69827 F20101113_AABMRU birmingham_r_Page_080.jpg
82888e69e7c81097129d1c3f5984c72e
18cf67e6fdc31a8c9bb8bad32f06737d3404bd39
83909 F20101113_AABMSK birmingham_r_Page_099.jpg
34cb9116d6fd989000a8c91c8c17d7db
94305296109d4259864e007268fc819ce6a02102
70784 F20101113_AABMRV birmingham_r_Page_082.jpg
c7af40a7ec0c0ebe657c04ab248b8c73
2bad3c8409259da95078f3dc059e741e542bc2fd
83505 F20101113_AABMSL birmingham_r_Page_101.jpg
0908d75fc846d0fe5b16a7590d70da5f
a02d6d3b3b860f6237f3e8b61964a3f7e5fdeb28
73031 F20101113_AABMRW birmingham_r_Page_083.jpg
7acdf3adb8f36e7c59f311afcb357d70
719d8ad60ddbd219e44a20f5f52b9e22c69de48d
104271 F20101113_AABMTA birmingham_r_Page_015.jp2
3fa5035c4a37e51448dd09c242f0a6ed
9d8e706adc1053a33bd17519c930d569f6046211
50603 F20101113_AABMSM birmingham_r_Page_102.jpg
aaede5187618e0efbdfcc50e30bf423b
69999a4bf6b4213c7a390733ad1c6de8505bf840
69588 F20101113_AABMRX birmingham_r_Page_084.jpg
a2a48247388d16b80abade75ed356d00
b29a89b581f738baccae714d14c2cd17be8b351c
112902 F20101113_AABMTB birmingham_r_Page_016.jp2
ab8c14bfff95c03cbef1b6aca9345b94
e5eaa238aa704959946ca937d08703949cb7a51e
72411 F20101113_AABMRY birmingham_r_Page_085.jpg
3bdd92e4cdbe8e718718a640fcb45678
d2ea3665b59afca097ee8e1bc569c88755ab7e76
61431 F20101113_AABMTC birmingham_r_Page_017.jp2
b708641d31dd704224ddc399c15c1b3c
6cb4f0ab05a708172e24678bee8f62d1651ed72f
22890 F20101113_AABMSN birmingham_r_Page_001.jp2
4452d3a3ea9e58bdefb0339ae85af0e3
6acd20337c385057e247d09e34b94a175c6d3ff5
72524 F20101113_AABMRZ birmingham_r_Page_086.jpg
25a723398a254221d465792fac9e82e2
00df14f2a89c398444955ad2294fb66e6a12acbe
98876 F20101113_AABMTD birmingham_r_Page_018.jp2
437e9eadb255ebcacb1d8210252744ac
972f96bf7097196651d7fa5204af5e63c8ed003e
5182 F20101113_AABMSO birmingham_r_Page_002.jp2
f37006afdb7497e3eee05123f6a3b333
a4d882c946e9720b8bfae67bd4e20efdd09515bc
101345 F20101113_AABMTE birmingham_r_Page_019.jp2
d5c4882be92a2fea18cb6a8fa7a72f0b
e0b2c52372e4e1a56cfac188d23dd591c97c2f9b
9672 F20101113_AABMSP birmingham_r_Page_003.jp2
44045245d7332f49436dbf063941c7cf
338aa1d7ee8fb10f739481e40774a308a66f834f
109675 F20101113_AABMTF birmingham_r_Page_020.jp2
736f2dd9d5c83556793e9e954e6f2f8c
411a17f3dffa57046c560434baf1fb95f839e3b8
105820 F20101113_AABMSQ birmingham_r_Page_004.jp2
b67e423087581fd7aaa929846482097e
d3ee3db6b00e6614bc48b387dd3e3837baf2f1d0
989174 F20101113_AABMTG birmingham_r_Page_021.jp2
da90db2d461af7d7f08830a5a0315504
bf891438c38f84987379c8b270e18f62d315b8a8
1051979 F20101113_AABMSR birmingham_r_Page_005.jp2
047194adba8ea5de1a3a88d683389382
37a11f0c1088de2161c2c53ebd478d283303be2c
107224 F20101113_AABMTH birmingham_r_Page_022.jp2
84b7d8e809cb298687586192b72b72de
c389cb7f7b81c74c27dbbe1a8ea76e28927d4aef
1051980 F20101113_AABMSS birmingham_r_Page_006.jp2
66a7d3b4612415c4f34707da82884454
7c89e128db18d79b7bac97d4c37951594d7d7b82
121179 F20101113_AABMTI birmingham_r_Page_023.jp2
33805d1976d6b108fd1d8a7dbfd009cc
1288694c6cc8e3e380272b724ff5ed196fd41032
345321 F20101113_AABMST birmingham_r_Page_008.jp2
5a817ac2e52ea3d7b7cc8bc88b6ad472
c1fd5c4a6601983794fdc124132866150f5358b3
110734 F20101113_AABMTJ birmingham_r_Page_024.jp2
9e0782d495e4d5b48e51c0662e090ad0
882c8c16c98a6a7354806d38dbfcad36261e64db
86123 F20101113_AABMSU birmingham_r_Page_009.jp2
0a41a55934874bfb65fd195824bfb784
e2f73b3cd384abb09d7f8c9b67a260bf454832d4
110776 F20101113_AABMTK birmingham_r_Page_025.jp2
c8832632c74f3f87af4bccbb7e540161
b8dd74f2218c065a27f6539c14daf7f90be79959
93993 F20101113_AABMSV birmingham_r_Page_010.jp2
44e05f98df43d4a0db61d2cf756e544e
751926ee0226fe338c849784d888eb069d7fe882
104781 F20101113_AABMTL birmingham_r_Page_026.jp2
260e4ed86ed68e6beb55e1aab70a4e80
13e13a50a9509b5d70dd8de15b60f557955b3209
976910 F20101113_AABMSW birmingham_r_Page_011.jp2
a780871d5b2bb7fad462beb6362c90ef
dc225679d1a384cf4cbbc2ecd6f69809e38aed6b
104565 F20101113_AABMTM birmingham_r_Page_027.jp2
4937c41e20b3cbaea008adc92c2b7059
9a70f79a1315aba420281709b27f9ecc30980816
93414 F20101113_AABMSX birmingham_r_Page_012.jp2
e4e34487fb5c85860e61f3cf41f34707
174c7f7d63d020b5ca9a6d538e3543ee06d857cb
110412 F20101113_AABMUA birmingham_r_Page_044.jp2
bd3f8ec15c50bde94fb37c982dd4d1a0
2c8f77a8ff3e0202251267362834ff624834a4dd
112227 F20101113_AABMTN birmingham_r_Page_028.jp2
ae3608e814ff508544b713d04ed3dd81
6b56efe7c1258d14ef98b7ff8a445fbacbc7a2a3
73783 F20101113_AABMSY birmingham_r_Page_013.jp2
2812c7dd29bd7f2c56c43a2ae91e5455
c9de3d739424657507eb4593c605d6820beb0a23
109053 F20101113_AABMUB birmingham_r_Page_045.jp2
181f3906f078fb794d7e084b917347c2
568ab5ea39e703bed1a42cfacc085e2a42f46843
95400 F20101113_AABMSZ birmingham_r_Page_014.jp2
074fd4e340318c156f6eaa50795d9170
14756fe54ce76b1c8d9fc8ff32b03cfa736ff55e
107422 F20101113_AABMUC birmingham_r_Page_047.jp2
cbe05d1b8b892e063f4726a5df9ee60a
5914f4c4cd370ca98642deb424f9dcaf4ce9ff86
104474 F20101113_AABMTO birmingham_r_Page_029.jp2
abaa40c31187c36f9610184d2098e8fc
a0eea3379599f9e6df997ebbc5b3a52e65cfa7d8
110851 F20101113_AABMUD birmingham_r_Page_048.jp2
3477d46935cacc59a1809ebf5c9e9491
12d31ab71ab724a9ca9f03751a7eacf358a9d086
105547 F20101113_AABMTP birmingham_r_Page_031.jp2
53a721861c6079c03fbea735a38129f1
0f1b78d47be45ca5b8a8ed07203ed77644a7f6a1
120256 F20101113_AABMUE birmingham_r_Page_049.jp2
403ef6afcd3c5507ccaa7eb180f32682
6cf4550935c9a1dd0948c6bbd453bf0c8ec06638
105716 F20101113_AABMTQ birmingham_r_Page_033.jp2
d0681e7805429803f2c4b9f9ed1b6a55
a55faaffcbf21abd29f6da6e7be13181963ac299
106459 F20101113_AABMUF birmingham_r_Page_050.jp2
69e6326f7fb23dfa80cbd7e114392a60
fc50fe8be34bbd2071bc0f64b31ad4271e5861a6
99935 F20101113_AABMTR birmingham_r_Page_034.jp2
f33c8f13225f72a007997c83cb893cff
357e6fe42f7b7c553c33fd1924b3c7436ab98084
50848 F20101113_AABNAA birmingham_r_Page_025.pro
ffc5b75ce0f1eab381f09f956f04c654
c426d8b1e8c5344fbc8b10322d8ffd00410f5c15
113076 F20101113_AABMUG birmingham_r_Page_051.jp2
6ff529ced6d4a9a56e0591093cf370d3
e9074a3e49e9f8cf84632c141bd5f89f7f489512
106070 F20101113_AABMTS birmingham_r_Page_035.jp2
e8a9b79df0c92d39719358294e1c54cd
358ddad9b2980c55461f71d921d78b47673ac57b
47158 F20101113_AABNAB birmingham_r_Page_026.pro
9f8f33ac6b13c292f95c23a910d651df
b51a3e72f3dc3053baae2e129facdffd7aea14cb
105524 F20101113_AABMUH birmingham_r_Page_055.jp2
9a5e62bdb68ebc3ec8fe20d8b1bce907
65dc648d932285419f45b93c15a351fa8c1e00fb
106834 F20101113_AABMTT birmingham_r_Page_037.jp2
f03ba888723b333de00c33f1b70b1ef6
9b39f772f7e8748bd587bef3427ddbd1d69972fd
48431 F20101113_AABNAC birmingham_r_Page_027.pro
4ee55c4538d7f0449c13c1999ab80e7a
94b3c93557e2cf29c9020e596503d218fb95cf3a
106343 F20101113_AABMUI birmingham_r_Page_056.jp2
9308ce2bb7d05ad098ec202a33b58003
c423c4637ccfc4471121960784a76a7d260558f4
134767 F20101113_AABMTU birmingham_r_Page_038.jp2
7121cadf9a77e405e735519c1716c82a
998ddd47a8b5cb612b5ffea9f29faec5b5d91273
51626 F20101113_AABNAD birmingham_r_Page_028.pro
513ab32efd0d85df0ba7fb008a80f820
c780e6a097dff4c8258ba378e961a626d738f913
108920 F20101113_AABMUJ birmingham_r_Page_058.jp2
129d9aead01b89f2c3089eab1b634ae5
e9875b7d68c006b2f207bfef567b2ae6779a10e8
142375 F20101113_AABMTV birmingham_r_Page_039.jp2
522059246abc58bf2cc6080f36d47a42
7321517d42a762b20bc36cbc34fafc830ff12a02
47545 F20101113_AABNAE birmingham_r_Page_029.pro
32af131aec58d48ff8872551ee33bd0e
7f88a6a81469a69696546b2e7df4127b7da901d2
102063 F20101113_AABMUK birmingham_r_Page_059.jp2
78eedc5b6226b7a44c5d997595983dd4
fdbe34c673c88acd9048f2d664e085d117df0a78
116768 F20101113_AABMTW birmingham_r_Page_040.jp2
e95cb72f1230605110e8fca25c18eea5
62b1c96571475b6a578d76349f898e99e35c1e66
47174 F20101113_AABNAF birmingham_r_Page_030.pro
2e3b0d8757c9a41c1819ade3f7ace172
a03c7a7ef302142066e37ab58d702abb89f90e34
93978 F20101113_AABMUL birmingham_r_Page_060.jp2
31068fb0bf6a6ab7e677cee5373f3b4b
ef123296424a0c04d4c129e1300e1efab6c7cd47
47311 F20101113_AABNAG birmingham_r_Page_032.pro
b3c1e139b8a0b03a3464bc76815f8a9d
278e710599e3ed50168c55ebf815b90b4b20a982
107406 F20101113_AABMVA birmingham_r_Page_078.jp2
873308f399b40b3bb4e5c650d39b96d5
7de5fc358d011204a9eb87dd84bbe2016aa23001
764293 F20101113_AABMUM birmingham_r_Page_063.jp2
f1f63baef730e9b984e8082341e447a5
2125b3f598527a501e71d6003aac92940219c69b
102443 F20101113_AABMTX birmingham_r_Page_041.jp2
7c1062d258120c291a3c679e40b58a23
b9228fc24011ea679c700219ed243f57b1a8b1ca
48070 F20101113_AABNAH birmingham_r_Page_033.pro
9f8be22398425624a968b3a6483ea1ef
39933a4a93d5a22db214dcd9447243f6c5357b31
109799 F20101113_AABMVB birmingham_r_Page_079.jp2
552c2390a8bad50e6d8ef648aa3f9b98
8d464606711b7923c391b609e13001cb6e8d4d80
674353 F20101113_AABMUN birmingham_r_Page_064.jp2
fc28ce61688ff4215607a09a286808ab
edfde99394e64dabfe10356356f0c7fb6b1c1b3d
108347 F20101113_AABMTY birmingham_r_Page_042.jp2
48bf8f15c97820de10814137b2ddc01b
372d3e9c320a82201dd25e918570a9490fb33aa4
45466 F20101113_AABNAI birmingham_r_Page_034.pro
3114b9c2cdc647387abba3fc4df69b37
9838c76337e1fce808432b2b17295fd07f4f87d4
106178 F20101113_AABMVC birmingham_r_Page_080.jp2
d099b68ee0810b7ef4df1efd6503131f
8cc673dec18695a1fed7870b74352e0a32aa182b
114325 F20101113_AABMUO birmingham_r_Page_065.jp2
e0db354d97efda6a4bae92f23a47bcaf
b1d3c986b97edf5a5868e1a1660f5f0c924f04d2
109389 F20101113_AABMTZ birmingham_r_Page_043.jp2
8d6ec1445b12faff48f03978d6384bd2
e879ac9281abbb53d02aaf32cfb9113ecfd82102
48681 F20101113_AABNAJ birmingham_r_Page_035.pro
c4e514092da655af3a6d64c34ac01052
a11acffd5ccec58afe85c1a0ba80319e51587592
108422 F20101113_AABMVD birmingham_r_Page_082.jp2
e3c5fd8fbd861de563dda5b3963b3ea0
b5fd61f793026a30917edd96c9c901536b15c3c4
48808 F20101113_AABNAK birmingham_r_Page_036.pro
f60fdfa802557894278e279e147e326b
0dabbb1ba4a89c3ca600fa96e3be952dd44af86a
109797 F20101113_AABMVE birmingham_r_Page_083.jp2
07d878fd5d42848de58259d20eadc71f
461a554375bd39b12d4d169e916801592928460b
102669 F20101113_AABMUP birmingham_r_Page_066.jp2
7af260784c961f9470a91c6c1c5baff7
2e135c3ec05030b0744086d4e2b2d18132ebd23b
49098 F20101113_AABNAL birmingham_r_Page_037.pro
72caadd47ac5a67fcbc4e683397d1e3d
2db87da6b37c7216e803bb55a2c8bbfdd767c2d4
103075 F20101113_AABMVF birmingham_r_Page_084.jp2
ba5d32780ce06fec3534dda04ca3119c
9f98f1e683627dc4fcef07ab589b44be90067997
109944 F20101113_AABMUQ birmingham_r_Page_067.jp2
545fc79c59ce036d6071874863446a98
a97d600254270a4de55eaba5772def161ff21cf7
65279 F20101113_AABNAM birmingham_r_Page_038.pro
85d8acc02e0823faba95e748e251b833
57d3aed0799fc7f2d6ad73e04d8eea18d6540b88
110507 F20101113_AABMVG birmingham_r_Page_085.jp2
722eda66be9dc38ca11e94a7d6cbf7e1
6d2708238fddc7691b92d53720dc924279942dca
100881 F20101113_AABMUR birmingham_r_Page_068.jp2
15892922d6887d9f8f5158e9ceeff0ca
d5c287670551d53dad698cf3074ef52d3364d438
46385 F20101113_AABNBA birmingham_r_Page_054.pro
1723e0581d63d9e7b3d742b772d0b70b
49467fbcbcad3b92a4f85ba762b9dd0def885c49
69012 F20101113_AABNAN birmingham_r_Page_039.pro
7a505890b1fff5701f44850272631cea
4f87379a0e6e0a99e4bb38bcdcd00d5012069b03
111967 F20101113_AABMVH birmingham_r_Page_086.jp2
5f1acde47b065e5a057b4fa6de312c98
08f513b8e5f6face5bda25add8aee49b4fe9c1de
85678 F20101113_AABMUS birmingham_r_Page_069.jp2
3787c4ba1f3f2d3f08a26f6d5fa297f1
3da13a0860b2bbc63cfedbb9ee6ed966204f500e
48916 F20101113_AABNBB birmingham_r_Page_055.pro
688aae94cde5859d9853f3db894c839c
1da63fa01d00d99505cab149347f16acf828db8d
54422 F20101113_AABNAO birmingham_r_Page_040.pro
b365ce84b304297e9746db4fdfc23d46
b0c8bb68fcf0b4b0c95087167abaf6947216fdd7
112395 F20101113_AABMVI birmingham_r_Page_087.jp2
1f3f2ff1e8ff875e9185aec80407d307
ffde9674ff6dba795cbdb741129ca8b1e7b1f819
89954 F20101113_AABMUT birmingham_r_Page_070.jp2
64c123991de147b615b0625a1c280dd9
57da500dfc33e045103ac578587316f5287e8b1b
49482 F20101113_AABNBC birmingham_r_Page_056.pro
1e1ee99c55c2fcb495d83ddf46b0ea99
bec950c685297ff78bcec10d73b3d1d8d8938e65
46843 F20101113_AABNAP birmingham_r_Page_041.pro
469c549e6c4304139efdf3b2098ea0cc
06f4f4ff0ab5f4bc99e9fc47f6ea6d02a09ea07c
101709 F20101113_AABMVJ birmingham_r_Page_088.jp2
4550052ebc09c0de625960301d4d2c61
689828a958ccb2fd1830418f1f0eec969682a57d
106468 F20101113_AABMUU birmingham_r_Page_071.jp2
c39ac5bb03eb9d86bcd3692ff0afa12d
325dbfe8fd752e7902c38918cfb113367551cd1b
51379 F20101113_AABNBD birmingham_r_Page_057.pro
ca04eea59a48bd38c34f761214d6514b
21b7dba1f56a07033803cfaf549c1d56e4ccef39
49790 F20101113_AABNAQ birmingham_r_Page_042.pro
fab8a5f89dcc9f81b476b8e114b1df80
1d409b5a0713648a624eb336fc27c84ee9a1f486
110363 F20101113_AABMVK birmingham_r_Page_089.jp2
8861734914668dd67b6b0c9cdb8ebb6f
df571924d548da11ee9290b9358e575a34569efc
104163 F20101113_AABMUV birmingham_r_Page_072.jp2
2eace2acc6c7239d4cca2b3324e206fe
0245c31ff72ede0cc2a5ba4f8e84ec942f0fca6e
50392 F20101113_AABNBE birmingham_r_Page_058.pro
7ef5593e93b1e1549f4e3fcd8a3d3310
f74798e01742c65c449e68be57c23dada6abe803
49910 F20101113_AABNAR birmingham_r_Page_043.pro
8b1af7abd6187bdfe260f17342dbe1b2
05894719ffbef3c816dd0cd10fee3c98986989c0
107484 F20101113_AABMVL birmingham_r_Page_090.jp2
4fa7b5873b3cbd0a6093c332206354f4
ed8021790b759f064b5e6d1ee486d9f8e3009323
111125 F20101113_AABMUW birmingham_r_Page_074.jp2
c2a27b5d7a731c5c41ae75e54abe288c
ca473a22c664ec2151d5e5bd04017da80edcf4b7
43037 F20101113_AABNBF birmingham_r_Page_060.pro
3128aa93c485c5f4becf0842ab34c47d
8d1f3c1d4c80c387418a3ea146a77406d6a66ce9
49460 F20101113_AABNAS birmingham_r_Page_045.pro
eeeb4dc6cf4fcdd36904ff2559c1b895
bfd7ae4643c02f30d3fe2c9e550de7a6ff0c4144
99418 F20101113_AABMVM birmingham_r_Page_091.jp2
3a1a36af9c772f1d4984e94be79c0983
f3027d2e29e01c2e14e0ad77d94815b420579821
109237 F20101113_AABMUX birmingham_r_Page_075.jp2
bd2d3f8c896361c35f50925cef213e49
387ccc2a655fd4db7784ef85e76b8a133d18c4b8
28563 F20101113_AABNBG birmingham_r_Page_061.pro
b04c2124e155ab4f1afd651828e63b43
8d2f5e2c0c1b3a2a3a9c2f2b86dc47a1ed570ece
F20101113_AABMWA birmingham_r_Page_007.tif
69b9897811f708738c66bc7274abcc7a
57323aa44be5a95a30b9bcc14940defb0f03be34
50006 F20101113_AABNAT birmingham_r_Page_047.pro
748f9b08997baaeb88ec05db085baffd
fbbe9ce5923c064ecac33216ba73bc8c5cf8e94a
64767 F20101113_AABMVN birmingham_r_Page_092.jp2
db16c046d07f07f94cf943f1aaf4a6be
aabe930b54f1c7a1008a9415640e89c04430cee7
108252 F20101113_AABMUY birmingham_r_Page_076.jp2
cc3942a33674a5b1825f8f42cfe0208d
0adde71c728d93ed7f16ccbfe9d8c3be933701d5
51041 F20101113_AABNBH birmingham_r_Page_062.pro
0645472f0c7332bbdcc2e8058343c3bc
bb756a811d4135c202da3aa11cbdc4f6914526e0
F20101113_AABMWB birmingham_r_Page_008.tif
d1886809b510d71a536310ceb0e9c529
85fc1b23df87bef067f5d6749d9b8d1ddacbf9c7
52051 F20101113_AABNAU birmingham_r_Page_048.pro
2998a58a987f43498cd74c311ba0743f
e4b60d5c5210035a604fbfa914604785765dfab2
107415 F20101113_AABMVO birmingham_r_Page_095.jp2
dc224f38eb2611349eff67df0155cf7a
2f6260ac86235c1232a95877f274184f3ea43f39
109122 F20101113_AABMUZ birmingham_r_Page_077.jp2
62d4e878729817d5c620b0f29c1d8821
43efc6d4edaca2d57ae95f15d46426c08a7d1c6f
35729 F20101113_AABNBI birmingham_r_Page_063.pro
10b34343a9b92575ddde66aff850839b
0622753e1a394c00f8e80d23ce34418f88d350a5
F20101113_AABMWC birmingham_r_Page_009.tif
a3c104609ceb6dfba87992cd998637cb
eb8abba9c662d4f89fe8b815f6373dd4a2f7e8b3
124735 F20101113_AABMVP birmingham_r_Page_096.jp2
1393633f2887fe1cccdd80e62d5e5c50
fe89b5bd308afb63f39fc1a63a3b86a7c49b8e0e
26369 F20101113_AABNBJ birmingham_r_Page_064.pro
727dbcdb2e5034720f7c5c86592b1c20
12e9584635704568a2f3a495abfe14f797de9088
F20101113_AABMWD birmingham_r_Page_011.tif
2dd8d4433a92860854a699eff2ccf556
84cb1b1f3d84ff09a69505df659a620fd9748430
57954 F20101113_AABNAV birmingham_r_Page_049.pro
e11637ca09420d2c3f4fa51c166088f8
3a6e67a055f65b44ce46c7646c0b3a4b4d445bc8
47259 F20101113_AABNBK birmingham_r_Page_066.pro
7c933c184cc83d4162d29e5a558e4ccb
11b3b4181d27b7529f6c8cee64b71d5275b49c55
F20101113_AABMWE birmingham_r_Page_013.tif
93bf78b749067db582ca298fd403587f
353c4b3e71c3310dd1608b7dd5c9123860f389a3
48553 F20101113_AABNAW birmingham_r_Page_050.pro
8010b716fe6a60af793e82bf978461d6
a55aeb577d1b096166a3c9d0545cd4ea6601242b
129822 F20101113_AABMVQ birmingham_r_Page_097.jp2
3bd5a411e8c2306f019c4bc38f066b3a
a7ee307ad39a38447430bb51c74cd2f15082312c
51518 F20101113_AABNBL birmingham_r_Page_067.pro
aab160160e6822a98aeda7458ed0579c
c2c2e9bc433d50709e8dbb4c5ce030d746523eda
F20101113_AABMWF birmingham_r_Page_015.tif
c6bf0aa1eabb17a1ced648481e83c7c5
c4a3880ea34fe9cf2d19339f087568368a9571eb
55191 F20101113_AABNAX birmingham_r_Page_051.pro
1773359bdaf2543b894c08e2d1b0d2b0
01ceb37dabb5de6a7e2c8786ba411a77c97970e5
129698 F20101113_AABMVR birmingham_r_Page_098.jp2
ddf1a3a29f3e84425f13821ae8f4519a
50e2b728fe001ae6f3b236f9ec33578d9fef067d
52215 F20101113_AABNCA birmingham_r_Page_085.pro
baa17535bd7090a9a3b86bd2ce18610d
d7af1f905f98609d0b2d6209341fb41dead10e00
47235 F20101113_AABNBM birmingham_r_Page_068.pro
1ca3674dd611d56c40c67b97decb8231
2be78ca75d63197e44c93de6052cc38b0ae4c2ca
F20101113_AABMWG birmingham_r_Page_016.tif
15edf085ea230baddf10d0ea5137921c
abaf94af12ab03ac0ff5389fbdd48f3ab480448a
16508 F20101113_AABNAY birmingham_r_Page_052.pro
256b88f67d61eefcfbaaa9684189c1f7
19b5f3d2a43508ebf9594a33ad3690c1c8b20642
131370 F20101113_AABMVS birmingham_r_Page_099.jp2
bf3533f7d014f2b14e7de7cf68303a5b
0a92c14aba50626d809f238e89912e81dada79ef
51556 F20101113_AABNCB birmingham_r_Page_086.pro
5bb22ec6fba6d250f414737be022e3f7
578dac05bf7aa330d07101f3c6e55e7df1b8a631
39260 F20101113_AABNBN birmingham_r_Page_069.pro
1c0f8285598c1f64159ced57878742f8
df1bd704ad047fa2a53b93710827ddeb84d1a414
F20101113_AABMWH birmingham_r_Page_017.tif
c5842ad293610c1f755434c968d79908
03aabf84032669b88848a0de57ee3549ec888a48
40794 F20101113_AABNAZ birmingham_r_Page_053.pro
c4a8db513eec14e5d22e9c2171de6bc3
4fb13bbfdf9c52fe9f5ff2790c409d84d163b33b
129210 F20101113_AABMVT birmingham_r_Page_100.jp2
4ad2cc55308d1401302b0fa7d32af8b4
eaa606094a31b078dab92f68d91e4eaae836a364
52323 F20101113_AABNCC birmingham_r_Page_087.pro
3b759ebdd0d00d047a75861cbd3a2a87
62d184d12322fc2d76089272eda54bc68d7445c1
41436 F20101113_AABNBO birmingham_r_Page_070.pro
25b7c8b0be7ae237ea10a394e2829967
b31a10b559d1f64bd415761b9eddfe0cbff92a85
F20101113_AABMWI birmingham_r_Page_018.tif
3b97044eda0cdbfa878f72a5dae32cff
d7f53b912471c3bc73c0f131b99f4e4ecce9e09c
72766 F20101113_AABMVU birmingham_r_Page_102.jp2
6d88be26daeedd3a80f049e9f5f3b69f
d875d4b2c9998249d5d6c6674ca23fd133852bf6
46364 F20101113_AABNCD birmingham_r_Page_088.pro
c01e6eb746686da05f2939ea88df947b
5fe1786cdc0b4dcf4df0aafd99627e60a9831527
50049 F20101113_AABNBP birmingham_r_Page_071.pro
6c135a9d851e340923470cc899263261
83c68d3eaba1746534d5546fc03ad46a2029d8e0
F20101113_AABMWJ birmingham_r_Page_019.tif
833e1c68f651fb9f42d5bc73d722f6c6
a6d43244cbb24f199994dae1ddc7d59c283821f6
F20101113_AABMVV birmingham_r_Page_001.tif
c418af92b2058b3db78afac1bc0540e3
b9f50ad40c0dc8da225f32494304d3fb64c9669e
51193 F20101113_AABNCE birmingham_r_Page_089.pro
e439221d46ba44c856085890955a1cfa
f924659f296edf1c025c3835ef5fee26529cf1cc
52674 F20101113_AABNBQ birmingham_r_Page_073.pro
5aeec09dcb1c00bd538147503254e6de
916522dfcfb41e4d115a94b16f3f29ac340503cc
F20101113_AABMWK birmingham_r_Page_020.tif
b24ecba50010908208918b7f68be1bda
18acd697234a56a1c000c4eb1124b19eff8560fe
F20101113_AABMVW birmingham_r_Page_003.tif
f9bf4c666d7ea2a574a73aee111be544
b9712d31c4656e2693c5ba8eb81f59765999e794
49494 F20101113_AABNCF birmingham_r_Page_090.pro
f3b75f62f3fb7222f7cb755b8ab7c970
28298921981d4cbca54b0cbf00f7a6001d7ccd9a
52550 F20101113_AABNBR birmingham_r_Page_074.pro
0d3f12979fbb85c15d292c5609a2ca1d
b0950c0d9555d4d58a1f85887b9e07077f7a5f99
F20101113_AABMWL birmingham_r_Page_021.tif
32f5b03b2a20810b7667e93bf25cbd18
e895db7caec8a46addac7e72faea2666c10f0816
F20101113_AABMVX birmingham_r_Page_004.tif
4e69c9cb50455dc55a35de64082e0a54
29cc30821d1312292ccf37c426bfa4a4cca14759
45502 F20101113_AABNCG birmingham_r_Page_091.pro
2f7eecd77186a95bc3b991f3bb622d8f
0650f0ef9c09927901f5cca0ea890a585d012716
F20101113_AABMXA birmingham_r_Page_039.tif
7867a759da5c94c8a4f191ce1f79b424
6e673989192197b49f5450a7587d8b68ce8cf4ff
50385 F20101113_AABNBS birmingham_r_Page_075.pro
0dc5acfbbc788be53850f078c9f23fa6
eb1af1193512780ea3d16228cb228b36a2f0bab7
F20101113_AABMWM birmingham_r_Page_022.tif
e3cd0877c08fa118752f6f385385cf09
c26132a450cd358b527145fa3cddeea694e91191
F20101113_AABMVY birmingham_r_Page_005.tif
6657454ceb05ce970c4d34ee43e4ef8a
ccec39c0f186dac82c431f1942ff1d8b9e132645
29448 F20101113_AABNCH birmingham_r_Page_092.pro
7965cd32726f5a7a32f5251600f93838
f176ef80c54a1fdbc3d463f8d2c4c2c496081b01
F20101113_AABMXB birmingham_r_Page_040.tif
3f89dcab6d1368e09af76c3f853e5770
87aca6456565b3840301aea01d860eb14b73cd5c
50943 F20101113_AABNBT birmingham_r_Page_076.pro
a1effac27a6a2090bb53bd9fa49c387e
f45a9a476a3f1dbbdf7b8221a751d361f677b4a8
F20101113_AABMWN birmingham_r_Page_023.tif
76e04694a46b08c4afbcd8fcc1503df9
6715a5cb37bf98f2540ee173ee4809a707954742
F20101113_AABMVZ birmingham_r_Page_006.tif
d7c9c90226873a9c526517434d373f81
6f030e70f6d18e201208ffdd9a239a21f6c1a999
19223 F20101113_AABNCI birmingham_r_Page_093.pro
4938033691650dd586baf14b1bd603ea
6ef1848f7f6107cfcaa267fb9edaad8d8d412d42
F20101113_AABMXC birmingham_r_Page_041.tif
ea92b9f8203e7556e53d07f18891a3e5
93050dea4b4e3a041ac69c73aa1ab9679ae5aa8c
50640 F20101113_AABNBU birmingham_r_Page_077.pro
24cc658df0d29b30c1dc3d3a28a379f6
a740ae44c410ebef29d25c020628a6bd23d0dedf
F20101113_AABMWO birmingham_r_Page_024.tif
c303031edfee9227fb8be78f91ce2861
6c36ea9730629bed3344d006bbd6196bb526cfb0
43754 F20101113_AABNCJ birmingham_r_Page_094.pro
7cae96fd071a6cc669874f455d679c73
f0aeb131d84ae4703ebeba2eec9e891e84f268b9
F20101113_AABMXD birmingham_r_Page_042.tif
aded600a3629b99c5a5119e9df489f8e
d5e96a6acaf0dd557869cae25e55ca77f0ee457a
50236 F20101113_AABNBV birmingham_r_Page_078.pro
c7d2051b41572e2f250fbb34822feab1
1e2968786b3b5c333f656d3e92c5fd95da0f92ce
F20101113_AABMWP birmingham_r_Page_025.tif
5e40b06efba704619248dfa205b6a2e9
dad1e5c0d018264d1232688bfc40d2b1541b9fe6
47661 F20101113_AABNCK birmingham_r_Page_095.pro
a7f1bed0a95801c611a2f20e5dede53f
c4ca6a52554ba65313f26da085bcc0679b9fbd93
F20101113_AABMXE birmingham_r_Page_043.tif
ae625c2b3039308c61c7c427e3517f2a
a28cdcf31d00c4cfa4bde7d064806285ca6d8f96
49001 F20101113_AABNBW birmingham_r_Page_080.pro
49cc659ba0f0fd84f2d99743125fd3a6
1a9e5ddccb747f37e551d7f8137def1b37bffbd4
F20101113_AABMWQ birmingham_r_Page_027.tif
3608b21cddb73fc1689aab229f0da8cd
155d5ca2c9f963405990a332039f24dd10325b2b
57257 F20101113_AABNCL birmingham_r_Page_096.pro
b7db0b9d7df7c8ef8a0154f8b9e9e732
cfa733438e8301fe7a5c7d5844a2d0f01e972548
F20101113_AABMXF birmingham_r_Page_044.tif
791386daf806fc44fa7372e574f196c3
47c21e216c435f8488687d52a1c9d50f8d493097
50781 F20101113_AABNBX birmingham_r_Page_081.pro
f13d57229c2da2594983e89ee476fb4d
adfc0b415456630c92806d180a635281ad2d4007
60110 F20101113_AABNCM birmingham_r_Page_098.pro
e2d8e793e02051658f3ce05aa0197367
b8e24434327ad4a81c5c8013267a528320a78047
F20101113_AABMXG birmingham_r_Page_045.tif
f7c409568ac79c8fef359834af41470f
a86d8779e1a3f9dadcc318917dfbb1c9180f867b
50379 F20101113_AABNBY birmingham_r_Page_082.pro
37d22fb7c8c4e774dc77c2a5b4e62758
f033732c6341be975faed19e8425eb0af6cce9b7
F20101113_AABMWR birmingham_r_Page_028.tif
7312f8e907e81276bec7fef525a7610a
385b40ee308bfefcb32bd720a99e9488271b0274
1930 F20101113_AABNDA birmingham_r_Page_015.txt
35c2c5f9978dc351007f348f3a183f85
8e7b79a500f56c180d3fd5fd1c18e6ad907d1a47
59771 F20101113_AABNCN birmingham_r_Page_099.pro
ec1f4dd2ceae0c12e54e3afe8982ec68
1de496d48a8041dec19dd7366955fe4c9ea9b044
F20101113_AABMXH birmingham_r_Page_046.tif
ee4fbd739c4cb6515a44de2fa6d14ad5
67c80bb8ef3c3d5267fd22293d916d11a2b12158
52099 F20101113_AABNBZ birmingham_r_Page_083.pro
803137c4257d7193fa5636b11db5eb3f
3410fdb5e21c3ef912e5f341d581bc23d74e0176
F20101113_AABMWS birmingham_r_Page_030.tif
737d7d30f2ba556236b17711a02cae9c
07db8c715ab006c8f304846887ef52848b53a81b
2134 F20101113_AABNDB birmingham_r_Page_016.txt
06d1246f265592957409902a63e148d7
1b7c75340f33364649b2fb6bf485cdf303608698
59045 F20101113_AABNCO birmingham_r_Page_100.pro
dcb1e1475538bd515cc239740b007c2f
af37f16a8be4c07285a01fc72fd3c359df756226
F20101113_AABMXI birmingham_r_Page_048.tif
2595e67306dfaddae8258984ff6addf5
723871456eadf3961e6af9f147c69aed9e867d2d
F20101113_AABMWT birmingham_r_Page_031.tif
a77c12bd57fd6cbb1185d6c081f3188c
759ee307fc1ae7544684a7d870a3f0569ed88e4c
1135 F20101113_AABNDC birmingham_r_Page_017.txt
a167ccb2944b7c579e57296d047a96d9
9086c7904530b7afa6a1c1b3411f9a71d8c0d040
56898 F20101113_AABNCP birmingham_r_Page_101.pro
17ca05d0a3436e6f8f4ea75f3f35537b
acd5082b435286a002bb22bf4d2434e900ed6ef7
F20101113_AABMXJ birmingham_r_Page_049.tif
ff3ce12b91ecd16ed2e4bdd28d6151a3
a2e76deb0d4985113cd212c0a5b74a90720b0c0c
F20101113_AABMWU birmingham_r_Page_032.tif
15c18b7f8971ae724f662981b11a3ed4
a3e604f5226b530cc0617df3ab2186ac9e294585
1846 F20101113_AABNDD birmingham_r_Page_018.txt
dda1cdffd27ee4f8763b3c277911c2e2
b07d6d62d4ee5ec163915530fc8708df1104a6b0
32043 F20101113_AABNCQ birmingham_r_Page_102.pro
6e643736b66b53781fb52dfe8ccac5b3
c3f91fc4d58f8294733478ac54cdfa024bee6497
F20101113_AABMXK birmingham_r_Page_050.tif
80ffb0e89175f314d47e4af774d78256
ce035ea73cfccec38c5d84fedc1fe2b2824ac4ef
F20101113_AABMWV birmingham_r_Page_033.tif
5085fa408ac3dad89901b36e2ea2e63e
11af19832362f5d3e714f83254d21bae8b49699b
1841 F20101113_AABNDE birmingham_r_Page_019.txt
6328c057b2a3af321d336c4a50465072
e4849e9b577b7f3e2eb712d32a8a0390fad08d33
427 F20101113_AABNCR birmingham_r_Page_001.txt
1ef241b37e7965c69b6d19acc60e49d2
db9e69487f351d171d95ea668911bac982932f2e
F20101113_AABMXL birmingham_r_Page_051.tif
92e32b496c2e5ec65648634640ee70f4
2954af9e84efb1ec5ee187a32c1141a75e2dc98d
F20101113_AABMWW birmingham_r_Page_034.tif
fd82d899f447cc2858fcae0b930d1596
ed0fbad853e99d28cc242a825de9900858d5254a
1989 F20101113_AABNDF birmingham_r_Page_020.txt
2de3d8d20197ccf1d2539a1d615cf610
e767b9a2a6d69101ee66ea78055e8f9a7fd3301a
F20101113_AABMYA birmingham_r_Page_068.tif
3bacf933ccefeea26d5c50a88c42659f
874fadbae253f1340ce8d068e66ac4b4a089a510
91 F20101113_AABNCS birmingham_r_Page_002.txt
a00d9e752cc33436e207f1d064a7b104
5baf7774d34bed5c9b912a85acfaf40731d3d01a
F20101113_AABMXM birmingham_r_Page_052.tif
3ed8cdc27792efd4f1a42b048feaa17c
d326e36e343397275c6c46ac714521f861ee69fa
F20101113_AABMWX birmingham_r_Page_036.tif
bc0fbbb2a24576b2d51a2625b9dbeaf0
454601b49cc2b25dfe964273a6503e06ecfb05d6
1743 F20101113_AABNDG birmingham_r_Page_021.txt
a18b743dee84ac243129c46173af4707
1ca6381abd84fad923a10c9ade2fa62adcbd0a01
F20101113_AABMYB birmingham_r_Page_071.tif
a246cd7ffe498dd3352e23a4a147008e
c12cd1cdd1f7f90f7c7484803a9099d2cfb95284
1952 F20101113_AABNCT birmingham_r_Page_004.txt
86b2dc6f0af5e77490d5a09fb6e01f32
cf391cc7b997fbfa40e9c7d04e91e22ebaa5c128
F20101113_AABMXN birmingham_r_Page_053.tif
ffd05c0e491a7bfc76a994b61c24aecd
c16276703e05de12be5f3126ad682c8296bbe492
F20101113_AABMWY birmingham_r_Page_037.tif
d75ab1450e42a542da6712cd709266e3
7e3d68b4fb136078fa8a5c65ef7ea996183485ef
1965 F20101113_AABNDH birmingham_r_Page_022.txt
094a79c1a09b243b9e23cc9d44749b6a
22eb4906a7d346871fda8592cbb32f9e4e4b8f89
F20101113_AABMYC birmingham_r_Page_072.tif
798331608326260c9d7739f8939cd65a
66159be376f7bae837da7fb1c4531ac49d8e235a
3356 F20101113_AABNCU birmingham_r_Page_005.txt
a4dee447cd5bba16bd05ac5033390732
806888e7e4bc87c5ea7b5ce5d90374b04b9f67d8
F20101113_AABMXO birmingham_r_Page_054.tif
b26f170f07ae83467630d5195d0dd65b
78a954beee98953c951c90f98e4a69c839f44b74
F20101113_AABMWZ birmingham_r_Page_038.tif
e9645d44fc026e37b8a869f6d278c153
a68a8862d8b2add1384b4c2310a6de393ba122b0
2331 F20101113_AABNDI birmingham_r_Page_023.txt
ad7aeaf8c321e8365376917bdef76735
db9462136f71d61ca51488555466f3b591676a96
F20101113_AABMYD birmingham_r_Page_073.tif
0ebc317142a98b4b6cff5fc7f120633a
0b76d06540b167a1529ad8504746b81878f71670
2039 F20101113_AABNCV birmingham_r_Page_007.txt
d156f2ea5e0755413bdac86064bb841f
db826d0bfc41b204a35be55ef490434e9299cf73
F20101113_AABMXP birmingham_r_Page_055.tif
e4ffa3f0065be884ff1b9570952b76fd
eb30cb78f51b2c5280944d0a853d09824e836ba2
2012 F20101113_AABNDJ birmingham_r_Page_024.txt
98a08c47ba187f41aca39449521fb112
222ad876281e78e7030b20d16b4b01fbd80a1f33
F20101113_AABMYE birmingham_r_Page_074.tif
414605ae960d82d79fef806624c65a5b
a1872152761465d01b3bfd68c72db5f1bef6aa1a
422 F20101113_AABNCW birmingham_r_Page_008.txt
fec88cf9d6322373a6aebe325b498653
d401bcad8955bffec99cddebda4220f8ffb84a36
F20101113_AABMXQ birmingham_r_Page_056.tif
dd05497de2b967a006e9bfec95152c72
0b84d520508a2641ae42c8554eef3b7e60d4afb5
1997 F20101113_AABNDK birmingham_r_Page_025.txt
b85d0c99bc49341ec61fd1367cfeb258
8f3f816052379bd8a8b06a02dfd02bf7f2f07f04
F20101113_AABMYF birmingham_r_Page_075.tif
dc639c88b871543599a28f218b825c01
8bf5d3f3b8ba2f8a374a080023ce5f4f5e94c26e
1734 F20101113_AABNCX birmingham_r_Page_009.txt
279d90420a4f4f23c51c4a1a29bb172a
f47ddba54eeb91657fc99c1183893d2faf5268e3
F20101113_AABMXR birmingham_r_Page_057.tif
f5b52e445f64c176044b23d13ec11cc9
196bde9b16f7fabf3cc1169e0fefbdc52e9e6838
1869 F20101113_AABNDL birmingham_r_Page_026.txt
1311aab15a7fa1674f61fd5b64ccded2
8a8b2f62e760efa56a726394441df096a1fda488
F20101113_AABMYG birmingham_r_Page_076.tif
8fc90be6da39b86b7875c274c3c5beac
6daef5073b1f5c62d250a8946a7717ffc8d5b110
1726 F20101113_AABNCY birmingham_r_Page_010.txt
dc8ad134de6cb8333f09148799348281
567a87dad48fb0b8d8987cca6db17fea64b69d0e
1948 F20101113_AABNEA birmingham_r_Page_045.txt
4d6fc6a1fbb698ddcb9dcb271b907f3c
f822d729ed4986cbcf850b3b7b5c4e27bf054ac1
1943 F20101113_AABNDM birmingham_r_Page_027.txt
5a4c7a4336b585f70728ab4737883929
9ee6b2c58d441593b87b08db4f33611fade44ec7
F20101113_AABMYH birmingham_r_Page_077.tif
a59814aa3de280afbb4ee88a24616cc0
3a5a37e401b47d06cb2fed4b68fb8cad6de6e5c2
1736 F20101113_AABNCZ birmingham_r_Page_014.txt
1388cf15e722c8fa79ad729fd3066ec1
25e0b8b8327284261073b66e6608123506cada3e
F20101113_AABMXS birmingham_r_Page_058.tif
5c40ea23a8a79424d0f196cdf3164af8
c68636a644a1aba5456cde65cc788bc691d2a670
F20101113_AABNEB birmingham_r_Page_046.txt
030a98efa80db4559f4e5017f1097d7f
acafc858e13627fd3117763d9770b88045c5ac25
1913 F20101113_AABNDN birmingham_r_Page_029.txt
43cc3000eabf809677bc775388b9fad2
fa4349caf2396c2a0801589cf37f7d9440d0edd9
F20101113_AABMYI birmingham_r_Page_078.tif
7c82c9c535d85922de9bc502714a971b
af7c3df0dd7ba1b1cc8e3eaa3ae75564bdc48c51
F20101113_AABMXT birmingham_r_Page_059.tif
4f874765c0dc18034d2501f573ef5005
225abf77af13c913bad261acd2c02bdda3c5be41
1968 F20101113_AABNEC birmingham_r_Page_047.txt
3e369cde8fde2ca89d160ee67527a059
a40f856e96d91f7d48d1916fdccba94a5292be86
1868 F20101113_AABNDO birmingham_r_Page_030.txt
59a81f49d3d765c930ae7855dfe9929d
99c03437a1d9664348d55f83c4c3ce9616ff7a60
F20101113_AABMYJ birmingham_r_Page_079.tif
61a96fe06e20009bcf8544fd7d1846d8
0cce9e8af7671f0c8e3a272186455d21b1ff96a3
F20101113_AABMXU birmingham_r_Page_060.tif
89f9a5bfeaa9826e492229f8c49dc597
7b3db744dac1c6119a93ea9f1aabe60ead1a3640
2044 F20101113_AABNED birmingham_r_Page_048.txt
ba5af5a2981de272530b8ac8a1a58fdb
b21187ca83949b7fefa79526dccfc20fd62a3c67
1932 F20101113_AABNDP birmingham_r_Page_031.txt
ff8683550ea3e77e4050e5c7311caf0f
1ab6187ea23613aa836bb324c28caa6673d4956e
F20101113_AABMYK birmingham_r_Page_080.tif
996ea22e7918fb108e33d0a6d9ae524b
4b39e0fa696349836f5012d0886323fda3aa7ef0
F20101113_AABMXV birmingham_r_Page_063.tif
1b84cece8f4a21b2ca2327f0b8fee019
a8c821004eafec70418e440314868b6830302862
2338 F20101113_AABNEE birmingham_r_Page_049.txt
39bb633ae66a2ad222f014f9c2d5cfe0
681c1fe689fad644b103efbbde54300580efa85d
1873 F20101113_AABNDQ birmingham_r_Page_032.txt
34beeca0e694a2941dc6236f3e768869
e094b44266c418ea0215d975a02f049dbba1d4ad
F20101113_AABMYL birmingham_r_Page_081.tif
c9e788d7a9a05b4485a1e5d10adaa1dc
247b31773e647b89e162cb9e85f36e13e9b6feb5
F20101113_AABMXW birmingham_r_Page_064.tif
1f7b172fbabdf0015a9682c2a63455d8
5cb02d5284a6be409ebbf456bdb606cdcd9b9c2a
F20101113_AABNEF birmingham_r_Page_050.txt
62ab4d94f0f3b012ae4b0d8b22c731d1
31c3a28366eb98f8ccbf5150f4b4b525af95ecf9
1921 F20101113_AABNDR birmingham_r_Page_035.txt
8d53bfb26a182926192efd5de1824e3a
54b810cdac31eed4a69a04bc0aa83a455b595f09
F20101113_AABMYM birmingham_r_Page_082.tif
d42f200b73d9d6f2310649b9cea4de62
b17d0c55783ec8faa4911d206f9e61c73b895472
F20101113_AABMXX birmingham_r_Page_065.tif
cec78886c7021af376d02235b6cd8690
d06e56245590344c135ebad477ccbeed50e8f17c
2220 F20101113_AABNEG birmingham_r_Page_051.txt
4a77abe7882da541430736c0093c921d
2a5b578f0497b0e1f9225f88e719596903d42aba
F20101113_AABMZA birmingham_r_Page_098.tif
418cf8dbfe24e53df7cc18b5ecf9d6cb
fc821411ab3d5f5ed6d4fddfc4705e4d2a54626a
1961 F20101113_AABNDS birmingham_r_Page_036.txt
81b286df9fcd3e1075307646c621ef4c
d2553976477f6d98e6245cef5a56d51cccf4258d
F20101113_AABMYN birmingham_r_Page_083.tif
781188db9c7d3cd7f2a72956ff288738
482c9783e44183df3aad586de482e7961d4226c5
F20101113_AABMXY birmingham_r_Page_066.tif
17500d706eaf3250a01df06bfc07b94e
dd8f5a19e910bf8f20bd43bc45adc546c5e8c498
696 F20101113_AABNEH birmingham_r_Page_052.txt
b3e3357f7efd91aac35e3f88037e35df
6b213404a4419a24b12da171d2a3d79f11ecfc3c
F20101113_AABMZB birmingham_r_Page_099.tif
f53e9c1c7ed7ce6e5c2cdda518d0ed13
784289952cbb64ee339ca28341c870399ea3a272
1971 F20101113_AABNDT birmingham_r_Page_037.txt
317464e6dceec2c81b1db9f51d90a4e4
051b66bfdb23d2a3a459949490be811e5ee5da62
F20101113_AABMYO birmingham_r_Page_085.tif
00f1a0870a535b5d4c4e0605118dff1a
05d5f9aaaa9797ab228736e99dd49b015740af44
F20101113_AABMXZ birmingham_r_Page_067.tif
1107f0b4d9830e9d93046fad74416143
90006025a70f0e8387e1481432aaeab4a4a6b05c
1733 F20101113_AABNEI birmingham_r_Page_053.txt
46eb2554f5f103570c02ab6d2a9d3161
449237a167327d489cba9f528cfeb01158d3f31e
F20101113_AABMZC birmingham_r_Page_100.tif
33666c0fdba75f4af9f56691a1c56a8d
9e520baec01dca6caf7a98354cf95a7e80ccf904
2665 F20101113_AABNDU birmingham_r_Page_038.txt
aceaa6138d584a268dc314a2d3ed554a
4670b11f86e736f957b91052a7d3f259d821d3f9
F20101113_AABMYP birmingham_r_Page_086.tif
e850408ddbe667c9ea1df39d1053daf2
120eb91b72bb9a3adf12567b0989e1e7716d6c47
1871 F20101113_AABNEJ birmingham_r_Page_054.txt
b10cd8b0074f9ec92cda98d32d1da99b
ccdcf700857d862f23783edab43bc4785d2e1145
F20101113_AABMZD birmingham_r_Page_101.tif
9c9279458d776dbb5f483e3ecd176fa3
80ce62e6a0f5bc3a4693a8b511a283dcab3c0246
2819 F20101113_AABNDV birmingham_r_Page_039.txt
fce5772bbd92e73f87f64ebb419435cd
fc295ca49e7daddd47211ba8add15eda7962e8bd
F20101113_AABMYQ birmingham_r_Page_088.tif
6a5ed3e8bbe00574da9c808f5eecd342
5716415cffcadf4eaf32e0246f5d1c8c0b5d4f5d
1934 F20101113_AABNEK birmingham_r_Page_055.txt
957a0bea511c34db0a3543a272928ebe
19524bbcc66b4e4e3dd7e2460ec5d9ce1c999774
F20101113_AABMZE birmingham_r_Page_102.tif
3a1297d6ed84ef4b139f0cc937c3a4af
f365f16af2a548032a026c22c6959f3e84f71784
2208 F20101113_AABNDW birmingham_r_Page_040.txt
c9681b8970c301ece969bef5cebe84f0
a136e8e4950967a884ccc69a1bbaf2bb4b8430cd
F20101113_AABMYR birmingham_r_Page_089.tif
5565d5d0b8d3a60280f19cf0de6806fc
406f7dda8e929efa2bfb1dc5d232037a03591ebe
F20101113_AABNEL birmingham_r_Page_057.txt
c11e8a3570e69a222d674c00c00f73d7
b74ca7405e1d84c8ddef51c1cd16ad94534daa30
7564 F20101113_AABMZF birmingham_r_Page_001.pro
d3e6b6296f8dc3c6d0c5eecdd31bc8e5
609df5acfea491a87a8a70497c617ed66f303c9c
2007 F20101113_AABNDX birmingham_r_Page_042.txt
da6138eee273d0256f864eab3f755e16
ce6546f5810d60332155775b28eec6f8801c6963
F20101113_AABMYS birmingham_r_Page_090.tif
33a8b0d57ea507404315c41aedd1de66
1779037879b271af95397eee6a3bd9de30b402a8
1972 F20101113_AABNFA birmingham_r_Page_080.txt
09467202b62ee1e23c07689c061c5819
70054e20f5de73a4f57247d5226615c33a79b4e2
1909 F20101113_AABNEM birmingham_r_Page_059.txt
544ae0cd0b3648944c44d6ed2d43060e
82e60cadb5bef88554f8478f73fbdb227ff44d79
916 F20101113_AABMZG birmingham_r_Page_002.pro
dbdbd82f38682dd1b02a37640794d089
867102dc692de605c69254ba14738254aef0a242
1969 F20101113_AABNDY birmingham_r_Page_043.txt
ae520fbd27a298b618011ccaf28bb441
d8d6391f7946824f1631909d1ca4858332b0b1d0
1983 F20101113_AABNFB birmingham_r_Page_082.txt
999347a8afe3ce3f9da52d6b91789f77
aef4a6265ac1c5c84f57b3d809033eb7e2a0829b
1817 F20101113_AABNEN birmingham_r_Page_060.txt
9ef41814de4302cd4435cef95c12dac1
296b928135dc5f1e2333aca00f1afa54162e25d2
3165 F20101113_AABMZH birmingham_r_Page_003.pro
118d0d38da6d3dea3118d3f878056e8e
9a6b2c69d92b68fcbb67054fffcc2c4e0df84745
2032 F20101113_AABNDZ birmingham_r_Page_044.txt
afd6f024874d0dc5f6293e90f6226470
7e354cc84b3d5a4132076bfb1bd7ac8e29c6bcdd
F20101113_AABMYT birmingham_r_Page_091.tif
e0341eb966880de18c8922260090cf9a
0bc1f3454c35fa6e32374513f25f13fcb860efe4
2091 F20101113_AABNFC birmingham_r_Page_083.txt
6d8ccb768c5873858860340b587fa35b
bfa12b1bc0c500a92ae5b60c8970cf9201085bd2
2036 F20101113_AABNEO birmingham_r_Page_062.txt
1e9d7e20f510b12dfbef06948b8f1d96
ec0ff957b68905a6da7cf5763c0b29b418e9ba91
F20101113_AABMZI birmingham_r_Page_004.pro
a6a5bc7ba2afd53c7d777c75d8a89336
3e0c9a078c497505358371cc8a37a195acd222d1
1929 F20101113_AABNFD birmingham_r_Page_084.txt
13da0830a2b4f17f7c323b5ff3c1deaa
130b067844b608020d677ed18c70466cf9fbda98
2322 F20101113_AABNEP birmingham_r_Page_063.txt
201474a11c19401f5a5d9db1a2934d68
4852bf40ef9ed406c728850df00f94d70f6e2761
81369 F20101113_AABMZJ birmingham_r_Page_005.pro
f6af1817391a97d990a1d1a911b784ae
c08f6f805c13fde3bb166768f1857dbde6d26089
F20101113_AABMYU birmingham_r_Page_092.tif
6a28944264e071bc0846207bfecbdd65
6aebd446083c5189038140e235106cd4bdba796e
2079 F20101113_AABNFE birmingham_r_Page_085.txt
4a7804bd6c4323d78d1a3c2623886b9f
4951e2e3f63fdaff56207b529a2803837a74ca64
2038 F20101113_AABNEQ birmingham_r_Page_067.txt
781ac9d342826cb1b87e72d49ff1ae9f
5ac704c1a23d80487d96350c4285425fea54545d
109581 F20101113_AABMZK birmingham_r_Page_006.pro
d8c51152aea5f4b169af1c1d961ff87f
42618d116dd2157e3b93e45d7b71118320eb35e9
F20101113_AABMYV birmingham_r_Page_093.tif
b7fed18df32f29481a1de5b3532f0154
48afab50d89d399472a379b0df7f05bd46d52897
2059 F20101113_AABNFF birmingham_r_Page_087.txt
e9ea55d6d2173158b937b7c698e7c49a
6522e7bf2c2a4e04cf30b9f87601fa09518f89f1
F20101113_AABNER birmingham_r_Page_068.txt
6d816c62de23360e36aac0db387e0a2a
449bac776d863a595daf2b2c469be209b696e673
51378 F20101113_AABMZL birmingham_r_Page_007.pro
853dec709688134d2ed8725cf221c1cd
4346beb32d87dcf71fddcdfb2b942fa702ba23ce
F20101113_AABMYW birmingham_r_Page_094.tif
f766e068b5628a524f69ebe8ac8cafb8
307f779347dae1defafab94f848146d43ea80ba3
F20101113_AABNFG birmingham_r_Page_088.txt
ab68200a0ea71794f346be2315bc8897
355c863b6f1269a93a27df792a87b41301ecadcf
1569 F20101113_AABNES birmingham_r_Page_069.txt
b11fdf4a204b9ea69fe098224b2b5b81
469893c71d7acaf16cd11535a189ebe61840c828
9269 F20101113_AABMZM birmingham_r_Page_008.pro
9022286f794917b87e894df9bc336dd6
ae4a1c4aa28242db3df6d194cafc6501df989f21
F20101113_AABMYX birmingham_r_Page_095.tif
6567821c20a895ea4ac4b374f01ae95e
fe1230785c5e8c0335647de4f91de9b17ede1aeb
2053 F20101113_AABNFH birmingham_r_Page_089.txt
ed1af7a50425732e11e8ab58e3f270df
5e16d17e6236471cac3beb0fe52688d3b9482917
1752 F20101113_AABNET birmingham_r_Page_070.txt
3ecc344c198e0195392662e14790c2ca
3cdea66a1a4e8f3a9da7637cdcc7a18780def612
38525 F20101113_AABMZN birmingham_r_Page_009.pro
bc4e70f61fadfca72429a1d95a00bb83
d40c3b0585ce9decf1829f01b08a45d3f066e597
F20101113_AABMYY birmingham_r_Page_096.tif
6dcb0a416099fecbcd5ef8e0c3d5245b
76c134e4c933c50cf36ffba7c8953d65948b80ca
1988 F20101113_AABNFI birmingham_r_Page_090.txt
1f0b9bb1202057d8152869496bad5267
55eacbeb0f48f683cdcc24eb3533d71840c2013d
2077 F20101113_AABNEU birmingham_r_Page_073.txt
d74c500d6d7b7839360172a4b6ff99a5
7839ce94b22bae4aafed7287d82665e6533b2b28
43075 F20101113_AABMZO birmingham_r_Page_010.pro
a51c0d0ff0c7409a3a9671b79b70b7a2
0ba08df1b465023b61559a624cb9d06a6b6fc237
F20101113_AABMYZ birmingham_r_Page_097.tif
e2b7a265ba484298a883729a93edfcce
e371d4101e3463d290434ab3118435b6c313d102
1806 F20101113_AABNFJ birmingham_r_Page_091.txt
b9225920567ac0c46b99bf048cf2a127
1056ab65216db78c1cd4fa8304e6d632341c4423
2097 F20101113_AABNEV birmingham_r_Page_074.txt
135f22a4b11179ef1f20f3a72f97f69c
bc1959e36ccc069958a65ecf35d244538a2d2df7
43872 F20101113_AABMZP birmingham_r_Page_011.pro
bdea220197e065f4f914e0b4794a3505
e7f104ecd4dfe6f98450587ef2a06edd1d869c1c
1210 F20101113_AABNFK birmingham_r_Page_092.txt
769e00c36df8b632cd141c33e063cc94
596c1eb8d041979869e22d687cb348727707c4cd
2020 F20101113_AABNEW birmingham_r_Page_076.txt
54ad1176710e2fc9efa2254a7481c836
a08797422f9795b8e1938069b590c135e7039549
43295 F20101113_AABMZQ birmingham_r_Page_012.pro
46882f2ebfc159849d4b6ecdbfade465
eaf46d2843c42e8503508a97793fde495e327047
761 F20101113_AABNFL birmingham_r_Page_093.txt
ab0c5eccff151d64ba2c2e87c98ba089
145ac08e60e8a462fbcd13de6b79c462e52fb293
F20101113_AABNEX birmingham_r_Page_077.txt
cedd66badd5a95b4aeb7aeebc989500b
6edacc5cd6723858c314cea992b4b46617b0fff0
47949 F20101113_AABMZR birmingham_r_Page_015.pro
d860e59457f0a95887888fb36e04f3c7
2a368a367b534dca14738b7d8da232eec5278c5a
F20101113_AABNFM birmingham_r_Page_094.txt
2397b28b18a79ec2530059449b816500
97b657bbb3acb45093a82233aebfbd7038b955bb
1976 F20101113_AABNEY birmingham_r_Page_078.txt
27a0f679bb61ea201b31eae482810333
14ee8b8df7b2a11fe2c8304a973b93e0ec0aeef4
53447 F20101113_AABMZS birmingham_r_Page_016.pro
6b664d7c3d8848898cbbbc59f4cf21a2
aa0b1f5049428a060f51f4d73887a6e4c7c9799b
17571 F20101113_AABNGA birmingham_r_Page_005.QC.jpg
e5fb334add3af6a5cc770a5359bc230b
39d75f7ff2a2a133883fce8985d895d4b97c93e2
1956 F20101113_AABNFN birmingham_r_Page_095.txt
0b37505db90f353ac4d2e4ecad35e1bf
89482c127b66a47f160f5d3323642006ebb01d5f
2000 F20101113_AABNEZ birmingham_r_Page_079.txt
3f997ba418ae2d8a40892c03520d8097
96145f32d0ccad023f3e465bfac84c422d8eb38f
27615 F20101113_AABMZT birmingham_r_Page_017.pro
4c6cfeee80ecde95238f582ac20babcd
5826c04925e906a25b364d3e830f9b4865f268e0
4856 F20101113_AABNGB birmingham_r_Page_005thm.jpg
0a32a63d959abe2d0ff5da6a6a7dae51
93d787cb9a3bfa3f393182bac0fdac91cad05250
2308 F20101113_AABNFO birmingham_r_Page_096.txt
30c7172b31193840ae55d4c899d2dcd2
eefd2648d764ee76c7e55e5374e9ceb9cdb3bb56
5622 F20101113_AABNGC birmingham_r_Page_006thm.jpg
8c00d55b5467c47bb902ce8c4f8d3c27
c1a990994ecdffae41565f81672b7c47880dca24
2440 F20101113_AABNFP birmingham_r_Page_097.txt
85d1e3f4b057384b04f59613139eaea5
3e15c98dcf3fcd94214790c1d9a7af4eb761342c
44938 F20101113_AABMZU birmingham_r_Page_018.pro
11146afea5b4405a235d49e9358ebe87
cf7e4479b41d54a73f4bf654141446c72f107852
13039 F20101113_AABNGD birmingham_r_Page_007.QC.jpg
e0f9ea8ff5ac0928365e3d77fe05d265
109e89fe1ab4c6c04a5d6ac4f656ee8da6c66c60
2434 F20101113_AABNFQ birmingham_r_Page_098.txt
25718c0363d1b1ce20e3a4fbbb98518a
577fcddcfff1ea559022ba4392267a0be9514b49
45620 F20101113_AABMZV birmingham_r_Page_019.pro
6641273c6d1dcfc18392049ea2741db4
08e52c7a2f52d0934d8663d06958c70279bf5985
3413 F20101113_AABNGE birmingham_r_Page_007thm.jpg
8f4de1227d685d23eb179eb2339ea150
f63b2315ffbe24a99ba69573d9a923b2912d37cf
2420 F20101113_AABNFR birmingham_r_Page_099.txt
c3a419d953e16efa719add5679e70de1
95885d19da99c8d1aad3aedb85b7795cd473960f
50291 F20101113_AABMZW birmingham_r_Page_020.pro
24b4c5bd15543e429050e658efde1d17
44847658be2ceb5b2186350d74e652b17aacb10e
6306 F20101113_AABNGF birmingham_r_Page_008.QC.jpg
688732afc81b2ffe410e2c9c5b40e17e
231bd0d0f7e8e3b8ce40859e98f9f29395b8e24e
43980 F20101113_AABMZX birmingham_r_Page_021.pro
5ab755d497867129a3bcb3adcd9d3207
76b135774bfaacb5ce3eaa714dfa27dd45aae4f1
2207 F20101113_AABNGG birmingham_r_Page_008thm.jpg
688f25da8463ad98210d47b0f12d3587
20178530c66f6c41ae2fee3e4d2ff7ccfece0dcc
F20101113_AABNFS birmingham_r_Page_101.txt
5a06ce243ef047245ab05f740fe0a8f7
88bf0ef437b30c3071f63f552f36d40432fdd72d
49818 F20101113_AABMZY birmingham_r_Page_022.pro
8a583cdcf80a654bb932ddc921d67537
f2bf708a419281b00ecb5ca20570d643fece7a3c
18316 F20101113_AABNGH birmingham_r_Page_009.QC.jpg
dd0ba6b12629160b879a4bab13af07cf
8a481a1294abfa1e8a49f3238e2298bfff85c3c9
329154 F20101113_AABNFT birmingham_r.pdf
de5b2d5d9c502dcb94a9b44bb576aec2
4ed58935a7c27fc90e4b21a27da0eddb2b8982e9
57542 F20101113_AABMZZ birmingham_r_Page_023.pro
ff14b2a9ae92611f52ff34cb1cea31e5
aa26bda05d40096158c005b57c84a67bf0f9d9d0
5222 F20101113_AABNGI birmingham_r_Page_009thm.jpg
0fadb28e500b7eb26755eb8e6bf85733
d325c7654ca582c5bfc276c6c1c9fba623f67f83
6405 F20101113_AABNFU birmingham_r_Page_001.QC.jpg
3371d0280e3561d521ecb46277aa6748
f3e0344fdbde4ae9f5761b6472dba10ac2ead8d5
20174 F20101113_AABNGJ birmingham_r_Page_010.QC.jpg
933a46d1c39afff578c7bbd334e0fc73
3d9c6d7a31b4dedf64bf8b948f2b9163526e5613
3060 F20101113_AABNFV birmingham_r_Page_002.QC.jpg
b3894b6a515480e27ad98bb323ab9960
3ac5a652ffa420661d9b1b985d87a80d869f46fc
5702 F20101113_AABNGK birmingham_r_Page_010thm.jpg
b0d11d1339c0592c31f3ae81fc97472c
6ada51077456890d3139c7cc26dc2c515fafa4a4
3791 F20101113_AABNFW birmingham_r_Page_003.QC.jpg
ccc539710aab987707f3baddd20d92ee
8247e003251d400ad1c02f9c67a04b5bcbfb3293
23798 F20101113_AABNHA birmingham_r_Page_020.QC.jpg
6715e28a4a22535172a2088e08dbd537
9a967359047b8f0a62f94fe43764ec6c7f04dbf2
21728 F20101113_AABNGL birmingham_r_Page_011.QC.jpg
5734d51eca18548053ab2365e4300836
b682413dbc0b855a97dfe5d4da5de056d1c77891
1584 F20101113_AABNFX birmingham_r_Page_003thm.jpg
2ec6823ab1aae3426edeebab74337182
d46280890ebba7786198827ce69aeefa54cffc5e
6186 F20101113_AABNGM birmingham_r_Page_011thm.jpg
5055924d14263a2f1957f93ef07c9af3
e9fadc270a200791d999bbb0716793a9bb150331
23051 F20101113_AABNFY birmingham_r_Page_004.QC.jpg
8ad069133daf4f5c313c2f588cc76a17
ab1db35cb9d7fb3050c53fa97c5d99b533bd301c
6709 F20101113_AABNHB birmingham_r_Page_020thm.jpg
74b81aefac208ad0c7d105c148c67022
d4e54641c8f178bc046735fb6f7ee9fb1edf3658
20455 F20101113_AABNGN birmingham_r_Page_012.QC.jpg
f02279c46bf18dbc86c0ea921681d7c3
11798d1973be30937a73bf48370a2d6c290fa20a
6296 F20101113_AABNFZ birmingham_r_Page_004thm.jpg
696b58fbc2fc12cb62d3b31f657f33b0
52df01268d65976d1e34e70c4afd1dae5c085f53
22870 F20101113_AABNHC birmingham_r_Page_021.QC.jpg
15943c87e1eae4fcc6b32c8164beccdc
0aa2fab66ff6e7eb9c6ae2924d781f85345cdf21
5903 F20101113_AABNGO birmingham_r_Page_012thm.jpg
14dea5e4e1b6a097197774c1949ea726
876dd28b6150ed533a365ff5321b15bcd07abb7a
6487 F20101113_AABNHD birmingham_r_Page_021thm.jpg
1ae3aa517dccfb938c20eb2b140accbe
60983b535552f5f712f0775c07b920199d3e7255
16898 F20101113_AABNGP birmingham_r_Page_013.QC.jpg
377f30329534a00ab849cd64dcdb2e2e
a9bf4104d0cb61a2a201dae2ee1a465d99daacc2
22560 F20101113_AABNHE birmingham_r_Page_022.QC.jpg
6214931ab368f49998d9369bd4fda5c9
51b5eef36e3464d7cc68933cdc597624e859b18d
4952 F20101113_AABNGQ birmingham_r_Page_013thm.jpg
cc9428fbdaef76c1de169e20c74c20ca
38d0e72d4bf42363093180193dd9a6533e544daf
6348 F20101113_AABNHF birmingham_r_Page_022thm.jpg
fc75fb333a9e77256dcb9f2de225f1eb
cafddef910b353ff09d78b92661562576b4debe7
21054 F20101113_AABNGR birmingham_r_Page_014.QC.jpg
46346a6303f8c1b7a2478e06e0ea6b92
1908297a0289beb98089272c175c9e4274b3073d
24641 F20101113_AABNHG birmingham_r_Page_023.QC.jpg
3a6cb410c937d203426893faaa2ef7b2
0d46e21019e7e33e368ff6be833e23e8f52dbba6
6057 F20101113_AABNGS birmingham_r_Page_014thm.jpg
353f10c64430b7f81efe3993e9fb370b
3e028e3710e5c6e62f91b936d5c34c1f50bdb7c6
23599 F20101113_AABNHH birmingham_r_Page_024.QC.jpg
42df6f49c77336b2e2c4f728a446b7ae
542915c00742a7e052e307492c0228098a1208bb
6583 F20101113_AABNGT birmingham_r_Page_015thm.jpg
333919c92503b97443f9a9ffbaae525c
a53d3ab7aae60491739934e88b85690e96fa2e8a
6471 F20101113_AABNHI birmingham_r_Page_024thm.jpg
7044d77c72fa0403e5f9984b9bae16a7
c4f98be2cd3608442eeb9a5382f433f815e5e118
6668 F20101113_AABNGU birmingham_r_Page_016thm.jpg
4c1822c13413763bbee085dc23424c2f
8956ee7e47a3c95e1a984df17f4d149edeec1a39
24039 F20101113_AABNHJ birmingham_r_Page_025.QC.jpg
ea26f937aaba8d2e6be4c550e1f0d01e
3d6f5eb4228e20e9a72a8e7ec16a7be1ccef0721
14111 F20101113_AABNGV birmingham_r_Page_017.QC.jpg
ece4ab458541da86eafd5c6b1a5589ad
097fb05dce4983841e4523caf1c866b5db0d2e8a
6623 F20101113_AABNHK birmingham_r_Page_025thm.jpg
498bba90aaef7c33fa610bb28596c6c4
91206b92cc4bc356b38aa07bd4ef1cc8fbc35ea0
4218 F20101113_AABNGW birmingham_r_Page_017thm.jpg
d88115c4f2f1da75c18d91c6b3c146b0
ad950530ae3abc5280f429d0578f1b65583b3ac8
22387 F20101113_AABNHL birmingham_r_Page_026.QC.jpg
8fea948b6d814071ed73da6e7a7389fe
74fcef7fccbaf49a075b7041bf566d9217da0874
6093 F20101113_AABNGX birmingham_r_Page_018thm.jpg
0ec4c52b63bee202c4afcad29f5789bb
551cb1fabac53747b031464c634606adc42f2f66
6076 F20101113_AABNIA birmingham_r_Page_034thm.jpg
699cb6374df3ad494a4fb7f69aa41e8a
8aa64d980242d19853f3ae78c01b8dfac8348394
6251 F20101113_AABNHM birmingham_r_Page_026thm.jpg
f27043ea473cbb250b8a34a69e3be271
cd43a942f8231b24e3d5d42fb2afebc238a58942
22124 F20101113_AABNGY birmingham_r_Page_019.QC.jpg
82185ef60ec02ebea2e4d63509bb9c36
6da89f5314eb2431fe213fd93173c610804f2909
22406 F20101113_AABNIB birmingham_r_Page_035.QC.jpg
56c1599b4efe330f4c52b95f1a5e924d
3b45433801010bbffc8ae4a2a12dd73ee944de98
22192 F20101113_AABNHN birmingham_r_Page_027.QC.jpg
566f1ca8210fe02312990fb4efd5e734
2e0cbc078cf380648d9ac579f62dddc2467cebd1
6056 F20101113_AABNGZ birmingham_r_Page_019thm.jpg
2ace669c4326fe8fc1b6a4a3e15dc2e9
6642767fc374bd6ac7f8121f3a3b82fad6199ce0
24163 F20101113_AABNHO birmingham_r_Page_028.QC.jpg
0908643e8fe0b37d9970781000554f07
84b7c623586011ccc919fd4f80473fe18c69e883
6424 F20101113_AABNIC birmingham_r_Page_035thm.jpg
f880b8d0cbfd3376a795594cf3af5881
af0e93b9adc003f84ea55b84548874df46ad2b7b
6683 F20101113_AABNHP birmingham_r_Page_028thm.jpg
2d1371cbcf87052ce894e63849428744
269cc13bdf79adec3239c4ef0b3e6f30a3e6d86d
23064 F20101113_AABNID birmingham_r_Page_037.QC.jpg
d7e205eaa43b3f18d907f13e7dcb4153
4541180fc9dcb9966e8dc052f7ad21b093e793e2
22067 F20101113_AABNHQ birmingham_r_Page_029.QC.jpg
ce637d054fff5576aca458e8a6fb2365
fd85c44220f43802572c7ed854b8cde29c45ae3a
6389 F20101113_AABNIE birmingham_r_Page_037thm.jpg
26dba1164304c4f078630dee3aa6520b
b59bb9597c566bf0d6598076ccaafa935eccca12
6202 F20101113_AABNHR birmingham_r_Page_029thm.jpg
d9dba3a09f4a06091f34fa164994b4ae
ae51074a913c036a348fdd25d6027b6f5fc7ab9b
26450 F20101113_AABNIF birmingham_r_Page_038.QC.jpg
2577f245b3eb2fc8c8eb8b88f85545a9
1368fa8128940128479468a9d6a5452bd497dca9
21812 F20101113_AABNHS birmingham_r_Page_030.QC.jpg
ca41819d7c90844fbeddb2d1ca84d6b5
c8a616dbed225f4dd3791a5a30b25317fa839f7c
6659 F20101113_AABNIG birmingham_r_Page_038thm.jpg
6e81c5ae635cea2ee002efb60a2005ef
d4ce8ef0d69beca6c80b47a763285dc1fd062355
F20101113_AABNHT birmingham_r_Page_030thm.jpg
48da32640fcda46a3e5eedd4174e939e
69064928d99664f2591d988cee98d0aea38cd351
27155 F20101113_AABNIH birmingham_r_Page_039.QC.jpg
50f47193aa7791c61f68aaf6a5383fc4
8e19907400f8b6d20beada0517ef5f9dc2de3573
22425 F20101113_AABNHU birmingham_r_Page_031.QC.jpg
7ebf756f2573e0c9d1bb56965e90a02d
03af1a1ef7f123ed02e0622a9f1c06a39fc7a3ea
6982 F20101113_AABNII birmingham_r_Page_039thm.jpg
d32000af9900028173e99ff1137dacc1
4eec07173cf6e0f23300090cf2d29ac8f44729ff
6345 F20101113_AABNHV birmingham_r_Page_031thm.jpg
56b1ae2a05e735634d2d2b47c7e07627
7350b75a5d94fbafea3bdc7f7127c131383286f9
23927 F20101113_AABNIJ birmingham_r_Page_040.QC.jpg
fb15d27e538a3f0c135bed9f79a0a817
80016ef6a33ecc7830699909d46e9920ac18f626
21948 F20101113_AABNHW birmingham_r_Page_032.QC.jpg
5b99b04722f4388e08d3b59aed10576e
31efbd1ee890030c355c55a019b38e0eee08fb86
6753 F20101113_AABNIK birmingham_r_Page_040thm.jpg
c8c062889cd132995243ba327dfa4377
b7f0964f67bf6b4337712e282729489f25b6a23b
6245 F20101113_AABNHX birmingham_r_Page_032thm.jpg
74745fb7cd91b87ed522e5da8c88f93f
d3ba3b2426ab5910342f2ff07fdbc6bd6a60d944
22502 F20101113_AABNJA birmingham_r_Page_050.QC.jpg
21ad32f946e064fd9a3977153a3b3bdf
fb3cc964645edef04b547657c35bf804ea374843
21546 F20101113_AABNIL birmingham_r_Page_041.QC.jpg
2ab7f2441c14c4aba38b6c03cf8bf9ba
56221063d801d9aefba94e94f1866c487f0c8615
22454 F20101113_AABNHY birmingham_r_Page_033.QC.jpg
3f5a61578af690eedf1da5b337bdc2da
7e5275abdf1b4cadcd88d4af9796e55fbef0b4e6
6602 F20101113_AABNJB birmingham_r_Page_051thm.jpg
d019317274ebec44f785a289aa4b3f66
0dc044baa519df4ab97fbb7479ccc9cc8e0fbd9f
6075 F20101113_AABNIM birmingham_r_Page_041thm.jpg
3ba990cb90241a4b42f91cf96ff9be75
8137865c63d52436ebc25c16608b6467f085216f


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0020340/00001

Material Information

Title: The Development of Family Violence Research: A Retrospective Analysis
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0020340:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0020340/00001

Material Information

Title: The Development of Family Violence Research: A Retrospective Analysis
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0020340:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












THE DEVELOPMENT OF FAMILY VIOLENCE RESEARCH: A RETROSPECTIVE
ANALYSIS















By

RACHEL BIRMINGHAM


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2007

































2007 Rachel Birmingham

































To following your passion in life and to never settling, and to Doug Diekow, whose
inspiration taught me this.









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank various individuals for their support over these past years.

First I thank my parents, who have kept me centered in love above all else. I thank them

for sacrificing time and energy to ensure I had the best possible opportunities, and for

teaching the value of education. My mother gave me the primary example of what it

means to be a perseverant woman in times of struggle. My stepfather taught me the

importance of never wavering from my authentic self and instilled in me a strong social

consciousness.

The Fieler family adopted me and taught me more about myself than I could have

ever anticipated. Jean Fieler taught me about life, love and self-acceptance, Lessons I will

carry with me throughout my life. Also, special thanks go to Shiloh Birmingham, Aaron

Birmingham, Jennifer Hogsette, Edith Clark, Angel Marino and many others for their

continued encouragement and support throughout this process.

This work would not have been possible without the guidance of my committee. I

thank Dr. Constance Shehan for her continuous support throughout this process, and for

encouraging my scientific curiosities and allowing me explore them. Dr. Rose Barnett,

has been a strong ally throughout these years, and her wisdom has given me the strength

and courage to overcome and succeed. The lessons I learned from her throughout my

graduate experience are very powerful and far-reaching.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge Dr. Suzanna Smith, my advisor and mentor. I

am incredibly thankful for her patience, motivation and compassion throughout this

process. This would not have been possible without her wonderful guidance and

encouragement. She has been an inspiration for those who seek to make a difference in

the lives of children and families throughout our communities.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS



A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ........................................................................ .....................4

LIST OF FIGURES .................................... .. .. ...................... .. viii

ABSTRACT .............. ......................................... ix

CHAPTER

1 IN TR OD U CTION ............................................... .. ......................... ..

Purpose of Study ...................................... ............................... ......... 2
D definitions of Term s ................................ .......... ....... ...... ........ ........ 3
Domestic Violence/ Intimate Partner Violence.................................. ...............3
Sibling V violence and A buse ............................................ ........... ............... 3
B behavior Classifications ....................................... ......... .. ...... .. ........ ..
P hy sical A bu se ....................................................... 3
E m optional A bu se ................. ............ .................... .................. ............ .4
Sexu al A bu se ................................................................... ............ 4
Financial A buse .................................................................. .......... 4
N neglect ............................................... 4
D rug A buse/Chem ical R estraint ..........................................................................5
Theoretical Introduction ............................................................ 5
L im itatio n s ................................................................................. 6
Significance of Study ..................................... .............. .......................

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................. ........................... ...........

C h ild M altreatm ent ................................................................................ 9
C hild Physical A buse ....................................................... 9
Child Emotional/Psychological Abuse ...............................................................10
Child Sexual Abuse ........................................................ .......... .......11
C h ild N e g le ct ................................................................................................. 12
Sum m ary ........................................................................ .......... 12
Domestic Violence/Intimate Partner Violence .................................................... 13
IPV and Physical A buse ......................................................................... ........ 14
IPV and Psychological/Emotional Abuse ........................................... 15
IPV and Sexual A buse......................................... ............... ............... 16
IPV and F financial A buse........................................................................ ........ 17


v









Other Forms of Domestic Violence.................................... ..................... 17
Domestic Violence in LGBT couples....................................... ............... 17
Abuse During Pregnancy ........... ...... ........... ........................ 18
Sum m ary ..................................................................................... 19
E ld er A b u se ...............................................................19
Elder Physical Abuse ......... ......... ....... ............ ............. ..... .. 20
Elder Psychological/Emotional Abuse............ ..................... ..........20
E lder Financial A buse ....................... .................. .. ......... ........... 21
Elder N eglect ........... ......... ......... ............... ... ................... ........... 22
Elder Drug Abuse/Chemical Restraint ...................................................... 22
Summary .............. ...... .............. ........ ........................... 23
Sibling A bu se ..................................................... ......... ..... 23
Sibling Physical A buse......... ................. ................................... ............... 24
Sibling Emotional/Psychological Abuse.................................... ........ .......... 25
Sibling Sexual A buse .................................. ................. ..... ....... 25
Outcomes .......... .. ............. ....................26
S u m m a ry ............. .. ............... ................. ..............................................2 6
P o licy O v erv iew .........................................................................................................2 7
Significant Policies in Relation to Family Violence...................... ............... 28
Decade in Review from the Journal of Marriage and Family ..................... ...30
The Decade of the 1960s ............................................30
The D ecade of the 1970s ................. ............................ ..... ..............32
The Decade of the 1980s ............................................ 33
The Decade of the 1990s ............................................ 33
Theory Overview ............... ......... ........ .......... 34
Research Questions and Hypotheses .............................. ............... 41
C o n c lu sio n s........................................................................................................... 4 1

3 M E T H O D O L O G Y ............................................................................................... 43

R e se arch D e sig n ................................................................................................... 4 3
D ata C o lle ctio n ..................................................................................................... 4 4
S am p le S ele ctio n ........................................................................................... 4 4
Procedure .......... .. ............. ....................45
C content A naly sis ....................... ........ ........... ..... ................46
Instrument for Family Violence Content in the Literature ............... ...............47
D ata A nalysis................................................... 48
L im itatio n s ......................................................................................4 9

4 R E S U L T S .............................................................................5 0

Journals Sampled .................................... ......................... ... ......... 50
General Publication Trends by Decade .......................................... 51
Trends in Family Violence Abuse Category .................................... ....52
Behaviors Identified in the Literature ................................................................ 54
General Trends in Family Violence Concerning Issues ..........................................55
H y p oth eses T estin g ............................................................................................... 5 6









5 DISCU SSION AND CON CLU SION S ........................................... .....................60

R research Q uestions........... .................................................................. ........ .. ... 60
H ypotheses ................................................. 61
Instrument ..........................................................62
Overall Trends in Family Violence Publication............... ....................................62
Trends in Category of Family Violence Research..........................................64
Trends in Behavior Associated With Family Violence Research ...........................65
Decade Reviews from The Journal of Marriage and Family............... ...............66
P o licy E x p lo ratio n ............................................................................ ................ .. 6 7
Theory ............... .................................................70
L im station s ........................................................................................ ..................... 73
Future Research Recom m endations ........................................ ....................... 75
Im plications for Practice.............. .................................................... ............... 78
Im plication s for P policy .............................. .... ...................... .. ........ .... ............79
C o n clu sio n s..................................................... ................ 8 0

APPENDIX

A CONTENT ANALYSIS CODEBOOK...... ................. ...............82

B C ITA TIO N IN D E X TA B L E ............................................................... .....................84

REFERENCES ................... ......... .. ...... ... ..................85

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E TCH ..................................................................... ..................92
















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure p

1 Changes in Frequency of Publications about Family Violence Over Time............. 51

2 Trends in Family Violence Category-Related Publication Over Time....................53

3 Trends in Publication by Abuse Behavior Over Time ..........................................54















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

THE DEVELOPMENT OF FAMILY VIOLENCE RESEARCH: A RETROSPECTIVE
ANALYSIS
By

Rachel Birmingham

May 2007

Chair: Suzanna Smith
Major: Family, Youth and Community Sciences

Our study examined the trends in family violence research literature over the past 5

decades in relation to significant public policies. Although social science research

pertaining to family violence has grown tremendously in the latter portion of the 20th

century, few studies have focused on the process of research growth and development.

Our study used a retrospective longitudinal design to identify changes in family

violence research literature over the past 5 decades, using 5 year intervals for the

collection of data. A content analysis was utilized, based on information gathered from

the titles and abstracts of 505 articles. These articles were taken from the four most

frequently cited social science research journals in the field of family studies, in the

social science citation index: The Journal ofMarriage and Family, Child Abuse and

Neglect, The Journal of Interpersonal Violence, and The Journal of Family Psychology.

Category of family violence was measured in terms of type of abuse (i.e., intimate

partner violence, child abuse, elder abuse, sibling abuse, and abuse in lesbian, gay,









bisexual and transgender relationships). Behavior in association with abuse (i.e., physical

abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, abandonment and fatality) was also

measured. Each received a numeric code for purposes of data collection. The data were

analyzed using chi-square tests to determine differences in relative representation of

family violence article classifications. Significant chi-square analyses were followed with

tests of standardized adjusted residuals to determine the nature of article representation

(i.e. over-representation or under-representation of certain areas) in greater detail.

Trends identified in this study reflected an overall increase in research publication

across all points in time after 1980, followed by a slight decline within the past 5 years.

No articles were identified in the sample before 1980. The greatest influx in research

publication from this sample occurred in the 1990s.

Across all decades, the majority of articles in this sample were on the topic of

child abuse. Only two articles were on sibling violence and abuse, and no publications

were identified on elder abuse. Regarding behaviors, sexual abuse received most

attention, with physical abuse moderately represented. Little existed on neglect,

emotional abuse, and fatality; and no articles were identified on abandonment.

Based on these findings, recommendations were made to increase research

attention to underrepresented areas. This is essential to increase the knowledge base

concerning these areas of family violence. This can enable both researchers and

practitioners to better serve vulnerable families.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Family violence is a significant social issue in the United States. Scholars report

that one in three female trauma victims, one in six pregnant women, and one in ten

primary care clinic visitors come from an abusive relationship (Fisher & Shelton, 2006).

The damage inflicted on children is pervasive as well. According to the U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services Children's Bureau (2004), a total of 851, 000 cases of

child abuse occurred in 2004. Furthermore, 1,490 children died from abuse or neglect in

the same year (elevated from 1,460 in 2003). Significant as these numbers are, the actual

occurrence of family violence may be much higher because many abusive behaviors go

undetected (Neufeld, 1996).

Contrary to popular belief, family violence is not just a problem concerning

women and children. In fact, estimates indicate that at least 200,000 men are victimized

each year (Harley, 2006). Also, the elderly are maltreated at a rate of 550,000 annually

(Thompson & Priest, 2005). The estimated annual cost in medical care to the victims of

family violence is 5 billion dollars (Harley, 2006).

The process of social science research pertaining to family violence has grown

tremendously in the latter portion of the 20th century. What began with an inquiry by a

physician and his colleagues into the physical symptoms of child abuse (Kempe,

Silverman, Steele, Droegemueller & Silver, 1962) has expanded into a field of study

dedicated to multiple forms of family violence (Gelles & Maynard, 1987). This research

has not only been descriptive, identifying forms of violence; but also explanatory,









attempting to explain the reasons behind violent and abusive behavior within families and

intimate relationships.

In addition to increased research interest, a great deal of political and social

attention has been directed to the problem of family violence. Legislation has been

developed to protect adult and child victims, and to punish perpetrators. Importantly,

political attention has resulted in the regulation and standardization of criteria that aid in

abuse identification and reporting; and in the allocation of funds for the development of

prevention and intervention programs.

Although scholarly interest in family violence has grown, there's been little

reflection or systematic analysis on how it has developed and changed. It appears from

examining the literature that the field is attending to different concerns compared to 20

years ago. However, little careful documentation confirms this, nor do we recognize gaps

in the literature that need to be addressed. This information would help us better

understand our thinking about family violence and its sub-areas. Research could further

explore our understanding of a specific aspect of family violence or of this phenomenon

more generally.

Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study was to examine the growth and development of family

violence research literature in the past 5 decades. This includes trends in research

publications, including the level of overall research interest in areas of family violence

over time. In addition, this study situated family violence research into a larger social

context by examining family violence policy development.











Definitions of Terms


Family Violence

Family violence is an umbrella term encompassing intimate partner

violence/domestic violence, child maltreatment, elder abuse, and sibling violence. Each

form of abuse will be discussed more specifically, followed by a brief description of

common behaviors associated with these forms of family violence.

Domestic Violence/ Intimate Partner Violence

Domestic violence refers to violence and abuse between intimate partners. This

category includes married and non-married, as well as heterosexual and homosexual

couples.

Child Maltreatment

Child maltreatment includes abusive or neglectful behavior toward a child by an

adult. This can include physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, and/or neglect.

Sibling Violence and Abuse

Sibling violence and abuse includes behaviors such as physical, emotional and

sexual abuse that occur between siblings.

Behavior Classifications

Physical Abuse

Physical abuse is described here as any behavior that involves unwanted or

coercive physical contact within the family. This can include behaviors such as punching,

kicking, slapping, choking, pushing, or using an object or weapon against a family

member (Wiehe, 1997).









Emotional Abuse

Emotional abuse refers to behaviors that involve harsh, derogatory and/ or

negative language or actions toward an intimate partner or family member. This behavior

is usually characterized by threatening, harassing and intimidating and causes

psychological distress to the victim. It is important to note that this behavior often occurs

in conjunction with other forms of abuse such as physical violence (Wiehe, 1997), which

makes detection difficult.

Sexual Abuse

Sexual abuse involves unwanted physical or verbal contact in a sexual manner.

Examples include: touching, fondling, unwanted exposure, and/or coercion into behaviors

such as intercourse or sodomy. Also included here is inappropriate verbal contact, or use

of sexual imagery, such as exposure to pornography. On a final note, sexual abuse also

applies in situations where the victim is ether too young or disabled and unable to consent

sexual to behavior (Wiehe, 1997).

Financial Abuse

Financial abuse will be used here in reference to behaviors such as stealing or

exploiting someone's financial assets. This usually occurs in situations where the victim

is dependent on the perpetrator, and/or is unable to manage his or her own expenses (Fern

& Younger-Lewis, 1997; Paretti & Majecen, 1991).

Neglect

Neglect can be considered any behavior that fails to provide basic needs such as

food, water, adequate clothing, shelter, nutrition, hygiene, medical care, or educational

needs. Also, lack of adequate supervision or failure to prevent harm is considered

neglectful behavior (Sneedon, 2003). Victims of neglect are usually individuals that rely









on their abuser for essential needs, such as help with activities of daily living. Thus, this

population is usually composed of children, elderly, and the disabled (Shugarman, Fries,

Wolf & Morris, 2003).

Drug Abuse/Chemical Restraint

An additional category is drug abuse, or chemical restraint; that is, using

substances to control an individual against his or her will. This tends to occur in

situations where victims are dependent on their abusers for help with activities of daily

living (Shugarman, Fries, Wolf & Morris, 2003).

Theoretical Introduction

Because the primary goal of this study was to examine the development of family

violence research literature over time, a theory would need to be one that provided a

framework for understanding the development of knowledge. Ultimately, the basic

components of Giddens' structuration theory were applied in relation to the development

of knowledge and social policy in the area of family violence. A central construct of this

theory is structuration, or the intricate and interdependent relationship between structure,

defined as informal institutions existing across time and space; and agency (also referred

to as action) consisting of individuals, groups, and masses that act within structure to

sustain and perpetuate it (Cuff, Sharrock & Francis, 1998; Giddens, 1984; Phipps, 2001).

The relationship between the two is one of high complexity, because they are dependent

on each other for the creation and perpetuation of societal norms, values, institutions, and

practices.

This relationship was applied to the process of knowledge development in the area

of family violence research and policy (as a reflection of social change). In other words,

structuration theory will be applied to examine the relationship between the growth of









family violence knowledge and the process of policy development pertaining to family

violence research, to determine if the process of structuration is present (i.e., there is a

mutually interdependent relationship between family violence research and policy).

Although no other studies have been found that apply structuration theory to

family violence literature development and social and policy change, its usefulness in

application to general processes and change has been cited (Gynnild, 2002). In addition,

research that employs the use of secondary data (such as a historical review of

publications in family violence research literature), is considered an excellent application

of structuration theory (Phipps, 2001). This theory will be discussed further in chapter 2.

Limitations

One limitation to this study was its use of archival data. That is, it depended on

various publications from different points in time, taken out of historical context for

purposes of data collection. Content of dated material has the potential to be

misinterpreted, thereby losing the author's intended meaning. One scholar notes that,

"Content analysts whose work concerns historical documents often make the mistake of

ignoring the fact that linguistic conventions are unstable over long periods of time, that

past readings could dramatically differ from contemporary ones, and that the institutions

that accounted for the documents' creation are not comparable to the ones with which the

analyst is familiar" (Krippendorf, 2004, p. 187). Thus, validity could be threatened, as

content analysis decreases confidence in the accurate description or evaluation of any

category. However, a safeguard has been built through the careful construction of a

codebook with strict criteria for the classification of data. Furthermore, contextual

differences did not threaten this study to a large degree, as the criterion used in coding

has been determined through an extensive review of the research literature. This









instrument not only decreased the likelihood of coding misinterpretation and error, but

also enabled replication of this study in the future.

Significance of Study

Researching trends within family violence literature is an important contribution to

this field of research. Not only can such an analysis provide an overview of where the

literature has gone (i.e., the various forms of family violence that have been recognized),

but can also provide information regarding areas that have been neglected. This

knowledge can help family scholars assess where the field is at this point in time, to

determine directions that will help us to better understand family violence, and to suggest

appropriate directions for interventions and policies. In addition, this study is significant

in that it used a theory that had been previously unapplied to family violence research,

thereby further testing an emerging theoretical perspective. This process supports one of

the central purposes of research, the building and testing of theory (DeVaus, 2001).














CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Family violence is a pervasive and significant social problem affecting millions of

family members of the course of their lives, often with severe and long lasting impacts

(Carter & McGoldrick, 2005; Gelles, 1997; Johnson & Ferarro, 2000). However, due to

various factors, including social norms regarding the privacy, sovereignty, and autonomy

of the family unit, family violence was a largely unrecognized issue until the latter half of

the 20th century (Straus, 1992). Many credit this change to the publication of Kempe and

colleagues' (1962) landmark work, "The Battered Child Syndrome (Gelles, 1987;

Sneedon, 2003), which provided evidence of child abuse and neglect being perpetrated by

family members. Within a decade, an influx of research was dedicated to the issue of

child maltreatment, and laws were established for reporting and protecting children

against abuse. Also during this time, an interest in other forms of abuse such as intimate

partner violence emerged; and by the mid-1970s, family violence had become recognized

as a significant social problem (Kelly, 2004). The family was no longer assumed to be the

safe haven, as previously idealized in U.S. society. Scholars began to identify and

examine many other forms of family violence, including not only child maltreatment and

domestic violence, but also elder abuse, sibling abuse, and later, violence between same-

sex partners.

This chapter first provides an overview of each category of family violence.

Included here are current definitions and classifications pertaining to the types of

perpetrators, victims, and interactions that encompass current notions of each type of









family violence. In addition, the pervasiveness and outcomes for individuals (and

families), impacted by this social problem are addressed.

Child Maltreatment

The first category that will be discussed is child maltreatment. Behaviors associated

with this form of abuse primarily include physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse,

and neglect.

Child Physical Abuse

The United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has defined

physical abuse as "physical injury (ranging from minor bruises to severe fractures or

death) as a result of punching, beating, kicking, biting, shaking, throwing, stabbing,

choking, hitting (with a hand, stick, strap, or other object), burning, or otherwise harming

a child. Such injury is considered abuse regardless of whether the caretaker intended to

hurt the child" (Department of Health and Human Services [HHS], 2004).

Similarly, researchers have defined physical abuse as encompassing behaviors such

as beating, whipping, shaking, burning, or the use of weapons to inflict harm on a child

(Hamner & Turner, 2001). Others have defined physical abuse to encompass any

"deliberate injury to a child, or willful or neglectful failure to prevent physical injury or

suffering to a child" (Sneddon, 2003, p. 238). Annually, of the estimated 851,000

children who are abused, 17% are physically abused (HHS, 2004). In 2004, there were

152,250 confirmed cases of child physical abuse (HHS, 2004). Children who are

physically abused are significantly more likely to die before age five than nonabused

children (Rosenberg, 2003). Outcomes for children who are physically abused include:

poorer interpersonal relationships, problematic behavior in adolescence and young









adulthood, and increased incidence of perpetrating physical violence (Swinford, DeMaris,

Cemkovich & Giordano, 2000).

Child Emotional/Psychological Abuse

Emotional/psychological abuse has been defined by the Department of Health and

Human Services as "a pattern of behavior that impairs a child's emotional development or

sense of self-worth" (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2). This may include

constant criticism, threats, or rejection, as well as withholding love, support, or guidance.

Similarly, researchers often describe emotional abuse as involving such behaviors

as degrading, rejecting, belittling, terrorizing, or isolating a child (Sneddon, 2003). Also,

the destruction of physical property, and the threatening or harming of a child's animals

have been discussed (Wiehe, 1997).

In 2004, there were 61,272 confirmed cases of emotional abuse reported in the

United States. In addition, emotional abuse cases represent about 6.5% of confirmed

child abuse cases (HHS, 2004). However, it is important to recognize that this statistic

may not be representative of its total occurrence, as many cases of emotional abuse occur

in conjunction with other forms of abuse.

Psychological abuse is cited as the most devastating form of child abuse (Romeo,

2000), resulting in lowered self esteem, learned helplessness, and poor social skills

(Hamner, et. al., 2001), with these impacts lasting into adulthood (Bamett, Miller-Perrin

& Perrin, 2005). Other negative outcomes resulting from emotional abuse include issues

with boundaries, trust, and general distress (Bamett, Perrin & Perrin, 2005). However,

this form of maltreatment has received little attention in the research literature. This may

be due to several factors including the only recent recognition of psychological abuse as a

problematic occurrence within families (Gondolf, Heckert, & Kimmel, 2002; Klien &









Orloff, 1999). Also, it has been asserted that co-morbidity of emotional abuse in

conjunction with other, more visible forms of abuse makes its detection difficult (Wiehe,

1997).

Child Sexual Abuse

According to The Department of Health and Human Services, "Sexual abuse

includes activities by a parent or caretaker such as fondling a child's genitals, penetration,

incest, rape, sodomy, indecent exposure, and exploitation through prostitution or the

production of pornographic materials" (HHS, 2004). In the literature, sexual abuse has

been defined as "the involvement of children and adolescents in sexual activities they do

not truly comprehend, or that they are unable to give informed consent to" (Sneddon,

2003, p.237). This can involve behaviors such as touching, fondling, petting, forced

penetration, exhibitionism (of the adult), voyeurism, or forced exposure of the child

(Wiehe, 1997).

Literature has reported that at least one in four adolescent females have been

reportedly sexually abused in some way (Zinn & Eitzen, 2005). In addition, according to

the Department of Health and Human Services, there were 84,398 confirmed cases of

child sexual abuse in 2004, which represented about 10% of confirmed child abuse cases

(HHS, 2004). Furthermore, studies show that in these cases of sexual abuse, the median

age of first occurrence is age 12 (Zinn & Eitzen, 2005). Outcomes for the victims of child

abuse include problems with self-esteem, problems with boundaries, difficulty forming

and maintaining intimate relationships, and an increased likelihood for teenage

promiscuity and adolescent pregnancy (Anda, Felitti & Marchbanks, 2001).









Child Neglect

Child neglect has been defined in federal law by The Child Abuse Prevention and

Treatment Act (2005) as "any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or

caretaker, which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, or

exploitation, or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm"

(p. 1). Also, child neglect can exist in several forms failure to provide physical needs

(i.e., food, water, clean clothing, shelter); emotional needs (love, affection, boundaries);

or educational needs (i.e., failure to enroll child in school) (Sneedon, 2003). Research

shows that neglect is most likely to occur in disorganized family settings, families of

lowered socioeconomic status, and/or in families with depressed or substance-abusing

parents in the home (Orange, 2005).

In comparison to each common form of child abuse, neglect is most commonly

reported, with a rate of 544, 050 cases in 2004, representing about 60% of all confirmed

cases. Outcomes for victims of child neglect can be devastating. In fact, in 2004 one-third

of the 1,490 child fatalities were the direct result of neglect (HHS, 2004). Furthermore, it

is more likely that a child will die as a result of chronic neglect than from a single

incident of physical violence (Berry, Charison & Dawson, 2003).

Summary

Overall, child maltreatment has been cited as the second leading cause of death

among young children (Johnson, 2002). Furthermore, research shows that the outcomes

for children can often include problems with mental health, such as depression, anxiety,

and post-traumatic stress disorder; problems with bonding and social relationships; low

self-worth; and high levels of shyness (Gracia, 1995; Romeo, 2002). Also, children who

have been abused show higher rates of suicidal ideation, attempt and completion (Zinn &









Eitzen, 2005). In addition, these children are arguably at a greater risk to perpetuate these

behaviors in their adult relationships via the intergenerational transmission of violence

(Gelles & Maynard, 1987; Noland et. al., 2004; Zinn & Eitzen, 2005).

Domestic Violence/Intimate Partner Violence

Domestic violence, also called intimate partner violence (IPV), is a form of abuse

that impacts couples that are married, dating, and cohabiting. According to the 1998

Violence Against Women Act, The term, domestic violence, includes

acts or threats of violence, not including acts of self defense, committed by a
current or former spouse of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a
child in common, by a person who is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the
victim, by a person who is or has been in a continuing social relationship of a
romantic or intimate nature with the victim, by a person similarly situated to a
spouse of the victim under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction,
or by any other person against a victim who is protected from that person's acts
under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction. (Violence Against
Women Act [VAWA], 1998)

Current definitions of domestic violence in the research literature encompass many

forms of violence including physical, psychological, sexual, and financial abuse (Fern &

Younger-Lewis, 1997). Furthermore, intimate partner violence (IPV) includes common

couple violence and intimate terrorism, also called patriarchal terrorism (Johnson &

Ferraro, 2000).

Common couple violence refers to the nature of intimate relationships that share

instances of expressive violence. That is, these violent episodes are not severe, and are

the result of a dispute (Johnson & Ferraro, 2000). This violence is typically two sided,

and does not escalate over time (Gelles & Maynard, 1987; Olson, 2004). Intimate

terrorism, on the other hand, references a specific type of relationship in which one

partner uses instrumental violence and/or abuse to maintain a level of power and control

over the other partner (Gelles & Maynard, 1987). These relationships are often









characterized by levels of severe violence, isolation, fear, and helplessness on the part of

the victim. It is important to note the distinction between these diverse forms of intimate

partner violence, as they represent two completely diverse interpersonal situations, and

have different effects (Henning & Feder, 2004). Behaviors associated with intimate

partner violence include: physical abuse, psychological abuse, sexual abuse, and financial

abuse.

IPV and Physical Abuse

According to the Center for Injury Prevention and Control (CDC), physical abuse is

defined as "the intentional use of physical force with the potential for causing death,

disability, injury, or harm. Physical violence includes, but is not limited to, scratching;

pushing; shoving; throwing; grabbing; biting; choking; shaking; slapping; punching;

burning; use of a weapon; and use of restraints or one's body, size, or strength against

another person" (Center for Disease Control [CDC], 2006, p.1).

Physical abuse has been defined in the literature in many diverse ways. These

diversified definitions are often associated with the methodological stance of the

researcher (Hegarty et. al, 2004). It is estimated that 9 million couples (one in six

marriages), experience some form of intimate partner violence. This form of violence

accounts for 20% of all cases of violence perpetrated against women (CDC, 2006).

Disparities in definitions of physical abuse have caused what some consider a gap

between various theoretical and epistemological orientations within the research field, as

well as in the practitioner community (Gelles, 1982). The problematic nature of having

such contrasting definitions and classifications across various academic and social

organizations has been cited again and again (Helie, Clement & Larrivee, 2003; Holden,

2003; Tham, Ford & Wilkenson, 1995). The lack of unified theory, research, and practice









has been identified as a significant culprit in relation to the current troubles that plague

family research and protection overall (Gelles, 1982; Shugarman, Fries, Wolf & Morris

2003).

IPV and Psychological/Emotional Abuse

The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control defines psychological abuse

as any behavior that involves "trauma to the victim caused by acts, threats of acts, or

coercive tactics. Psychological or emotional abuse can include, but is not limited to,

humiliating the victim, controlling what the victim can and cannot do, withholding

information from the victim, deliberately doing something to make the victim feel

diminished or embarrassed, isolating the victim from friends and family, and denying the

victim access to money or other basic resources. It is considered psychological/emotional

violence when there has been prior physical or sexual violence or prior threat of physical

or sexual violence" (CDC, 2006).

Psychological abuse among couples, like child psychological maltreatment, has

received significant attention over the past 15 to 20 years. When defining psychological

abuse, the literature often identifies behaviors such as degradation, manipulations,

withholding affection, and making verbal threats (Fern & Younger-Lewis, 1997). The

prevalence of this form of abuse in relationships is difficult to ascertain (Barnett, Miller-

Perrin & Perrin, 2005). Nevertheless, there are repeated findings that psychological abuse

does more long-term damage than other forms of abuse (Lewis, Griffing, Chu, et al.,

2006). In fact, female abuse victims reportedly would rather endure physical abuse than

be emotionally battered (Fern & Younger-Lewis, 1997), and some suggest an association

between the experience of emotional abuse and negative outcomes in future relationships

(Coning, 2005). Despite the documented severity of emotional abuse, it has only been









since the 1990's that legislation has recognized the threat caused by psychological

maltreatment (Klein & Orloff, 1999).

IPV and Sexual Abuse

According to The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2006), "sexual

assault can be verbal, visual, or anything that forces a person to join in unwanted sexual

contact or attention. Examples of this are voyeurism (when someone watches private

sexual acts), exhibitionism (when someone exposes him/herself in public), incest (sexual

contact between family members), and sexual harassment" (HHS, 2006).

Definitions of sexual violence in the research literature usually include some form

of unwanted advances or behavior asserted upon the victim in an intimate relationship.

Most definitions include explicit behaviors such as rape, sodomy, unwanted touching,

petting, and fondling. Other authors have gone so far as to include behaviors such as

sexual language, and exposure to pornographic material (Wiehe, 1997).

Research shows that a significant amount of sexual victimization in the U.S. occurs

within the context of a romantic partnership (Tjaden & Theonnes, 1998). Furthermore,

studies show that 10%-14% of wives have been forced into sexual activity by their

partners (Strong, Devault & Cohen, 2001). According to the Center for Disease control,

victims of sexual abuse are at an increased risk of being abused more than once. Other

negative outcomes for victims include an increased risk of contracting sexually

transmitted diseases, and a greater chance for unintended pregnancy. In fact, 32,000

pregnancies result from rape each year (CDC, 2006). Psychological outcomes for victims

of sexual abuse often include depression, suicidal ideation, eating disorders, and post-

traumatic stress disorder (CDC, 2006).









Despite statistics that cite the pervasiveness of sexual abuse, it has been widely

ignored in the literature. This lack of empirical attention has been attributed to social

norms and values regarding appropriate behavior inside of and outside of relationships

that has attributed to the acceptance of violence against women (Gelles, 1997).

IPV and Financial Abuse

An additional category of domestic abuse that is prevalent in the research is

financial abuse. This type of abuse usually entails withholding funds, stealing assets or

property, or taking anyone's financial liberties (Fern & Younger-Lewis, 1997; Peretti,

1991). Research also finds that financial abuse is highly likely to occur in situations of

domestic abuse that would be considered intimate terrorism; that is, situations where one

partner uses methods of power and control to isolate and dominate the other. Often, this

involves forced financial reliance of the subordinate partner on the dominant one.

Other Forms of Domestic Violence

This final section on domestic violence encompasses other forms of family

violence covered within the literature including domestic violence in Lesbian, Gay,

Bisexual, and Transsexual (LGBT) relationships; and domestic violence involving

pregnant women.

Domestic Violence in LGBT couples

As with heterosexual relationships, abuse in lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual

relationships includes physical, emotional, sexual and financial abuse. Although the

behaviors in this category are similar to those in general intimate partner violence, this

abuse is often undetected. One reason is that LGBT couples often do not come to the

attention of practitioners due to the ambiguous nature (lack of traditional dominant and

submissive gender roles) of power distribution within these relationships (Burke &









Owen, 2006). Issues that plague the LGBT community involve increased isolation caused

by a lack of social support over lifestyle, control under the threat of being "outed" by a

partner, and a lack of legal protection against same-sex batterers (Zinn & Eitzen, 2005).

Only within the past few decades has the incidence of abuse in LGBT couples been given

much research attention, and even so, most studies are conducted with small,

nonrepresentative samples. An estimated 32% of LGBT individuals have experienced

some form of abuse in a past relationship, and as many as one in four women in same-sex

relationships are physically abused. Also, emotional abuse is present in an estimated 83%

of LGBT relationships (Peterman & Dixon, 2003; Turell, 2000), suggesting that the

incidence of violence appears to be higher in this group than in the heterosexual

community (Burke & Owen, 2006).

Despite the apparent prevalence of abuse in LGBT relationships, little research has

been located concerning the outcomes faced by victims of abuse in LGBT relationships.

Scholars have claimed that research concerning LGBT domestic violence has a

preoccupation with gender which takes away from issues of power and control that are

central to the dynamics of these types of abusive relationships (Barnett, Miller-Perrin &

Perrin, 2005; Johnson & Ferarro, 2000; Zinn & Eitzen, 2005). That is, current theory has

devoted a great deal of attention to gender and in the process has shifted attention away

from the importance of unequal power distribution within abusive relationships.

Abuse During Pregnancy

An additional form of domestic violence involves the abuse of pregnant women.

Physical abuse has the potential to harm both mother and unborn child and in fact, is the

leading cause of birth defects and infant mortality in the U.S, (Gelles, 1997). Another

Additional risks related to abuse during pregnancy include: anxiety, stress, depression,









substance use, infections, failure to gain weight during pregnancy, and labor and delivery

complications. In addition, there is preliminary evidence that women abused during

pregnancy are more at risk for being murdered by their partner than nonpregnant abused

women (Sagrestano, 2004).

Summary

Despite variations in definition, identification, and reporting, domestic violence is

still recognized as a significant social problem. Studies have found that as many as four

women die on a daily basis at the hands of their partners (Lerner, 1997). Furthermore,

research shows that over half of the homeless population is composed of women (and

their children) who have fled a violent domestic partner (Zinn & Eitzen, 2005). More

stunning still are statistics that report that more women are treated in emergency rooms

across the United States as a result of domestic violence than are treated for muggings,

rapes, and auto accidents combined (Gelles, 1997); and that at least 1200 women are

killed by an intimate partner annually (Fisher & Shelton, 2006).

Victims of domestic violence are often severe and long-lasting negative outcomes.

Survivors of this form of abuse are reported to have higher levels of anxiety and

depression, as well as a higher incidence of chronic pain symptoms and suicide attempts

(Fisher & Shelton, 2006).

Elder Abuse

The abuse of older adults is a phenomenon that is receiving an increasing amount

of attention, possibly due to the growing elderly population (McCauley, 2006). Some

scholars anticipate that research attention will increase as the large population of Baby

Boomers continues to fill the ranks of those aged 65 and older. Also, as medical advances

over the past century have extended life expectancy, research has shifted focus to the









quality of life in the later years (Jayawardena & Liao, 2006). Existing literature often

cites instances of abuse and neglect that occur in families with lowered socioeconomic

status, and among adult child caregivers who are under an incredible amount of stress and

strain. Categories of elder abuse involve behaviors such as physical abuse, emotional

abuse, neglect, financial abuse, and drug abuse (Zinn & Eitzen, 2005).

Elder Physical Abuse

The National Center on Elder Abuse (NCEA) defines physical abuse as the use of

physical force that may result in bodily injury, physical pain, or impairment. Physical

abuse may include but is not limited to such acts of violence as striking (with or without

an object), hitting, beating, pushing, shoving, shaking, slapping, kicking, pinching, and

burning. In addition, inappropriate use of drugs and physical restraints, force-feeding, and

physical punishment of any kind also are examples of physical abuse (National Center on

Elder Abuse [NCEA], 2006).

Approximately 15% of all individuals age 65 and older have experienced physical

abuse. Furthermore, they represent 12% of all murder victims and 7% of all violent crime

victims (NCEA, 2006). Finally, older adults who are physically abused are more likely to

die at an earlier age than those who are not abused.

Elder Psychological/Emotional Abuse

The National Center on Elder Abuse defines emotional or psychological abuse as

"the infliction of anguish, pain, or distress through verbal or nonverbal acts.

Emotional/psychological abuse includes but is not limited to verbal assaults, insults,

threats, intimidation, humiliation, and harassment. In addition, treating an older person

like an infant; isolating an elderly person from his/her family, friends, or regular









activities; giving an older person the 'silent treatment;' and enforced social isolation are

examples of emotional/psychological abuse" (NCEA, 2006).

It is often reported that emotional abuse of the elderly usually is perpetrated in the

form of fear and guilt, such as fear for physical safety, or of the reoccurrence of physical

abuse (Paretti & Majecen, 1991). Also, victims of elder abuse often report guilt over

feeling as if they are a burden to their own children. Approximately 7.3% of elderly

individuals are victims of emotional abuse. Outcomes for victims of emotional

maltreatment are very difficult to distinguish. The most common result seems to be

depression. However, according to the National Center on Elder Abuse, little is known

about the degree to which abuse impacts the emotional state of abused elderly individuals

(NCEA, 2006).

Elder Financial Abuse

The NCEA (2006) defines financial or material exploitation as "the illegal or

improper use of an elder's funds, property, or assets. Examples include, but are not

limited to, cashing an elderly person's checks without authorization or permission;

forging an older person's signature; misusing or stealing an older person's money or

possessions; coercing or deceiving an older person into signing any document (e.g.,

contracts or will); and the improper use of conservatorship, guardianship, or power of

attorney" (The Basics, 6).

Loss of income, assets, and financial independence is a significant concern to older

adults today. Research often defines financial abuse through general behaviors

perpetrated against the elderly, such as stealing, withholding money, misleading,

removing financial assets, or failing to provide means of living (Barnett, Miller-Perrin &

Perrin, 2005). Reports have indicated that 12% of the elderly have been financially









exploited (NCEA, 2006). Once again, this population is highly vulnerable to such

behaviors when they rely on others for assistance with activities of daily living. Also,

discrimination based on age can prove problematic for those older adults who attempt to

fight for their rights, as they may not be taken seriously (Pedrick-Comell & Gelles,

1982).

Elder Neglect

Neglect is defined by the National Center on Elder Abuse as "the refusal or failure

to fulfill any part of a person's obligations or duties to an elder. Neglect may also include

failure of a person who has fiduciary responsibilities to provide care for an elder (e.g.,

pay for necessary home care services) or the failure on the part of an in-home service

provider to provide necessary care" (The Basics, 4).

Scholars often include behaviors such as failing to provide safe and clean living

conditions and medical care to those in need. The prevalence of elder neglect is quite

striking, with 58.5% of confirmed elder abuse cases being classified as neglect. However,

it is also reported that as many as 84% of abuse incidents are unreported and undetected

(NCEA, 2006). Also, individuals over the age of 80 are neglected at a rate two to three

times that of all other older adults. Outcomes can include malnutrition, dehydration,

bedsores, hazardous or unclean living conditions, and many negative health outcomes

(NCEA, 2006).

Elder Drug Abuse/Chemical Restraint

A fairly new category of elder abuse that has emerged to some extent within the

literature is drug abuse, as perpetrated by a caregiver for the purpose of controlling or

abusing the elder. Specifically, this refers to behaviors such as withholding needed

medications, whether for current medical conditions or pain control, as a form of









punishment; threatening the withholding of medication; or using medication as a tool for

bribery. On the other hand, providing an excessive amount of medication also constitutes

drug abuse (i.e., using medications or medication dosages above the needed amount as a

resource to control the elderly person). Little is known regarding the pervasiveness or

outcomes associated with elder drug abuse.

Summary

Current statistics reveal that each year in the U.S. over 450,000 elderly persons are

abused or maltreated in some way (Jogerst, Brody, Dyer & Arias, 2004; Rothman &

Duntop, 2001). Although the popular image of elder abuse is usually composed of

medical practitioners and caregivers who use cruel and abusive or neglectful tactics

against the helpless nursing home patient, this is usually not the case. That is, research

consistently has shown that the majority of elder abuse takes place within the family

(McCauley, 2006). Overall, the incidence of elder abuse is significant and severe. It has

been classified as a form of family violence because research reflects that most

incidences of maltreatment occur within the home where the perpetrators are overworked,

highly stressed, usually female, and the children of the person in need. It is reported that

victims of elder abuse face higher levels of depression, increased risk of injury and

fracture, and greater incidence of malnutrition, dementia, and death (Levine, 2003). As

elder abuse is an emerging area of family violence research, much still needs to be done

in relation to research, prevention, and intervention of this social problem (Jayawardena

& Liao, 2006).

Sibling Abuse

Scholars have repeatedly stated that sibling abuse the most pervasive form of

family violence (Gelles, 1997; Noland, Liller, McDermott & Coulter, 2004; Wiehe,









2002). Overall, the incidence of sibling abuse is quite high. Reports indicate that nearly

60% of individuals have reported experiencing abuse at the hands of a sibling at some

time during childhood (Noland, et al., 2004). Sibling abuse appears to occur most often in

homes that are of lower socioeconomic status and with single parents who are often

absent. Reportedly, the majority of sibling abuse occurs in the context of babysitting

(while a parent is often working). The result is often one sibling being left with

responsibilities that exceed their developmental level (Wiehe, 1997).

Behaviors that are typically classified as abusive include physical abuse, emotional

abuse, and sexual abuse. Yet, due a lack of research attention to this topic and recognition

of sibling abuse as a social problem, no legal definitions were located pertaining to forms

of sibling abuse.

Sibling Physical Abuse

Physical abuse among siblings includes actions such as punching, kicking, choking,

using weapons, or any other behavior acted out with the intent of causing physical harm.

Physical violence is typically the more visible form of abuse, and is most likely to receive

public attention. Gelles (1997) reports that between 63% and 68% of all siblings engage

in violent behaviors against each other. Another study reveals that 85% of males and 95%

of females report that they have been the victim of aggression from a sibling (Barnett,

Miller-Perrin & Perrin, 2005). Outcomes for victims of sibling physical abuse are usually

negative. Not only does this maltreatment often result in physical harm, but the lack of

recognition and intervention often results in invalidation of the victim's experiences

(Wiehe, 2002).









Sibling Emotional/Psychological Abuse

Behaviors that are emotionally abusive include excessive teasing, degrading,

threatening, exacerbating a fear, and destroying personal property. This form of sibling

abuse is considered to be the most pervasive (Wiehe, 1997). However, as is the case with

many other forms of abuse, little information exists regarding the incidence of emotional

abuse. This is due to the difficulty in detection of psychological abuse, perhaps as a result

of the normalization of this form of abuse between siblings; or as a result of its

occurrence in conjunction with other, more visible forms of abuse (Haskins, 2003;

Wiehe, 2002).

Research shows that emotional abuse among siblings has similar impacts on

growth, development, and the maintenance of social relationships as emotional abuse

between other family members (i.e., among couples, between the elderly and caregiver,

and parent to child). However, these behaviors are often overlooked or masked as simple

teasing among siblings. Also, research shows that the co-morbidity of emotional and

physical abuse that occurs in nearly every form of family violence is present here as well.

Outcomes for victims of sibling emotional abuse suffer from lowered self-esteem and

trust issues (Wiehe, 1997).

Sibling Sexual Abuse

Sexually abusive behaviors include unwanted touching, fondling, forced or coerced

penetration of any form, exploitation, exposure, and voyeurism of a sibling (Wiehe,

1997). This form of abuse among siblings is very difficult to detect, and is rarely

reported. Therefore, little statistical information is available regarding the incidence of

this form of abuse. This lack of information has been attributed to the taboo nature of

incest and other forms of sexual exploitation within the family (Wiehe, 1997). In fact, it









is argued that because of the unmentionable nature of sexual abuse, especially among

family members, identifying victims of this behavior becomes very difficult (Haskins,

2002; Wiehe, 1997). Not only is there insufficient attention to sibling sexual abuse in the

practitioners' realm, but there is also a lack of theory in the research arena. That is, the

focus of theory (and thus, research), has been on dealing with only father-daughter

offenses (Haskins, 2003). Very little literature addresses the abuse of one child by

another child. Some believe this to be another reflection of social biases in our desire to

not label any child as a perpetrator (Wiehe, 1997).

Outcomes

Outcomes for the victims of sibling violence are long-lasting and severe. Studies

reflect difficulties faced by survivors of sibling abuse, including problems with conflict

resolution in future relationships, lower self-esteem, and problems with deviance and

criminal activity (Reese-Weber & Kahn, 2005; Rowe, Rodgers & Meseck-Bushey, 1992).

The emotional distress of surviving this abuse is often compounded by the lack of

attention and validation of victims' experiences by society (Wiehe, 1997). Also,

outcomes for siblings who perpetrate violence are negative. Behaviors associated with

violent sibling interaction include alcohol and drug abuse, violent criminal activity,

depression, spousal abuse, neglectful and abusive parenting styles, and increased risk of

suicide (Trenblay et al., 2004).

Summary

Awareness concerning the high incidence of sibling abuse is crucial, as research

has repeatedly shown the importance of siblings in child and adolescent development, as

well as the influence of sibling experiences on peer relationships, dating and adult

intimacy (Howe, Rinalidi, Jennings & Petrakos, 2002). However, despite this evidence,









sibling abuse is one of the least researched forms of family violence. This has been

attributed to attitudes of the normalization of abusive behavior among siblings (Wiehe,

2002). Also, scholars have attributed the lack of attention to sibling abuse to the lack of

knowledge concerning its occurrence within the family unit.

Policy Overview

Historical evidence indicates that the types of violence reviewed above have been

part of U.S. society for centuries (Ohlin & Tonry, 1989). However, it wasn't until the

latter half of the 2lst century that family violence was not recognized as a social problem

(Gelles, 1997), and laws and policies addressing this problem did not emerge until the

1970s or later. In fact, before the 1970's family violence was seen as a private problem,

in which the government should have no involvement (Lemon, 1999). Furthermore,

because laws of the time supported the Family Privacy Doctrine, all cases of abuse

within the family, except for homicide, grievous assault and incest, were excluded from

legal intervention (Zimering, 1989). Intimate partner violence and marital rape were

ignored as well. In fact, the normative procedure in law enforcement was to discourage

arrest in situations of domestic violence if officers thought that the victim would not

leave the relationship (Lemon, 1999). However, as social perceptions began to change

with the recognition of "The Battered Child Syndrome" states began to develop child

protection laws. By the 1980's, mandatory reporting and abuse shelters were made

available to victims of domestic violence (Zimering, 1989).

More recently, the legal system has taken other, less visible, forms of family

violence into consideration. This includes interpreting forcible sex within marriage as

rape, considering parental kidnapping as a criminal offense, and recognizing









psychological damage caused to children who witness domestic abuse between parents

(Lemon, 1999).

Nevertheless, policy continues to neglect certain areas of family violence, such as

sibling violence and violence in LGBT couples (Wiehe, 1997; Zinn & Eitzen, 2005). The

lack of protection and intervention in these areas may be due to the lack of social

awareness and understanding of these forms of family violence (Wiehe, 1997; Zinn &

Eitzen, 2005).

Significant Policies in Relation to Family Violence

* Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA)(1974) The Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act established the National Center on Child Abuse and
Neglect, as well as the National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect
Information. Also, it provided assistance for individual states to build child abuse
and neglect identification and prevention programs and increased the role of federal
government in child abuse detection, prevention and treatment. CAPTA also
provided grant money for research, program evaluation, and the training of
professional workers in the area of outreach and prevention. CAPTA was amended
in the following years: 1978, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, and 2003.

* Indian Child Welfare Act (1978) The Indian Child Welfare Act awards the
control of adoption and custody of Native American children to tribal members.
This autonomy takes precedence over any state law that may conflict with the
interests of the tribe.

* CAPTA Revised (1978) The Adoption Reform Act added to CAPTA to include
issues surrounding adoptions. This included locating permanent homes for disabled
children, establishing better standards for adoptive placement, and provided for
annual summaries of research on child abuse and neglect.

* Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (1980) The Adoption Assistance
and Child Welfare Act established the reunification families as the primary goal of
child protective services. Included here are goals of increasing and improving
services available to children and their families, and establishing permanency as
early as possible through reuniting children with their family or through adoption.

* Social Security Act Amendments (1981) Block grants are provided to states for
the funding of child protective services.

* CAPTA Revised (1984) Revisions to CAPTA provide for attention to medically
disabled infants, and for the reporting of maltreatment by caregivers out of the









home. Also, a change in the definition of child sexual abuse to include exploitation
was established.

* CAPTA Revised (1988) CAPTA became Child Abuse Prevention, Adoption and
Family Services Act, which provided assistance to states in order to improve their
child protective programs.

* CAPTA Revised (1992) CAPTA was amended and reauthorized by the Child
Abuse, Domestic Violence, Adoption, and Family Services Act. This act provides
assistance to the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect under the
requirement that more research be conducted focusing on cultural diversity and
child abuse and neglect. Also, provides grants to state community-based prevention
programs.

* Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) (1994) The Violence Against Women
Act established a response to domestic violence and the sexual assault of women.
Also, laws establishing protective services (such as the enforcement of interstate
protective orders) were enacted. In addition, focus was given to battered
immigrants, and support for various forms of community outreach programs was
expressed.

* Sex Crimes Against Children Prevention Act (1995) The Sex Crimes Against
Children Prevention Act strengthens the penalty for the pornographic exploitation
of children. This applies to those who create, advertise or traffic child pornography.

* CAPTA Revised (1996) CAPTA amended to include services for children of
families who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.

* Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Act (1999) The Child Abuse
Prevention and Enforcement Act was established to increase efforts to achieve
permanence for foster children. This law requires that efforts be made to locate
permanent homes for children who cannot be placed back in the home, and
provides incentives for increasing number of adoptions. This law also takes
emphasis off of the importance of family reunification, and instead focuses on
establishing permanency for the child.

* Older Americans Act Amendments (OAA) (2000) The OAA of 2000
established the National Family Caregiver Support Program. State grants were also
awarded for the development of organizations to provide services for the families
that care for older adults.

* VAWA Revisions (2000) Amendments were made to the violence against women
act, which identified stalking and dating violence to be included in crimes against
women. Also, increased attention was given to the protection of battered
immigrants and sexual assault. This bill also created a legal services program for
the victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.









* CAPTA Revised (2003) CAPTA was last amended by the Keeping Children and
Families Safe Act, which provided community-based grants for the prevention of
child abuse and neglect.

* Domestic Violence Screening and Prevention Act (2003) The Domestic
Violence Screening and Prevention Act established research centers on family
violence (which will encompass research on child, domestic, and elder abuse).
Also, this bill provides funding for the training of healthcare professionals on how
to identify and treat forms of family violence. In addition, this bill establishes that
all Medicaid recipients and all federal employees receive family violence screening
and treatment through their insurance plans.

Decade in Review from the Journal of Marriage and Family

One of the most cited journals in the field of family studies is the Journal of

Marriage and Family. It has been published for over 60 years and continues to be one of

the most widely cited journals in the area of family research. In addition to addressing

concerns pertaining to many areas of family life, this journal also provides decade

reviews on family-related topics dating back to the 1960s. A brief summary of each

decade review in relation to family violence had been provided here in attempt

understand what was considered noteworthy during each ten year period included in this

research.

Prior to the 1960s, the Journal ofMarriage and Family existed under another name

(Marriage andFamily Living), and did not produce decade reviews. Although many

articles focused on issues concerning family relations, violence in the family was not

addressed. Instead, conflict in relationships was discussed in terms of power structure

within the family (Safilos-Rothschild, 1970). The first decade review was published in

November 1970, and reviewed research of the 1960s.

The Decade of the 1960s

No articles featured in the decade review of the 1960s addressed the issue of family

violence. Instead, research activity, as cited from other articles in the decade review, will









be discussed here. In addition, potential reasons behind the lack of family violence

research attention in this decade will be discussed. Research that was published in the

1960s took a clinical perspective, focusing only on medical evidence pertaining to the

occurrence of family violence. As previously mentioned, this attention is often accredited

to the publication of the Kempe et. al.,(1962) study, which identified the physical signs

and medical symptoms of child abuse.

Through an examination of article titles and abstracts within this JMF decade

review, it was determined that domestic violence was not a topic of interest, nor were

forms of family violence other than child physical abuse. Although, there was recognition

of psychological impacts of growing up in a 'broken home', family violence was not

addressed. This may be due to the fact that a broken home was often characterized as a

result of the following classifications: death of mother, death offather, death of both

parents, divorce, separation and other (Kaplan & Pokorny, 1971), i.e., a change in family

structure.

During this time period, family violence was seen as an isolated issue, with

pathological factors (such as mental illness) behind the perpetration of abuse (Gelles,

1985). In fact, the existing research often labeled the abuser as being psychopathic or

sociopathic. Little was discussed regarding reasons associated with family violence. Most

of the research that did exist focused on possible reasons for the assertion of power and

authority within the family, and did not question that the legitimacy of that power

belonged to men. Researchers did not identify factors related to family violence that need

greater scholarly attention in the future (Rothschild, 1970).









The Decade of the 1970s

The 1970's review focused more attention on family violence, and the article on

this topic recognized violence against both women and children as a social problem

(Gelles, 1980). Reasons for this recognition were social in nature, and the following

assertions were made,

first, social scientists and the public alike became increasingly sensitive to violence
due to a war in Southeast Asia, assassinations, civil disturbances and increasing
homicide rates in the 1960s. Second, the emergence of the women's movement
played a part-especially by uncovering and highlighting the problems of battered
women (Straus, 1974, p.874).

According to the review, a central focus of research during this decade was on

determining the nature and extent of violence within the family. For instance, a good

portion of studies published during this decade focused on determining how often acts of

abuse occurred within the family.

Also, during this time theories that focused on explanatory factors behind family

violence emerged. These theories included: resource theory, the ecological perspective,

systems theory, evolutionary theory, and concepts in relation to patriarchy and wife abuse

(Gelles, 1980).

Potential factors related to family violence occurrence were identified, such as low

socioeconomic status, stress and isolation (Gelles, 1985). Greater attention was also given

to the need to develop research methodologies for the study of family violence (Gelles,

1985). Prior to this time, conducting research on violence in the family was considered

impossible, as most research designs were not applicable (i.e., researchers could not

predict or control for the occurrence of abuse).

Areas identified as needing attention in the field were primarily for the

development of methodology to assist in better understanding the scope and dynamics of









family violence. Also, the development of theory was identified as needed to overcome

society's reliance on stereotyping and myths concerning violence within the family

(Gelles, 1980).

The Decade of the 1980s

According to research in family violence during the 1980s, attention was awarded

to causes and outcomes of family violence. Included in the outcomes was a focus on the

psychological implications of victimization. In addition, the classification of family

violence into various categories was refined to include intimate partner violence, child

abuse, elder abuse, and courtship violence (Gelles & Conte, 1990). The sexual abuse of

children was also heavily researched and discussed during this decade. A great deal of

emphasis was placed on the causes, incidence and consequences of child sexual abuse.

The strongest theoretical representation during this time period was on the

intergenerational transmission of violence (a concept often associated with social learning

theory). Also, a small number of studies dedicated to program evaluation emerged with

the purpose of better understanding the effectiveness of intervention. At the close of this

decade, areas identified as having a need for future attention were theory, methodology

(specifically, a need for longitudinal studies on family violence), and the need to examine

the co-morbidity of abuse forms within the family (Gelles & Conte, 1990).

The Decade of the 1990s

The decade review article on family violence (Johnson & Ferraro, 2000) observed

that research in the 1990s focused on classification of family violence abuse forms with

more refined definitions and greater inclusion. Forms of intimate partner violence, such

as common couple violence and intimate terrorism were identified. In addition, violence

impacting specific groups such as cohabiting couples, immigrants, the homeless, and









lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual couples was addressed. During the 1990s a greater

focus was placed on the occurrence of family violence throughout the world, and the

threat to basic human rights family violence causes (Johnson & Ferraro, 2000).

In relation to theory, a great deal of focus on power and control in abusive

relationships was present in the literature. This was part in conjunction with a growing

dissatisfaction with the reliance on intergenerational transmission as the primary model

of family violence. Finally, research began to address negative implications of witnessing

violence in the home (Johnson & Ferraro, 2000).

At the end of the decade, the primary area identified as needing increased attention

was the development of theories to account for the various forms of family violence.

Also, there was a call for greater precision in distinctions within data produced, in order

to promote public awareness and policy development. The next decade review will take

place in November of the year 2010.

Theory Overview

This research examined the overall growth and development of published family

violence research over the past 5 decades. Because my research explores the emergence

of research and policy regarding family violence, theoretical foundations may best be

found in theories of knowledge development (rather than family violence per se). Yet, it

appears that few theories of knowledge development exist (Ylikoski, 2004).

This is not to say that no general epistemological frameworks exist. In fact,

schools of thought such as the Strong Programme have focused a great deal of attention

to the development of scientific knowledge (Thagard, 1994). Social scientists adhering to

this school of thought argue that human knowledge is formed within, and is influenced

by, the social context through which it is derived. Considerable attention (both positive









and negative), has been directed at the Strong Programme. For example, it has been

asserted that the reliance on pure social explanations for the generation of knowledge

ignores the role of reason, rationality, and logic in the development of science (Slezak,

1991).

Another relevant area of study pertaining to the development of knowledge has

been labeled sociological meta-theory (also referred to as reflexive sociology, or the

sociology of sociology) (Yukoski, 2004). Thinkers who adhere to this framework are

concerned with examining the development of sociological theory and epistemology over

time (Ritzer, 1988). Scholars have maintained that the process of meta-theoretical

analysis has been present and crucial since before the inception of sociology as its own

science. Such scholars who adhere to this orientation often point to the importance of the

process of theoretical and philosophical thought in relation to such works as that of Marx

on Hegel, or Parsons on Durkheim, Weber, and Pareto (Ritzier, 1988). Others, however,

consider meta-theoretical analysis to be "bogged down in philosophy" and argue that this

can prevent social science progress through hindering the development and strengthening

of new theoretical frameworks (Ritzer, 1988).

This research sought to examine the development of social science research

focusing on family violence. The various and emerging categories of family violence

have been, arguably, related to the theoretical and epistemological thought of the time.

For instance, before Kempe's publication on the battered child syndrome, little attention

or questioning was given to safety of children in the home (Gelles, 1987). The

importance of the theoretical and epistemological framework can also be referenced with

social movements such as the rise in the feminist ideology and the identification of









violence against women as a problematic social issue; or the prevalence of conflict

theory-oriented reasoning in the development of the power and control model of

explaining domestic violence (Ingoldsby, Smith & Miller, 2004). Finally, newer

theoretical developments, such as those under the umbrella of postmodernist

epistemology, have been tied to the recent (within the past 15 years) surge of literature

pertaining to racial, ethnic, and sexual orientation in relation to family violence (Mills,

1996). It can be asserted that all examples are situations in which theoretical and

sociohistorical shifts have influenced the types of questions social science researchers

have asked, and the knowledge they have derived.

Various theories have been applied in attempts to answer pressing questions asked

about family violence. These theories seem to fall into one of the three following

categories: intrapersonal, interpersonal, and cultural (Eckhardt & Dye, 2000). Earlier

studies pertaining to family violence often took an intrapersonal perspective, focusing on

the individual (Eckhardt & Dye, 2000). This is due, at least in part, to the medical

grounds on which this social problem was first defined. However, as the field progressed,

more studies emerged that took on a more interpersonal perspective. Some of these

prominent theories were social learning theory, conflict theory, and feminist theory.

The first of these, social learning theory, is one of the most widely used theories of

family violence. The widespread recognition of this perspective came about as a result of

the development and use of the intergenerational transmission of violence model. This

model focuses on the interactions within the family, and the transmission of certain

abusive behaviors from parent to child through experience, observation and modeling

(Hoffman & Edwards, 2004). Another theory that grew in popularity was conflict theory,









which focused on the unequal distribution of, and the constant struggle for power and

control within relationships (Hoffman & Edwards, 2004; Van Wormer & Bednar, 2002).

Feminist theory, which focuses on gender and patriarchal norms, has become prevalent in

family violence literature (Hoffman & Edwards, 2004). That is, this theory focuses a

great deal on how gender and gender roles impact power distribution and experiences

within relationships. All three theories tend to share a focus on interpersonal relationships

when applied to family violence.

However, certain scholars claim that by focusing only on the interactions between

family members, important sociocultural influences are missed (Mills, 1996). This is not

to say that existing theories do not take cultural and environmental influences into

consideration. In fact, theories such as family stress and family systems theory take both

interpersonal and environmental characteristics into account. Multi-level perspectives

concerning the causes and consequences of family violence have also been utilized

(Eckhardt & Dye, 2000; Mills, 1996). Finally, newer theories such as the ecological

model, which takes a multilevel approach to family violence in society, are being used

more and more. This is partially due to the recognition of the usefulness of a multilevel

approach to family violence, as opposed to specific individual or interactional

perspectives (Mills, 1996).

An overview of the literature pertaining to family violence research has been very

beneficial. However, there are patterns within the literature that need to be addressed.

First, as previously stated, there seems to be a great deal of debate within the field

pertaining to definitions and taxonomy of abuse within the family. Furthermore, there

also seems to be a mutual agreement within the literature that certain forms of abuse have









been neglected within the field. However, it has been very difficult to locate adequate

statistics about the amount of neglect that is occurring among the various areas of family

violence research. Instead, what can be found is a cycle of reference. That is, repeated

assertions of neglect within the research, followed by recurring (often circular),

referencing of others making the same claim. This is a phenomenon that is not

uncommon within social science research, and is what Straus and Gelles refer to as a

Deterministic Truism. That is, certain assertions, often ones that appear logical in nature,

become so widely accepted within a field, that they often become referenced as concrete

fact (s & Gelles, 1995). This is not to claim that there is no validity to the assertions made

by scholars in these situations. However, this study aimed to avoid making similar

assertions, and focused only on evidence present within the examined trends.

This study utilized Giddens' Structuration Theory (Giddens, 1984). The theory's

basic concepts focus on the relationship between agency (action) and structure. Structure

usually entails informal institutions that are relatively stable across time and space.

Agency usually consists of individuals, groups, and masses that act within structure to

sustain and perpetuate it. Giddens asserts that structure needs agency to exist just as

agency needs structure. He terms this effect, the duality of structure and the process as

structuration (Cuff, Sharrock & Fracis, 1998). Furthermore, structure is said to both

enable and constrain agency. That is, through the rules and values of structure we come

by assets that enable us to pursue our own goals (these can be tangible like wealth or

intangible like social status). It is also important to note that structure is often composed

of the social norms and values of a given time, and can be changed (over time) by the

agents who actively reproduce structure.









According to Giddens,

social practices are not random and purely voluntaristic, but ordered and stable
across space and time, in short they are routinized and recursive. In producing
social practices, which make up the visible patterns which constitute society, actors
draw upon 'structural properties' (rules and resources) which are themselves
institutionalized features of societies. Structure is therefore activity-dependent. It is
both the medium and outcome of a process of' Structuration' the production and
reproduction of practices across time and space. This process is what Giddens has
called the 'double hermeneutic', the double involvement of individuals and
institutions. Put perhaps more truistically: 'we create society at the same time as we
are created by it."(Giddens, 1984, p.14, Rose, 1998, p. 6).

This thesis involved structuration theory's component of structuration.

Specifically, the study explored organized forms of agency that adhere to shared rules

and constraints, in order to reach some common goal. For purposes of this thesis, the

relationship between social science research and policy were examined as a social

process, adhering to the same developmental constraints and allowances as any other

social institution, which can be exemplified as a process of structuration.

The relationship that exists between family violence research and policy has been

discussed elsewhere, and the following was stated: "The production of sociological

research depends on the interplay between the main currents of the broader culture and

social structure, and the main currents of research" (Straus, 1992, p. 20). That is, much

like Giddens' idea of agency, social science research acts within the set of cultural norms,

values and rules. Also, research often depends on existing institutions (i.e. structure) for

tools and assets needed to function (i.e., funding and publication). Through this process,

research is done; and ideally, theory is built and changed, publication (a structural tool) is

accomplished, and communication of knowledge within society persists. Also, this

research in turn, is often relied upon heavily by policy-makers when determining









legislative action; thus, exemplifying the mutually interdependent relationship between

these processes.

Within family violence research, this process has been cited again and again,

although not in the context of structuration theory. For instance, many publications have

alluded to the influence that research publication and academic communication has had

on social movement and policy development (Miller & Mullins, 2002). Furthermore,

many meta-analytical studies point to the process of scientific questioning, and

specifically, the events and structures that determine which questions are deemed

acceptable to ask (Yukoski, 2004). Such an example can be seen in the recent literature

pertaining to violence against women. That is, the act of defining violence against women

as a social problem has influenced the types of questions, as well as the amount of

questioning scholars designate to the topic (Kelly, 2004; Klien & Orloff, 1999; Zinn &

Eitzen, 2005). Another example within family violence research can be found in the

realm of domestic violence research pertaining to gay and lesbian relationships. It was

not until postmodern trends in society (including trends in research) began to change

definitions of family, that battery within same-sex couples was given attention (Zinn &

Eitzen, 2005).

Thus, keeping in mind assertions regarding the continuous interplay between

agency and structure (in this case, family violence research development and policy), the

goal of this research was to examine the progression of our collective knowledge

pertaining to family violence. This was attempted through an examination of trends

within research publications over the past 60 years in conjunction with social movements

and policy changes during this time period. By incorporating an analysis of publication









frequency and type in relation to public policy development, it may also be possible to

gain a better understanding regarding the process of structuration of the field of family

violence research.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

Q1. What are the trends in the family violence literature within the past 60 years?

Q1. 1. What is the relative representation of each area of family violence in the family
research literature at selected points in time?

Hlo: There will be no significant differences in the relative representations of categories
of family violence in the family research literature at selected points in time.

Hla: There will be significant differences in the relative representations of categories of
family violence in the family research literature at selected points in time.

Q2: What are the trends in policy related publications pertaining to family violence
within the past 60 years?

Q2.1 What is the relative representation of policy related articles to all articles on family
violence at selected points in time?

H2o: There will be no significant differences in the relative representation of policy-
related journal articles pertaining to family violence in the family research literature at
selected points in time.

H2a: There will be significant differences in the relative representation of policy-related
journal articles pertaining to family violence in the family research literature at selected
points in time.

Q3: Will there be changes in the number of published articles on family violence during
times of greater public policy activity?

H3o: There will be no significant differences in the number of publications of family
violence-related journal articles in times of greater public policy activity.

H3a: There will be significant differences in the number of publications of family
violence-related journal articles in times of greater public policy activity.

Conclusions

Various forms of family violence covered in scholarly publications, practice and

policy were discussed in this chapter. Forms of family violence discussed include:






42


intimate partner violence, child abuse, sibling violence and abuse, elder abuse, and

violence within LGBT couples. Behaviors identified within these categories are: physical

abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, financial abuse, drug abuse, and neglect. Common

theories used in family violence research were also discussed, as well as the applicability

of structuration theory to the field of family violence research. Finally, changes in policy

pertaining to family violence were also addressed, including shifts in social norms and

the increasing recognition of various forms of family violence as a social problem.














CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

Research Design

The central purpose of this study was to describe the historical trends in social

science literature pertaining to family violence in the past 5 decades by examining the

published literature for the appearance of articles on the major categories of family

violence during this time frame. An additional purpose was to situate trends in family

violence research within the context of a changing society by observing the appearance of

articles pertaining to family violence policies. Taking the temporal component required in

evaluating change into consideration, this study implemented a retrospective longitudinal

research design, using archival data. This type of research design lends itself to studies

that involve rebuilding past events and allowed the researcher to process data in a

sequential and temporal pattern. A final aim of this project was to provide a springboard

for discussions pertaining to the future development of the field of family violence

research.

This study may be considered descriptive rather than explanatory. Although this

type of research is considered by many to be somewhat less desirable than explanatory

research (Timmer, 1997), it is also necessary in developing research on understudied

topics. That is, descriptive research provides an essential basis for future scientific

inquiry.

Because this design was retrospective, many of the common issues surrounding

longitudinal design, such as variance in instrumentation or variance in measurement over









time, did not pose a threat (DeVaus, 2004). Furthermore, the use of archival data reduced

many of the problematic effects related to following human participants over time, such

as individual dropout or panel attrition (DeVaus, 2004). Thus, this form of research

design was useful in this type of study, as it enabled the review of various documents

published over a long period of time and from various sources. In addition to the benefits

listed above, a retrospective longitudinal study was convenient in that it lent itself well to

the application of structuration theory to family violence research. That is, the analysis of

data from various periods of time prepared the researcher to describe contextually

situated scientific progress and processes in the evolution of this field of research.

Data Collection

Sample Selection

This research utilized a non-probabilistic or purposive sample, focusing on a

selection of articles pertaining to family violence research published in selected journals.

The sampling frame consisted of 505 family violence-related journal articles published in

selected social science journals in the United States during the past 5 decades. An

exclusive focus on journals pertaining only to family violence was not possible for

several reasons. First, there are few in existence, and the goal was not to examine trends

in family violence journals but rather, to describe trends in the content of articles in the

field overall. Also, some of the journals that are currently publishing articles on family

violence were not established during the early portion of the study frame time, and

selecting only these journals would not adequately represent changes in the field over

time.

The Social Science Citation Index









Four family journals were identified based on the frequency of publications

appearing in the Social Science Citation Index. This search engine provides researchers

with information concerning bibliographic information, abstract information, and journal

citation information from a current or retrospective point of view across various

disciplines (Thomson Scientific, 2007).

For this study, a search was conducted that limited results to journals in family

studies only, and provided a list of research journals in ranked order based on the total

number of annual citations of articles appearing in that journal. This enabled the

researcher to identify the four most frequently cited journals in the field of family studies.

These journals were: The Journal ofMarriage and Family, with 4211 citations, Child

Abuse and Neglect, with 3141 citations, The Journal ofInterpersonal Violence, with

1572 citations, and The Journal of Family Psychology, with 1263 articles.

Procedure

From these journals, the researcher selected all articles published on family

violence over the past 5 decades for inclusion in the study. From the four most frequently

cited journals, all family violence articles were identified through an examination of all

volumes and issues published in selected years. A content analysis was conducted based

on the content of the title, content of the abstract, and year of publication. This

information was collected beginning with the most recent journals in the selected time

frame (2005) and traced back to the earliest publication in the year 1960 (for pre-existing

journals), or the earliest publication of the journal (as many of the used journals were not

in existence in the 1950s). The year 1960 was chosen because it dated before the

publication of the landmark 1962 study of child maltreatment, by C. Kempe.









Five-year markers (i.e. 2005, 2000, 1995, 1990, 1985, etc.) were chosen for

purposes of data collection. These dates allowed for the collection of a sample of articles

over the designated time period in a time frame that was suitable for this study. Also,

using 5 year intervals within each decade enabled the examination of trends in relation to

significant policy developments throughout this time period. That is, sampling in 5 year

intervals allowed for the examination of increases or declines in article publications in

time periods both before and after development of subject-significant policies (i.e.,

policies pertaining to the same subject matter as research publication).

Content Analysis

Content analysis has been found to be particularly useful in research that tracks

categories and frequencies over time and in situations where groups are difficult to access

(Bryman, 2004). It has been described in many ways, and can involve diverse approaches

and practices. This method has been credited with an ability to apply an objective and

systematic method of analysis to data that are more qualitative and abstract in nature

(Berelson, 1952; Bryman, 2004; Holsti, 1969). In this situation, the manifest content of

communication was applied to the titles and abstracts of selected article publications.

A significant weakness of content analysis resides in what some claim to be its

theoretical nature. According to Bryman (2004), this is due to the ease with which data

can be systematically measured, making it an objective method that does not require

strong theoretical support. However, in this situation, the very purpose of the content

analysis was to provide a systematic method of showing process over time, thereby

alleviating concern about theory. That is, this research aims to build structuration theory

by utilizing it in a new area.









Instrument for Family Violence Content in the Literature

No instruments have previously been created to examine the content of family

violence articles in such a way that could be applied to this study. Therefore, an

instrument was created for purposes of data collection.

A content analysis codebook was created and used to count and classify articles on

family violence. However, as discussed in Chapter Two, the operationalization of the

abstract term, family violence, proved to be difficult. Therefore, an extensive review of

the literature was conducted to ensure adequate construct validity of this instrument.

Members of the researcher's committee further ensured face validity and proper

categorization regarding forms of family violence during the process of data collection by

reviewing and recommending.

This instrument was used to analyze each selected article and the results were

compiled into a spreadsheet. The following categories of family violence were included:

intimate-partner violence (IPV); child abuse; violence in lesbian, gay, bisexual and

transsexual couples (LGBT); elder abuse; sibling violence and abuse; and general family

violence. This final category was applied to those journal articles that focused on

generalized aspects of family violence, and/or did not denote any specific form of abuse

involvement or participation. In instances where the article identified the perpetrator and

the victim in greater detail, a more specific code was given, depending on information

provided. For example, an article that discussed intimate partner violence where the

perpetrator was a heterosexual woman was categorized as female to male IPV. This

captured more specific details regarding the focus of research in a given area.

In addition to abuse category, articles were also coded according to abuse behavior.

Behaviors included in the instrument were: physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual









abuse, general neglect, medical neglect, educational neglect, abandonment, financial

abuse drug abuse/chemical Restraint, homicide /fatalities, and other/unspecified abuse

forms. Unspecified abuse was coded for situations where the abuse form was not

identified in the article.

Data Analysis

A frequency analysis was conducted for the occurrence of each code to locate

specific trends within selected published literature over the past 5 decades. This included

influxes or declines in the types of violence represented in the literature. In addition, a

frequency analysis of articles concerning emerging policy trends in relation to family

violence was conducted.

Two chi-square analyses were used to analyze the data by both category and abuse

form to test for differences in distribution of article publication over time. This analysis

was designed to reveal if the differences (where present) in the frequency counts

regarding the representation of family violence categories were representative of changes

in the field (i.e., and not caused by characteristics unique to the sample).

The chi-square analysis was followed by a test of standardized adjusted residuals.

This analysis was designed to reveal areas with extreme values in relation to the expected

distribution of values. For the standardized test of residuals, any values greater than the

absolute value of three (positive or negative three), were considered significant. This is

due to the understanding that zero equates to complete evenness of distribution, and

anything with a value greater than three (positive or negative), will indicate a significant

discrepancy within that particular area. Having both positive and negative residuals

allows understanding concerning direction of representation (i.e., over-representation or

under-representation). Thus, areas with very strong positive or very strong negative









residuals provided information regarding the degree to which all selected categories of

family violence have been addressed in the research literature.

Limitations

One potential limitation of this study is the inability to account for contextual

variables due to the nature of the data. That is, political and social events specific to a

historical time period, or changes in agency and structure, such as technological

advancement and changes in administration, are not accounted for. This establishes a

need to avoid making conclusions concerning causality, as potential spuriousness cannot

be avoided. Furthermore, this project was built on the premise that contextually situated

knowledge is potentially conflictual in nature to this form of research. That is,

retrospective longitudinal research depends, to some degree, on the interpretation of the

reviewer and, therefore, cannot be completely objective.

A final limitation of this research rested with the use of chi-square on a purposive

sample. However, the primary predictive power of chi-square analysis is strongest with a

random sample; when a sample is random, chi-square is able to predict a sample's true

representation of its population. However, in this circumstance random sampling was not

desirable because it would have severely reduced the ability to obtain data (i.e., using a

random sample of family-related publications would significantly reduce the amount of

family violence-related publications in the sample). Therefore, due to the need for

purposive sampling (in order to measure what needs to be measured), the predictive

power of chi-square analysis cannot be as strong as in other circumstances. Yet, because

this study is more concerned with descriptive data, this was not an overriding concern.














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

This study examined the growth and development of family violence research

literature over the past 5 decades, as reflected by publication trends in selected family

research journals. The focus was on the difference in publication rates and subject matter

of articles pertaining to various types of family violence featured in the research

literature. In addition to examining trends in publications, this study explored the

potential implications of significant social policies in family violence.

This chapter will describe the study findings, including the general trends in

publications over the time period utilized in data collection, and more specific

information about these trends including: (a) the distribution of relation type, and (b) the

abuse type among overall publication rates. This will provide knowledge regarding

general proportions of each form of family violence among all family violence research

in selected journals, and how these ratios changed over time.

Journals Sampled

The content analysis of the four selected family journals began in the most recent

year in the study time frame, and worked back through each decade in five year intervals.

A total of 505 articles were reviewed. Of the four journals sampled, only one (The

Journal ofMarriage andFamily) existed in the early portion of the study time frame. The

other journals, The Journal of Child Abuse and Neglect, The Journal ofInterpersonal

Violence, and The Journal of Family Psychology, date back to 1977, 1987 and 1986,

respectively. Therefore, all entries before 1980 can include only one journal.







51


In addition to the establishment of new journals during this time frame, publication


rates within the journals changed over time. For instance, the Journal ChildAbuse and


Neglect, increased its annual publication rates from four issues to twelve issues in the


early 1990s.


The coding process for the content analysis used an ad hoc approach to allow for


the emergence of topics on family violence during the process of data collection. Topics


that emerged and were added to the codebook were: parenting styles, criminality and


deviance, cohabitation, religiosity, risk-taking behaviors, and general incidence rates.


General Publication Trends by Decade

The mean year of publication for this sample was 1997.14, and the standard


deviation 6.953. That is, 68% of all articles in this sample were published within seven


years of 1997 (i.e., between 1990 and 2004).





125-



100-



75-
IL
U-

50-



25-

Mean =1997.3
Std. Dev. =6.642
N =505
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Year


Figure 1. Changes in Frequency of Publications about Family Violence Over Time









Results indicate that there has been a large increase in the publication rate of family

violence research articles in the study time frame, 1960-2005 (as shown in Figure 1). This

increase began in the 1980s (as there were no articles located before this date), with a

large influx between 1980 and 1985 from approximately nine articles (1.8%) in 1980, to

48 articles (9.5%) in 1985. However, the greatest increase between any two measurement

points occurred between 1990 and 1995, with publication rates more than doubling from

51 to 124 (10% to 24.6%). This may be attributed to both the establishment of The

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, as well as an increase in the annual publication rate of

Child Abuse and Neglect. The peak of article publication within this sample occurred in

2000 (140 articles), with a small (1.4 %) decline in 2005 (133 articles).

Trends in Family Violence Abuse Category

One of the three major classifications in the coding process was that of family

violence category. These relationships (i.e., child abuse, intimate partner violence, sibling

abuse, elder abuse, etc.) have been classified under perpetrator/victim because the code

enables the researcher to identify the perpetrator, the victim, or both parties in the forms

of family violence addressed within each research article. The distributions for each of

these forms of family violence differed by decade. Once again, no articles emerged

within this sample in the 1960s and 1970s. Thus, this analysis only accounts for articles

published between 1980 and 2005 (see Figure 2).

The decade of the 1980s saw an upswing in articles pertaining to child abuse (with

14 articles identifying a perpetrator and 38 not), totaling 52 publications or 91.3% of all

articles published in the 1980s. This was followed by general and unspecified family

violence, with four publications (7%); and intimate partner violence, with only one








53



publication (1.8 %). There were no articles in the areas of lesbian, gay, bisexual and


transgender violence, sibling violence and abuse; or abuse of the elderly.


The decade of the 1990s brought an influx of articles related to several categories


of family violence. Again, the largest category was child abuse, totaling 134 articles for


76.5% of all articles, (with 21 articles that specify perpetrator and 113 that did not);


intimate partner violence with a total of 22 or 12.6% of articles (with six articles that


specified perpetrator and 16 that did not); and unspecified family violence, with 14 or


8.5% of articles.


category
100 -
IPV male female
LGBT IPV men
Child Abuse
Relative
80- Child Abuse Non-
Relative
General Family
Violence
60 -IPV General
Child Abuse
C General
o Sibling Abuse
O General
40-



20-



0-

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Year


Figure 2. Trends in Family Violence Category-Related Publication Over Time




For the first time in these four journals, articles were published on sibling violence,


although only two or 1.2% appeared. Finally, publication on LGBT violence was also


present with two or 1.2% of articles. There were no values for publications on elder


abuse.







54



The period between 2000 to 2005 produced data that were distributed into the


following areas: Child abuse, with 170 or 62.3% of articles (28 articles with specified


perpetrator and 142 without); intimate partner violence with 83 or 30.4% of articles (31


with specified perpetrator and 52 without), unspecified family violence with 18 or 6.6%


of articles, and LGBT violence with two or 0.7% of articles. There were no values for


publications in the areas of sibling violence and abuse, or elder abuse.


Behaviors Identified in the Literature

The second indicator of trends in publication by topic is the type of abusive


behavior that the article addresses. The differences in distribution for each decade are


depicted in Figure 3.





Behavior
80 -
Physical Abuse
Emotional Abuse
Sexual Abuse
Neglect
Abandonment
60-
Unspecified Abuse
Form
Fatalities


40




20




0-


1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Year


Figure 3. Trends in Publication by Abuse Behavior Over Time









These areas include physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, general neglect,

medical neglect, educational neglect, abandonment, financial abuse, drug abuse,

unspecified abuse, and fatalities as a result of abuse. For the decade of the 1980s, data

were distributed as follows: 32 articles or 56.1% on unspecified abuse; 12 articles or

21.1% on sexual abuse; nine articles or 15.8% on physical abuse; and four articles or 7%

on neglect. No articles were published on emotional abuse, financial abuse, educational

neglect, medical neglect, drug abuse, or fatalities related to family violence.

The 1990s distribution was: 85 articles or 48.6% on sexual abuse; 62 articles or

35.4% on unspecified or general abuse; 19 articles or 10.9 % on physical abuse; four

articles or 2.3% on emotional abuse; three articles or 1.1% on abuse related fatalities; and

two articles or 1.1% on neglect. No articles were published on abandonment, financial

abuse, drug abuse, educational neglect or medical neglect.

During the time period of 2000 to 2005, data were distributed into the following

areas: 142 articles or 52% on general or unspecified abuse forms; 73 articles or 26.7% on

sexual abuse; 45 articles or 16.2% on physical abuse; six articles or 2.2% on emotional

abuse; two articles or 0.7% on neglect; and one article or 0.4% on abandonment. No

articles were published on fatalities associated with family violence, financial abuse, drug

abuse, educational neglect, or medical neglect.

General Trends in Family Violence Concerning Issues

In addition to coding for behavior and relationship by year, various issues discussed

within these articles were included in data collection as well. Some themes that were built

into codebook included: theoretical development, methodological development, policy,

social services for victims and batterers, service program evaluations, judicial and law

enforcement issues, the child welfare system, substance abuse, medical care and physical









health outcomes, mental health outcomes, homelessness, immigrant violence and abuse,

cohabitation, as well as demographic indicators such as race/ethnicity, gender,

socioeconomic status, and religiosity.

The most common themes in relation to family violence were: Mental health

outcomes with 97 articles or 19.2%; research methodology with 58 articles or 11.5%;

trends and incidence rates with 52 articles or 10.3%; child welfare with 45 articles or

8.9%; parenting styles and skills with 42 articles or 8.3%; international family violence

with 33 articles or 6.5%; service programs for victims with 27 articles or 5.4%; and

general theoretical development with 22 articles or 4.4%.

In addition to the common themes listed above, articles focusing on demographic

characteristics such as race, gender, socioeconomic status, and religiosity were also

coded. The results of the frequency analysis revealed that articles focusing on these

factors were small in number, with 14 articles or 2.8% focusing on gender; seven articles

or 1.4% on socioeconomic status; six articles or 1.2% on race; and two articles or 0.4%

focusing on religiosity.

Hypotheses Testing

Several hypotheses were tested to determine whether there were significant trends

within the data. These hypotheses are reviewed below and the results of chi square

analyses used to test for differences in distribution of article publication over time are

presented.

Hlo: There will be no significant differences in the relative representations of categories

of family violence in the family research literature at selected points in time.

Hla: There will be significant differences in the relative representations of categories of

family violence in the family research literature at selected points in time.









Two separate chi-square analysis were conducted. The first tested for a difference

in distribution concerning relationship type, and the second for differences in abusive

behavior type. In addition, in cases where the chi-square test was significant, a

standardized test of adjusted residuals was conducted to determine degree of deviation

from equal distribution. Statistical significance is reached if adjusted residuals are greater

than positive or negative three (with zero indicating equal distribution).

The value of the chi-square for family violence category publication by year was

85.725 (with statistical significance at p=0.000). This reflects that across all decades,

there were significant discrepancies in the publication amounts for various articles on

family violence. In relation to abuse category, very few areas had significant adjusted

residuals. However, these residuals are telling, as they can show points in time that the

influxes and declines in each area of research occurred. For example, intimate partner

violence (male to female violence), had a non-significant, but negative residual in every

period of this study. Yet, the residual increased to a significant 5.1 (the strongest positive

residual value), in 2005, indicating an increase of research representation over the past 5

years; despite the slight overall decline in research publication. Another significant

residual was for child abuse (by a relative), which was 3.3 in 1985, indicated

overrepresentation in relation to other forms of family violence research publication.

However, all other years following had non-significant, negative residuals, indicating that

the slight decline in child abuse research publications that identified a relative perpetrator

occurred after 1985.

No other residuals for family violence category were significant; however, it is

notable that in 1995, publication rates in sibling violence and abuse had a positive









residual approaching significance (2.5). This occurred in the only year where publication

on sibling violence and abuse was present, and all other year points were negative.

The value of chi-square for behavior by year was 60.846 (with statistical

significance at p=0.001). Significant adjusted residuals were found in 1990 (3.1) and

1995 (3.6) for sexual abuse, and decreased in 2005 for a negative residual (-3.6). This

indicates that the representation of sexual abuse in the research literature declined in

relation to other forms of research. No other areas of abuse behavior have significant

residuals. However, it is interesting to note that neglect is near significance in 1985 with

a positive residual (2.7). This was the only year with a positive residual for neglect.

These residuals provide useful information regarding the development of each area

of family violence across time. However, caution must be given in that because this is a

purposive sample, the explanatory power of the chi-square (which residuals are directly

dependent on) is limited. Regardless, in relation to the findings of this analysis, the

alternative hypothesis, that significant differences in the relative representations of

categories of family violence in the family research literature at selected points in time

would be found, was supported. We turn now to the second hypothesis.

H2o: There will be no significant differences in the relative representation of policy-

related journal articles pertaining to family violence in the family research literature at

selected points in time.

H2a: There will be significant differences in the relative representation of policy-related

journal articles pertaining to family violence in the family research literature at selected

points in time.









Descriptive statistics were run to examine activities in publication related to policy

issues. The overall representation of family violence policy-related articles in this sample,

over all decades, was a mere 0.6%. This can be broken down by decade to reveal that in

the 1980s and 1990s no articles were published in direct relation to family violence

policy, in the selected journals. In the first part of the decade of 2000 there have been

three (one in 2000 and two in 2005). Although these frequency counts reveal that policy

articles have been under represented in these journals, no statistical information can be

given regarding significant changes over this time period, due to the small amount of data

obtained. Consequently, there is insufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis that

there were no differences in policy-related article publication.

H3o: There will be no significant differences in the number of publication of family

violence-related journal articles in times of greater public policy activity.

H3a: There will be significant differences in the number of publication of family

violence-related journal articles in times of greater public policy activity.

No statistical methods of analysis could be employed in testing this hypothesis due

to insufficient data. However, a descriptive investigation was conducted in attempt to

identify commonalities between research publication trends and policy development. This

analysis will be discussed in Chapter 5.














CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

This study was designed to examine trends in the publication of research literature

pertaining to family violence in selected family research journals over the past 5 decades.

The research sought to identify areas of family violence that have been neglected in

research and publication. The results were telling, and provided information concerning

the relative representation of various topics in family violence selected for examination in

this study.

Research Questions

The central research question for this study was: What are the trends in the family

violence literature within the past 60 years? There has been a steady and noteworthy

increase in overall publication of articles on family violence across five-year intervals,

with a decline occurring after 2000.

Another research question in relation to the first was: What was the relative

representation of each area of family violence research at the points in time selected for

this study? Clearly, child abuse and intimate partner violence accounted for the majority

of publications. However, violence among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender

relationships seems to be an emerging area of research. Finally, there was little to no

representation of elder abuse, or sibling abuse.

The second research question was: What was the relative representation of policy

related articles to all articles on family violence at selected points in time? Policy articles

were highly underrepresented relative to other topics of family violence. In fact, the









overall representation of policy-related articles across decades was less than 0.6%, and in

many individual year points was 0%.

The final question was: Will there be changes in the number of family violence

related articles during times of greater public policy activity? There was no concrete

answer reached for this question because statistical analysis could not be conducted due

to insufficient data. Instead, an assessment of significant policies pertaining to family

violence with trends identified in this study was conducted. The findings will be

discussed later in this chapter.

Hypotheses

The first hypothesis of this study read: There will be significant changes in the

relative representations of categories of family violence in the family research literature

at selected points in time. This hypothesis was supported. A significant discrepancy was

found to exist in the relative representation of various areas of family violence in the time

frame selected, as well as in the overall representation of family violence publications.

Specifically, research on child abuse was overrepresented, whereas, intimate partner

violence, elder abuse, LGBT violence, and sibling abuse were underrepresented.

The second hypothesis read: There will be significant changes in the relative

representation of policy-related articles pertaining to family violence in family research

literature at selected points in time. This hypothesis was not supported because

insufficient data were available to confirm or refute the presence of significant changes in

policy-related articles during the time period of this study.

The third hypothesis read: There will be significant changes in the amount of

publication of family violence related articles in times of greater policy activity. This

hypothesis not supported because insufficient data were available. However, because the









evidence obtained from a general policy exploration also does not directly support or

contradict the hypothesis; further study is required to put this statement under higher

scrutiny.

Instrument

The open-ended content analysis codebook was useful in classifying material in

this situation, as it allowed for identification and coding to continuously emerge and

develop throughout the data collection period. The codebook assigned numeric values to

various categories, forms and issues in relation to family violence. The applicable codes

were entered for each article featured, based on title and abstract, along with information

about the journal volume, issue, year, and article author information. Also, only articles

published in English were included, so the research published in other languages could

not be considered.

A content analysis was conducted on four journals selected from the field of

family studies on the basis of their representation in the Social Science Citation Index,

i.e., the journals chosen had the greatest number of article citations. The sample consisted

of 505 articles published between 1960 and 2005, gathered from volumes published at the

beginning, middle, and end points of each decade within this time frame. However, all

articles sampled were taken from volumes dated on or after 1980, because no family

violence-related articles appeared in the sample before this time.

Overall Trends in Family Violence Publication

Significant trends were identified in the increase in overall publications in this area

of research (as well as increased proportion of all articles published in these journals).

More attention has been awarded to the problem of violence within the family with each

passing decade. Interestingly enough, the only decline noted in the overall research









literature was identified within the last five years (since 2000). Potential indicators

behind this decline are not known, however one could speculate a relation between social

and political changes following September 11, 2001, as a possibility. Perhaps a decline in

attention to this area of family violence research is a result of a shift in the pull of

resources toward research in the areas of national defense, global relations, and terrorism;

and away from domestic social problems such as violence in the family. Further

empirical research is needed to explore any potential link between shifts in social and

political climate, resources and publication in the area of family violence.

The most heavily represented type of publication was on child abuse. This was

found to be the case in every decade that produced testable data featured in this study.

Therefore, it can be determined that a great deal of attention in the research community

has been devoted to and continues to be focused on child abuse. However, the proportion

of publications in abuse category has shifted closer to equal distribution over time, as

other forms of family violence have received more attention in recent years.

A small number of articles focused on demographic information such as race, class

and gender. Almost half of these articles focused on issues related to gender.

Surprisingly, only seven articles were published on socioeconomic status. This is despite

the fact that issues related to social class and poverty have been shown to be directly

correlated with most forms of family violence (Barnett, Miller-Perrin & Perrin, 2005).

It is important to note that the delimitations of this study must be taken into

consideration when discussing the trends identified here. There may be many family

violence-related topics that are not of interest to the journals chosen for this study; which

would influence frequency counts and proportions by topic. That is, because only the four









most frequently cited journals were used, it is impossible to capture a completely

generalizable idea of what is occurring in the field overall, because these journals may

not be completely representative of overall activity in the research field.

Trends in Category of Family Violence Research

It is evident that the largest proportion of family violence related articles have been

consistently on child abuse. Within these articles, the majority (82.3%) have an identified

victim (i.e., a child), but no clear perpetrator. Those where a perpetrator has been

identified usually involve a batterer that is a relative caregiver to the child.

More attention has been given to intimate partner violence in recent years than in

previous decades. Also, although it is a small percentage, the emerging representation of

lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender research is very telling about shifts in how we

define intimate partner violence; as well as what we consider worthy of research

attention. Finally, within this sample, no articles focusing on elder abuse were identified,

and a very small percent on sibling violence and abuse emerged in only one decade.

An additional finding in relation to representation of family violence categories has

been the identification of underrepresented categories in the research literature. Of all

categories identified in this study, the most neglected were sibling violence and abuse,

with only two articles published, and elder abuse, with no articles published. That is, the

number of articles published from this sample frame on elder abuse was such that no

analyses could be run due to insufficient numeric values (i.e., not enough cases were

identified). This is important also because it reflects another highly neglected area in the

research literature.

It is also fascinating to note that there were no relevant articles identified before

1980. The common topics appearing in the 1960s and 1970s were divorce and the sexual









"deviance" of women, which was often defined in articles as premarital sex and

extramarital sex. This is once again a good example of how society has changed over the

past 60 years, especially in relation to what is considered a social problem worthy of

empirical scientific research and publication, and how researchers and journals may focus

on topics reflecting key social changes of the period.

Finally, although abuse during pregnancy has been recognized as a significant

social problem (Gelles, 1997), only one article was published on this category from this

sample. This article was published in the 1990s and accounted for 0.6 % of all research

literature that decade.

Trends in Behavior Associated With Family Violence Research

Important findings emerged in relation to behaviors associated with family

violence. For example, the most common types of abuse discussed in the research were

sexual abuse and unspecified abuse. In the articles pertaining to sexual abuse, the

perpetrator was seldom identified (i.e., information was not given regarding whether or

not the abuser was a family member, acquaintance or stranger). However, more often

than not, when a perpetrator was identified, it was a parent or family member.

Another highly occurring form of abuse in publications was found to be physical

abuse. However, once again, the perpetrator was not identified. The least published

topics were emotional abuse, neglect, fatality and abandonment.

Once again, the gaps in the proportions of articles about various forms of family

violence have narrowed over time, suggesting greater representation in areas that have

been previously ignored; this seems to be the case with emotional abuse and neglect. An

ironic finding was that many articles focused on the mental health outcomes for abuse

victims, while research on emotional abuse appears to be lacking. This trend is









fascinating because it is evident that there is an interest in mental health and

psychological well being, but not on the abuse form that most directly impacts the

victim's mental health.

It is also interesting to note that the publication rate for neglect, although minimal

in all time periods, has actually decreased slightly in frequency and proportion over time.

Also notable is that with the high amounts of sexual abuse-related article publications, the

vast majority focused on the sexual abuse of children and not sexual abuse in intimate

partner relationships. Finally, with all decades, a good proportion of articles (over half in

the 1980s and in 2000) did not specify any behavior in association with family violence.

Instead, these articles focused on abuse category (i.e., IPV or child abuse), or

occasionally on other factors such as social services, policy and program evaluation.

Decade Reviews from The Journal of Marriage and Family

Several interesting trends in family violence research have been identified,

including areas that have been overrepresented as well as neglected, as well as overall

changes in family violence publication rates over time. For purposes of comparison, the

decade reviews from the Journal ofMarriage and Family (JMF), are discussed again

here.

In the 1960s there were no articles pertaining to family violence research. This is

congruent with the findings presented here for the entire sample of journals, as no articles

were identified in the sample during the 1960s. In the decade review of the 1970s, the

first review article focusing on family violence appeared, recognizing that family

violence research was emerging; most of the articles discussed the nature and extent of

violence in the family. In contrast, no articles in the study sample were identified from

this time period. This suggests that the study strategy of sampling articles in 5 Year









intervals missed articles appearing at other times, or that these articles appeared in

journals not included in the sample (i.e., not the most cited journals).

According to the JMF, 1980s decade review, many areas of family violence were

present in the research literature, including IPV, child abuse, and elder abuse. The

findings here are in accordance with the exception of research on elder abuse, which did

not appear in the sampled articles. In addition, the JMF decade review for the 1980s also

discussed the emphasis that was placed on child sexual abuse. This was also supported

here, in that child sexual abuse accounted for the largest proportion of articles represented

in the sample during the 1980s (91.3%).

According to the JMF decade review, the 1990s was a very active time period in

family violence research. Research focused on refining categories of family violence, and

addressing violence in populations that had been previously unrecognized (LGBT

couples, immigrant groups, the homeless, and international family violence). Although

articles on many of these issues did appear (excluding homelessness) in this study during

the 1990s, they were very small in number and proportion. For example, only two articles

were published on immigrant violence (1.1%), and seven on international violence

(4.0%). Interestingly, the number of articles on international family violence more than

doubled in the decade of 2000, to 23 (8.4%). It will be interesting to see if this trend will

be reflected in the next decade review for The Journal ofMarriage and Family,

scheduled for publication in November 2010.

Policy Exploration

Findings indicated that only a very small number of articles related to any form of

family violence policy were published. In fact, the frequency of publications was so

minute that analyses could not be performed. One possible explanation is that the selected









journals are not as concerned with policy as journals not selected for this study. For

example, the Journal ofFamily Policy, the Journal of Family Law, and the Journal of

Family History, may include more policy related articles. It is important to note,

however, that publishing on the topic of policy is not necessarily indicative of the impacts

of policy development and social movement on the field of family violence research.

That is, the potential impacts of policy on research initiatives, funding and resources is

not a relationship that can identified simply through an examination of articles that focus

directly on policy, as policy can influence the entire process of research, publication and

development of the field.

To examine the potential relationship between research and policy when statistical

analyses could not be run, the research explored policy development in relation to the

trends revealed in this study was done. Several major policies that were passed over the

past 5 decades that apply to the issue of violence in the family were identified, then

mapped on a time line and examined in relation to trends in the publication of articles

pertaining to the subject matter of the policy. Because this study examined trends

according to five-year markers, points directly before and after the policy was passed

were examined. This investigation does not attempt to imply a causal relationship

between research publication and policy; instead, it aims only to examine the potential

evidence of an association that may exist. The areas of research interest were designated

as overall publication in family violence, specific publications in child abuse, and specific

publications in intimate partner violence. These precise areas were chosen because child

abuse and intimate partner violence policies have been at the forefront of family violence

related policies.









Several interesting similarities emerged from the comparison of research trends and

policy development. First, in several circumstances, times of low policy development

were also marked by minute increases, or even declines in research activity. For instance,

for trends in child abuse literature, the only period in this study that had no new policy

development, 1985 to 1990, excluding the revision of an existing policy, was also marked

by a decline in the research literature pertaining to this subject matter. Despite the decline

in article frequency between 1985 and 1990, the decade of the 1980s had the highest

proportion of articles published on child abuse, and the policies passed in relation to

family violence were focused primarily on child abuse (i.e., Adoption Assistance and

Child Welfare act of 1980, Social Security Act Amendments of 1981, and three CAPTA

Revisions). An additional finding of interest was in relation to intimate partner violence

research and the passing of The Violence Against Women Act. VAWA, which was

established in 1994, was passed shortly before the period of the largest increase of

intimate partner violence research, 1995 to 2000. During this time period a revision was

also made to the original VAWA (2000); thus, the time period of highest research

publication on domestic violence was situated directly in between two periods of intimate

partner violence policy development. Similarly, in 1995, the Sex Crimes Against

Children Act was passed, and the highest number of articles on the sexual abuse of

children was published. This five-year period also included a revision to CAPTA (1996),

and ended with the passing of the Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Act (1999)

as well.

However, in this investigation, several areas of publication do not appear to be

related to policy development. For instance, the first sharp increase in publication of child









abuse-related articles did not occur until nearly six years following the passage of the

original Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (1974). Furthermore, there were time

periods in this study that actually revealed declines in research during periods of policy

activity. For instance, the greatest decline in both child abuse and intimate partner

violence research, as well as overall family violence research, occurred between the years

2000 and 2005, yet important policy activity was occurring at that time, including

revisions to both VAWA and CAPTA, and the enactment of the Domestic Violence

Screening and Prevention Act (2003). Also, despite the passage of the Older Americans

Act (2000), there continued to be no research articles published on elder abuse in this

sample. Thus, although several interesting similarities emerged from this descriptive

analysis, the findings are too preliminary and mixed to assert any type of relationship that

may exist between research trends and policy development.

Theory

Family violence research development is a dynamic process that is continuously

changing over time, as shown by the publication trends identified in this study. Strong

evidence of changes in family violence knowledge development were identified through

changes in distribution of articles on family violence over time. The development of new

journals and the dramatic increases in newer areas of research, as well as marked declines

in existing areas of research publication, reveal the constantly changing nature of

scientific research in this area.

This study sought to utilize structuration theory to explain the patterns of change in

family violence research publication. That is, the trends identified in research publication

were examined in relation to significant social policy development on family violence.









This theory was used in attempt to identify a relationship between these areas, and to use

this dynamic relationship to better understand the development of this field.

Central components of structuration theory, including agency (action), structure,

and the process of structuration, were all applied to the field of family violence. Agency

was examined in the form of research publication trends, structure in the form of policy,

and the process of structuration through the interdependent relationship that may exist

between the two. In other words, this study sought to identify a relationship between

family violence research publication and family violence social policy that may reveal the

presence of an intricate process of structuration (i.e., a mutually interdependent

relationship between research and social policy that is present in the creation and

perpetuation of the field of family violence research).

The development of policy on family violence within this time period reflects

changes in social acceptability, legal definitions and regulations, and political shifts

where family violence is concerned. Potential commonalities identified between trends in

research publication and policy development may demonstrate the intricate relationship

between research publication and policy, as a reflection of the culturally contextual and

somewhat subjective nature of scientific research. That is, viewing family violence

research as a process influenced by social movement and change (indicated by policy

development) allows for the understanding of how this area of scientific research has

developed, and how it can be influenced by, and in turn, influences social action and

cultural change, which is the process of structuration.

Because no statistical analysis could be conducted, the dynamic relationship

between family violence research trends and policy development was explored in an









attempt to better understand the process of structuration pertaining to family violence

research. Although these findings were mixed, there was sufficient evidence of a

potential relationship between agency (family violence research activity) and structure

(family violence policy), to warrant further empirical investigation. That is, the various

commonalities found, such as increases in publication on research areas pertaining to

policy subject matter during time periods of social policy development, may be evidence

of the dynamic relationship (i.e., the process of structuration) between policy

development, and research activity within this sample.

Just as plausible, it seems there is a relation between social change and research.

For instance, as U.S. society has become more accepting of same sex couples, we have

seen an interest in same sex violence. Also, as society ages, we would expect to see the

emergence of an interest in elder abuse. With the occurrence of 'specific' tragic events,

such as horrific child rapes and homicides, the research community may respond with

increased attention to this area. Other examples of the tie between social change and

family violence research have been made. Such ties include the early emergence of

family violence research literature decades ago as a result of greater sensitivity of

violence due to war, social activism, increased crime rates, and other societal issues of

the time (Straus, 1974).

Another area that is in need of further investigation in relation to family violence

research is changes in theoretical and epistemological orientations. That is, it is apparent

that there may be a relationship between emerging trends in research, and theoretical

development. For example, changes in theory over the study time frame, such as the

growth in popularity in the feminist and conflict perspective may be related to the









increases in research initiative in areas of violence against women and other forms of

violence in the family. This also may be the case with the rise of postmodernist theories

and changes in definitions concerning what constitutes as "family", as well as the

increasing attention to forms of family violence such as violence and abuse in same-sex

marriages. Thus, examining trends in family violence research in relation to the growth

and development of general social theory may produce interesting and useful findings.

Although it was difficult to peg down a connection between social policy and

family violence research, the possibility of this connection still seems evident, and

worthy of investigation. In short, further studies are needed regarding the potential

application of this theory to the process of family violence research.

Limitations

The most significant limitation was the inability of this study to adequately

measure policy as a representation of social change or its impact on family violence

research. This made it difficult to strongly support structuration theory, as statistically

sound research on the relationship between policy and publication, and therefore, on the

process of structuration, could not be identified. One potential reason for this may be that

the selected journals are not emphasizing the publication of family violence policy-

related writings. Instead, such articles may more likely be found in journals in the

disciplines of law, criminal justice, and political science, as well as policy reports issued

by agencies and organizations. So, by virtue of the sampling focus on family journals,

policy related publications may have been overlooked.

In addition, the small journal sample limited the scope of this study in that there

may not have been a valid representation of the many areas of publication in family

violence research. Therefore, rate of citation may not have been an adequate method of









selection of journals. This became particularly apparent in the time period before 1980,

when the journal selected for this study was apparently publishing very little on family

violence. However, there is still valid information in that the most frequently cited

journals in the field were not publishing in the underrepresented areas identified.

An additional limitation identified in relation to the journals selected was that the

change in volume and issue publication could not be controlled for. That is, during this

time frame, spikes in frequency may have been attributed to increases in annual

publication rates. For example, the Journal of Child Abuse andNeglect increased

publication rates from four issues a year to twelve issues a year after 1990. Although this

activity may represent an increased interest in family violence research, it also may have

skewed the proportion balance to reflect a greater amount of child abuse research

publications than is actually occurring within the field. This is another example of how

the study sample is limited in scope concerning general applicability, as frequency of

child abuse article publication may have skewed the results to reflect higher rates of

publication than may actually be occurring overall in the field of family violence

research.

Another limitation to this study is in the limited number of year points. It was not

possible to sample every year in the past five decades in the study time frame. Therefore,

the number of articles taken into consideration for analysis was small in relation to total

field activity (i.e., 505 articles in this sample as opposed to 1572 in the sample frame).

However, by choosing to only include five-year markers, this study was still able to

gather a good amount of information regarding trends in publication over a long period of









time (as opposed to using every year in a shorter amount of time). Thus, this method was

chosen as opposed to sampling every year in a shorter period of time.

Finally, the difficulty of applying structuration theory to this study was a limitation.

This may be associated with the nature of the theory itself, that is, scholars have stated

that structuration theory may be difficult to test empirically (Cuff, Sherrock & Francis,

1998). Also, as was previously stated, the lack of historical contextual factors in this

study may have limited the extent to which structuration theory could have been applied.

For example, in a recent study, the applicability of structuration theory in various areas of

social science research was investigated. The results reflected that the most successful

studies had ethnographic information about actors across time and space. Those that used

a broader, more collective approach (i.e., following overall institutional progress as

opposed to change among individuals or groups), had a more difficult time utilizing the

theory (Phipps, 2001).

Future Research Recommendations

The primary recommendation of this study for future research is to address those

areas of family violence that have been identified as underrepresented in the literature.

This lack of research attention must be addressed if we are to gain knowledge that can be

applied to outreach, education, policy and prevention.

First, elder abuse research did not arise in the time frame utilized. Although this

may be due to the fact that the sample journals do not publish on elder abuse, the

complete omission of this area in these journals is still alarming. Research that does exist

tells us that this is a widespread problem (i.e., over 450,000 elders maltreated annually),

with significant negative victim outcomes (Jogerst, Brody, Dyer & Arias, 2004; Rothman

& Duntop, 2001). Therefore, increased research attention needs to focus on elder abuse.









In addition, the limited knowledge we have on sibling violence and abuse tells us

that the incidence of this form of family violence is estimated at nearly 60% (Noland, et

al., 2004), and that victims suffer long lasting, negative outcomes exacerbated by the lack

of validation received from a society that does not recognize this as a social problem

(Wiehe, 2002).Yet, sibling violence and abuse was one of the two topics in family

violence category that was the most underrepresented in the literature. Special focus

should be given to this area if we are to increase professional and public awareness of this

form of family violence. Posing questions about why sibling abuse exists, how it has

gone unrecognized for so long, whether or not it has been normalized in our society (and

if so, in what ways), what constitutes a healthy versus unhealthy sibling relationship, and

how we can address the problem for better prevention and intervention would be a start in

better understanding sibling violence and abuse. However, before we can tackle this

social problem, shifts in the research field, policy arena, and overall public perception

must take place to recognize and accept that abuse among siblings is in fact, a social

problem.

Another area of family violence that is in need of research attention is neglect.

Despite the fact that neglect accounts for over 60% of confirmed child abuse cases (HHS,

2004), This topic was underrepresented among articles considered in this study. Similar

points have been made regarding the lack of research on neglect. One such study stated

that despite the growing incidence rate of neglect (a 100% increase between 1986 and

1993), research on neglect has accounted for a very small proportion of research (of the

489 articles published in the first five volumes of Child Abuse and Neglect, only 25 were

on child neglect) (Bloom, 2000; Zuravin, 1999). In another study, there were only 559









articles of neglect published in a psychology index that published a total of 5,848 entries

(Garbarino & Collins, 1999). Thus, the neglect of research on neglect continues to be a

significant issue in family violence research.

For further understanding of the influences of social context on the process of

scientific research and publication, an additional suggestion for future research would be

to conduct decade-specific analyses that can take contextual variables into consideration

when examining trends in research literature. For example, an in depth analysis of the

1970's, using a larger sample (every year) from journals that focus more on policy could

allow for a more in depth analysis and a greater understanding of the potential

relationship between policy activity and research development. Also, a more detailed

examination of research development would be beneficial. That is, because this study was

only able to examine article publications from very specific journals, a great deal of

research activity was not addressed. This includes research published in journals from

other disciplines, as well as research activity that may not have been published at all.

Therefore, a more detailed examination of social science research on family violence

could potentially provide useful information on the growth and development of the field.

As previously stated, a limitation of this study was the potential incompatibility of

social science journal articles and family violence policy-related publications. Therefore,

an additional research recommendation would be to explore alternative sources of policy-

related information. One such source would be the Thomson West law search engine.

This source contains over 23,000 databases concerning case law, state and federal

statutes, administrative codes, newspaper and magazine articles, public records, law

journals, law reviews, treatises, legal forms and other information resources. Therefore, it









may be suitable in accessing more information concerning policies, media coverage,

public response, and details surrounding the legislative process in relation to family

violence policy overall.

Finally, selecting specific policies on family violence and examining publications

in time periods directly before and after legislation has been passed may be a useful

approach to examining the potential relationship between scholarly publication and

policy activity. With research that meets this goal, structuration theory could be better

applied and supported to the development of the field of family violence research.

Implications for Practice

The first recommendation for practice based on this research would be to apply the

knowledge gained here regarding the neglect of certain forms of family violence to public

education campaigns. Increasing public awareness of areas that we now know to be

underrepresented can help to change perceptions and values regarding various forms of

violence in the family. These changes in awareness can better enable outreach

organizations to serve populations that may be struggling with family violence. For

example, victim advocacy training that incorporates information about less known areas

of family violence may be influential in helping in the identification, intervention and

prevention of these forms of abuse.

A second recommendation would be to expand efforts to educate families

themselves about family violence. That is, through education, we may be able to increase

awareness and recognition of the presence of abuse forms that are not widely known or

understood (i.e., elder abuse and sibling abuse), and increase the likelihood of reporting

and intervention for families in crisis.









We can start to educate families by educating those in practitioner positions that

involve direct outreach and community involvement. Giving them any information (as

research information has proven to be limited), to use in educational programs,

counseling, prevention, lobbying, and other services has the potential to reach a great deal

of the population. These small steps can go far in increasing public awareness, changing

public perception of unhealthy family relationships, and assisting families themselves.

Implications for Policy

Although the results pertaining to policy were mixed, implications based on the

trends identified for social policy are extensive. Because the nature of this study was to

examine the relationship between family violence research publication and family

violence social policy, many of the recommendations offered here touch upon this

relationship. More specifically, these policy recommendations emphasize the importance

of policy development on research initiative and knowledge development.

To begin with, legislation that recognizes the nature and extent of underrepresented

areas of family violence is needed. For example, policies focusing on elder abuse are

needed to increase research funding and initiative, enact stronger protective legislation,

and promote educational programs that can increase public attention regarding

maltreatment of the elderly.

Another area in need of policy attention is that of abuse between siblings.

Legislation that recognizes the presence of and consequences that result from sibling

violence and abuse can increase public attention of this social problem. Also, having

protective guidelines in place can aid practitioners in the identification, intervention and

prevention of this form of abuse. Finally, public policy that recognizes this problem is

intrinsic to increasing social awareness and redefining how we define healthy and









unhealthy sibling relationships; thus, promoting change in social norms regarding the

acceptability of abusive behavior between siblings.

In addition, policy attention that recognizes the nature and extent of domestic

violence in lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender relationships is needed. The legal

rights of same-sex couples is currently a highly controversial issue. Most debate

surrounds family-related issues such as the right to marry and the right to adopt children.

However, attention that focuses on abuse in these relationships is lacking. As is the case

with other forms of underrepresented research identified in this study, increases in public

awareness are needed. This can be addressed by the development of policies that increase

funding to the development of programs that can aid this population. Such programs

include service programs that aid this population through increasing resources, education,

and general public recognition. Also, funding that increases research initiative is needed

to generate knowledge, as well as promote methodological advances and theoretical

development addressing violence in the LGBT community.

Conclusions

This study has identified trends in the publication of journal articles on family

violence over the past 5 decades. Trends identified include the lack of research

publication on family violence in selected journals before 1980. Popular topics of

publication, such as research on child abuse and specifically, child sexual abuse, were

identified. Also trends such as the increasing proportion of research on intimate partner

violence emerged. Finally, areas of family violence research articles from selected

journals that have been underrepresented in publication, such as elder abuse, sibling

violence and abuse, LGBT abuse, neglect, emotional abuse and abandonment, have been

identified.









Although many areas identified were thought to have been neglected previously,

this study is unique in that it produced statistical evidence, not only identifying

underrepresented areas but also showing the degree to which these areas have been

neglected. With this knowledge, we can move foreword and work towards providing

more empirical research in these areas. Furthermore, we can avoid what Straus and

Gelles (1995) have referred to as the deterministic truism, as when we discuss areas that

have been overlooked in the research literature, we now have statistical evidence to

support our claims.

Having the understanding that family violence research is a social process that is

contextually situated, culturally influenced, and subjective to the researcher can help us to

be aware of how definitions and perceptions of what constitutes family violence, and

what warrants research attention has changed over time. With this understanding, we can

be aware of and open to potential changes in future research, especially regarding how

we define violence in the family. That is, as we have seen a portion of the historical shift

in research, policy, definition, classification and awareness concerning family violence,

we may be more open to the reality that these areas will continue to shift and change. It is

possible that family violence forms that may emerge in future research and be accepted as

social problems may not enter our consciousness today. To be open to this possibility,

and to pursue areas of research that have been previously neglected, may be the

immediate future of this field; and the time to entertain the possibility that our awareness

may continue to shift concerning these areas is now.














APPENDIX A
CONTENT ANALYSIS CODEBOOK


Family Abuse Categories:
1- IPV (male to female)
2- IPV (female to male)
3- IPV (LGBT men)
4- IPV (LGBT women)
5- Child Abuse (parent/guardian or relative to child).
6- Child Abuse (non-relative to child)
7- Sibling Abuse (male to female)
8- Sibling Abuse (female to male)
9- Sibling Abuse (male to male)
10-Sibling Abuse (female to female)
11-Elder Abuse (IPV male to female)
12-Elder Abuse (IPV female to male)
13-Elder Abuse (family caregiver to victim)
14-Elder Abuse (non-family caregiver)
15-Family violence General/Unspecified
16-IPV unspecified
17-Child Abuse Unspecified
18-Sibling Abuse Unspecified
19-Elder Abuse Unspecified

Family Abuse Behaviors:
100- Physical abuse
101- Emotional/psychological abuse
102- Sexual abuse
103- General neglect
104-Medical neglect
105-Educational neglect
106- Abandonment
107- Financial abuse
108- Drug abuse/Chemical Restraint
109- Other/Unspecified
110- Homicide/Fatalities

Family Violence Issues
200- Intergenerational transmission of violence
201- Theoretical development
202- Family violence policy









203- Service program- victim oriented
204- Service program- batterer oriented
205- Service program evaluation
206- Demographic- SES
207-Demographic-Race/ethnicity
208-Demographic- gender
209- Immigrants
210- Legal services (judicial)
211- Legal services (law enforcement)
212- Child Welfare Services
213- LGBT
214- Pregnancy
215- Methodological development
216-physically or developmentally disabled
217- International
218- Substance Abuse
219- Healthcare/Medical treatment
220- Homelessness
221-Mental Health/Wellbeing
222- Service program-family
223- Parenting
224-Criminality
225- Cohabitation/Dating
226- Demographic-Religiosity
227-risk taking behavior
228-incidence/rates
229-age


Year
Numeric Value of year














APPENDIX B
CITATION INDEX TABLE


Rank Journal Title Number of Citations

1 Journal of Marriage and the Family 4211
2 Child Abuse and Neglect 3141
3 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 1572
4 Journal of Family Psychology 1263
5 Family Relations 901
6 Journal of Family Issues 848
7 Family Process 829
8 Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy 801
9 Journal of Family Violence 729
10 Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 698
11 Child Welfare 660
12 Journal of Research on Adolescence 643
13 Journal of Early Adolescence 600
14 Future of Children 590
15 Children and Youth Services Review 544
16 Families In Society- The Journal of Contemporary 418
Social Services
17 International Family Planning Perspectives 377
18 Journal of Comparative Family Studies 280
19 Family & Community Health 263
20 American Journal of Family Therapy 255
21 Journal of Family Therapy 236
22 Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect 204
23 Perspectives on Sexual & Reproductive Health 204
24 Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive 198
Healthcare
25 Child & Family Behavior Therapy 185
26 Family Law Quarterly 163
27 Journal of Family History 153
28 Culture Health & Sexuality 110

Note. From ISI Web of Knowledge (2007) Social Science Citation Index. The Thomson
Cooperation. Retrieved April 1, 2007, from http://scientific.thomson.com/products/ssci















REFERENCES

Barnett, O., Miller-Perrin, C.L., & Perrin, R.D.(2005). Family violence across the
lifespan: An introduction (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communication research. New York: Free Press.

Berry, M., Charison, R. Dawson, K., (2003). Promising practices in understanding and
treating child neglect. Child & Family Social Work, 8(1), 13-24.

Bloom, S.L. (2000). The neglect of neglect. Pyii hlhei, 'u3 Review 2(5), 208-210.

Bryman, A.(2004). Social research methods (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University
Press.

Burke, T. W., & Owen, S. S. (2006). Same-sex domestic violence: Is anyone listening?
Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide, 13 (1), 6-7.

Carter, B., & McGoldrick, M. (2005). The expanded family life cycle: Individual, family,
and socialperspectives (3rd ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2004). About CAPTA: A legislative history.
Retrieved on September 8, 2006, from
http://childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/about.pdf

Coning, S.F. (2005). Effects of interpersonal violence on intention toward permanency.
Unpublished, University of Florida.

Cuff, E. C., Sharrock, W.W., & Francis, D.W. (1998). Perspectives in sociology (4th ed.).
New York: Routledge.

DeVaus, D. (2001). Research design and social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Eckhardt, C. I., & Dye, M. L. (2000). The cognitive characteristics of martially violent
men: Theory and evidence. Cognitive Therapy & Research, 24(2), 139-159.

Fern, M., & Younger-Lewis, C. (1997). More than meets the eye: Recognizing and
responding to spousal abuse. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 157(11).

Fisher, J.W., & Shelton, A.J. (2006). Survivors of domestic violence. Family &
Community Health, 29(2), 118-130.









Garbarino, J., & Collins C.C. (1999). Child neglect: The family with the hole in the
middle. In H. Dubowitz (Ed) Neglected children: research, practice andpolicy (pp.
1-23). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Gelles, R.J. (1980). Violence in the family: A review of research in the seventies. Journal
ofMarriage and the Family, 42 (4), 873-885.

Gelles, R. J. (1982). Applying research on family violence to clinical practice. Journal of
Marriage & Family, 44(1), 2-21.

Gelles, R.J. (1985). Family violence. AnnualReview of Sociology, 11, 347-367.

Gelles, R.J. (1997). Intimate violence in families (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Gelles, R.J., & Conte, J.R. (1990). Domestic violence and sexual abuse of children: A
review of research in the eighties. Journal ofMarriage and the Family, 52(4),
Family Research in the 1980s: The Decade in Review, 1045-1058.

Gelles, R. J., & Maynard, P.E. (1987). A structural family systems approach to
intervention in cases of family violence. Family Relations, 36, 270-275.

Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Gondolf, E.W., Heckert, D. A., & Kimmel, C. M. (2002). Nonphysical use among
batterer program participants. Journal ofFamily Violence, 17(4), 293-314.

Gracia, E. (1995). Visible but unreported: a case for the 'not serious enough' cases of
child maltreatment. ChildAbuse andNeglect, 19(9), 1083-1093.

Gynnild, V. (2002). Agency and structure in engineering education: Perspectives on
educational change in the light of Anthony Giddens' structuration theory. European
Journal of Engineering Education, 27(3), 297-304.

Hamner, T.J., & Turner, P.H. (2001). Parenting in contemporary society. Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.

Harley, A. M. (2006). Domestic violence screening. Plastic Surgical Nursing, 26(1), 24-
28.

Haskins, C. (2003). Treating sibling incest using a family systems approach. Journal of
Mental Health Counseling, 25(4) 337-351.

Hegarty, K., Sheehan, M., & Schonfeld, C. (2004). A multidimensional definition of
partner abuse: development and preliminary validity for the composite abuse scale.
Journal of Family Violence, 14 (4), 399-415.









Helie, S., Clement, M., & Larrivee, M.C. (2003). Epidemiological considerations in the
conceptualization and utilization of 'prevalence' and 'incidence' rate in family
violence research: A reply to Brownridge and Hall (1999). Journal of Family
Violence, 18(4), 219-225.

Henning, K., & Fedder, L. (2004). A comparison of men and women arrested for
domestic violence: Who presents the greater threat? Journal ofFamily Violence.
19(2), 69-80.

Hillis, S.D., Anda, R. F., Felitti, V. J., & Marchbanks, P. A. (2001). Adverse childhood
experiences and sexual risk behaviors in women: A retrospective cohort study.
Family Planning Perspectives, 33(5), 206-212.

Hoffman, K. L., & Edwards, J. N. (2004). An integrated theoretical model of sibling
violence and abuse. Journal of Family Violence, 19 (3),185-200.

Holden, G.W. (2003). Children exposed to domestic violence and child abuse:
Terminology and taxonomy. Clinical Child Psychology Review, 6(3), 151-160.

Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Journal of
Peace Research, 4(2), 398.

Howe, N., Rinaldi, C.M., Jennings, M., & Petrakos, H. (2002). "No! The lambs can stay
out because they got cozies": Constructive and destructive sibling conflict, pretend
play, and social understanding. ChildDevelopment, 73(5), 1460-1473.

Ingoldsby, B., Smith, S.R., & Miller, J.E. (2004). Exploring Family Theories. Los
Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company.

ISI Web of Knowledge. (2007). Social science citation index. The Thomson Cooperation.
Retrieved April 1, 2007, from http://scientific.thomson.com/products/ssci

Jayawardena, K. M., & Liao, S. (2006). Elder abuse at end of life. Journal of Palliative
Medicine, 9(1), 1123-1127.

Jogerst, G. J., Brody, M.J., Dryer, C.B., & Arias, I. (2004). Elder abuse and the law: new
science new tools. Journal ofLaw, Medicine and Ethics, 32(4), 62-63.

Johnson, C.F. (2002). Child maltreatment 2002: Recognition, reporting and risk.
Pediatrics International, 44, 554-560.

Johnson, M.P., & Ferraro, K.J. (2000). Research on domestic violence in the 1990's:
Making distinctions. Journal ofMarriage and Family, 62, 948-963.

Kaplan, H.B., & Pokorney, A.D. (1971). Self-derogation and childhood broken home.
Journal ofMarriage and Family, 33(2), 328-337.









Kelly, K. A. (2004). Working together to stop domestic violence: state-community
partnerships and the changing meaning of public and private. Journal of Sociology
and Social Welfare, 31(1), 27-47.

Kempe, C.H., Silverman, F.N., Steele, B.F., Droegemueller, W., & Silver, H.K. (1962).
The battered-child syndrome. Journal of the American Medical Association, 181,
105-112.

Klein, C.F., & Orloff, L.E. (1999). Protecting battered women: latest trends in civil legal
relief. Women and Criminal Justice, 10 (2), 29-47.

Krippendorf, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Lemon, N.K. (1999). The legal system's response to children exposed to domestic
violence. The Future of Children, 9(3), 67-83.

Lerner, V. (1997). Domestic violence costs the United States between 5 and 10 billion
per year and must be stopped. Off our backs, 27(4), 5-14.

Levine, J.M. (2003).Elder Neglect and Abuse. Geriatrics, 58(10), 37-43.

Lewis, C. S., Griffing, S., Chu, M. J., Tania; E. Sage, R., Madry, L., & Primm, B. J.
(2006). Coping and violence exposure as predictors of psychological functioning in
domestic violence survivors. Violence Against Women, 12(4), 340-354.

McCauley, S. (2006). A look at elder abuse in America. RDH, 26(5), 74-100.

Miller, C. E., & Mullins, B. K. (2002). Lifelong learning to prevent domestic violence.
International Journal ofLifelong Education, 21(5), 474-484.

Mills, L. (1996). Empowering battered women transnationally: The case for postmodern
interventions. Social Work, 41(3), 261-268.

National Center on Elder Abuse.(2005). The basics: Major types of elder abuse.
Retrieved August 1, 2006, from
http://www.elderabusecenter.org/default.cfm?p=basics.cfm

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2006). Intimate partner violence: Fact sheet.
Retrieved August 1, 2006, from http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/ipvfacts.htm

Neufeld, B. (1996). SAFE questions: Overcoming the barriers to detecting domestic
violence. American Family Physician, 53(8), 2575-2581.

Noland, V.J., Liller, K.D., McDermott, R.J., Coulter, M.L., & Seraphine, A.E. (2004). Is
adolescent sibling violence a precursor to college dating violence? American
Journal of Health Behavior, 28, s 13-s23.









Ohlin, L., & Tonry, M. (1989). Family violence in perspective. Crime and Justice,11, 1-
18.

Olson, L. N. (2004). Relational control-motivated aggression: A theoretically-based
typology of intimate violence. Journal of Family Communication, 4 (3/4), 209-233.

Orange, L.M. (2005). Childhood sexual abuse: What rehabilitation counselors need to
know. Journal Rehabilitation, 71(4), 5-11.

Peretti, P. O., & Majecen, K. (1991). Emotional abuse among the elderly: affecting
behavior variables. Social Behavior and Personality, 19(4), 255-261.

Pedrick-Connel, C., & Gelles, R.J. (1982). Elder abuse: The status of current knowledge.
Journal of Family Relations, 31, 457-465.

Phipps, A.G. (2001). Empirical applications of structuration theory. Geografiska Annaler,
Series B, Human Geography, 83B (4), 190-204.

Peterman, L.M., & Dixon, C.G. (2003). Domestic violence between same-sex partners:
implications for counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 81(1), 40-48.

Reese-Weber, M., & Kahn, J.H.(2005). Familial predictors of sibling and romantic-
partner conflict resolution: Comparing late adolescents from intact and divorced
families. Journal ofAdolescence, 28(4), 479-493.

Ritzer, G. (1988). Sociological metatheory: A defense of a subfield by a delineation of its
parameters. Sociological Theory, 6(2), 187-200.

Romeo, F. F. (2000). The educator's role in reporting the emotional abuse of children.
Journal ofInstructional Psychology, 27(3), 183-186.

Rose, J. (1998). Evaluating the contribution of structuration theory to the information
systems discipline. In W.R.J. Baets (Ed.). Proceedings of the 6th European
conference on information systems. Granada: Euro Arab Management Sch.

Rosenberg, J. (2003). Abused women's children have an increased risk of dying before
age five. International Family Planning Perspectives, 29(3), 151-153.

Rothschild, C. S. (1970).The study of family power structure: A review 1960-1969.
Journal ofMarriage and the Family, 32(4), 539-552.

Rothman, M. B., & Duntop, B.D. (2001). A silent enemy. Hemisphere: A Magazine for
the Americas, 10, 18p.

Rowe, D.C., Rodgers, J.C., & Meseck-Bushey, S. (1992). Sibling delinquency and the
family environment: Shared and unshared influences. ChildDevelopment,63(1),
59-67.









Sagrestano, L. M., Carroll, D., Rodriguez, A. C., & Nuwayhid, B. (2004). Demographic,
psychological, and relationship factors in domestic violence during pregnancy in a
sample of low income women of color. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
28(4),309-322.

Slezak, P. (1991). How strong is the 'Strong Programme'? Social Studies of Science,
21(1), 154-156.

Sneddon, H. (2003). The effect of maltreatment on children's health and well-being.
Child Care in Practice, 9(3), 236-249.

Shugarman, L. R., Fries, B.E., Wolf, R.S., & Morris, J.N. (2003). Identifying older
people at risk of abuse during routine screening. American Geriatrics Society,
51(1), 25-31.

Straus, M.A. (1974). Forward In R.J. Gelles (Ed.), The violent home: A study ofphysical
aggression between husbands and wives (p.13-17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Straus, M.A. (1992). Sociological research and social policy: The case of family
violence. Sociological Forum, 7(2), 211-237.

Strong, B., DeVault, C., Sayad, B.W.,& Cohen, T.F. (2001).The marriage and family
experience. (8th ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Thomson Learning Inc.

Suprina, J. S., & Chang, C. Y.,(2005). Child abuse, society, and individual psychology:
What's power got to do with it? Journal oflndividualPsychology,61 (3), 250-268.

Swinford, S. P., DeMaris, A., Cernkovich, S.A., & Giordano, P.C. (2000). Harsh physical
discipline in childhood and violence in later romantic involvements: The mediating
role of problem behaviors. Journal ofMarriage and the Family, 62(2), 508-519.

Tham, S.W., Ford, T.J., & Wilkenson, D.G. (1995). A survey of domestic violence and
forms of abuse. Journal of Mental Health, 4 (3), 317-322.

Thagard, P. (1994). Mind, society, and the growth of knowledge. Philosophy of
Knowledge, 61 (4), 629-645.

Thompson, H., & Priest, R. (2005). Elder abuse and neglect: considerations for mental
health practitioners. Adultspan: Theory Research & Practice, 4(2), 116-128.

Timmer, C.P., (1997).Valuing social science research and policy analysis.
American Journal ofAgricultural Economics, 79(5), 1545-1550.

Tjaden, P., & Theonnes, N. (1998). Prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence
against women survey. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice.