In their article, Wenzel, Tucker, Hambarsoomian, and Elliott (2006) investigated cases of violence against impoverished women, their frequency, and preventative measures. The authors examined sexual, physical, and psychological types of violence, along with the probability of their interconnection.
The population studied in the article consisted of women from 18 to 55 years old living in poor conditions and suffering from economic difficulties. The participants had no problem with communicating and understanding English. They had no considerable mental damage. All the females who took part in the research were experiencing economic hardship. The researchers emphasized the necessity of interviewing such a population since it is under a greater threat of violence than females living in better conditions (Wenzel et al., 2006).
The sample selected for the study included women who were currently economically disadvantaged. The authors pointed out that this group is more vulnerable and experiences more cases of violence than women who are in economically better conditions. They also noted a disparity between impoverished women in shelters and females in housing, the latter showing fewer reports of violence.
The researchers constructed their sampling frame based on another study performed with the assistance of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The sampling frame was defined by 51 local facilities: “homeless emergency shelters, transitional living facilities, single-room occupancy hotels, board-and-care facilities, detox and rehabilitation facilities, mental health facilities, and HIV and AIDS transitional homes” (Wenzel et al., 2006, p. 825). In all, 898 females were engaged in the interviews: 438 from low-income housing conditions, and 460 living in shelters.
Two groups of females were excluded from the sampling frame: homeless women and women from domestic violence shelters. The former group was left out since it was impossible to distinguish its members, although the authors admitted that women in this group might face more serious risks of violence. The latter group was not considered in the sampling frame because the researchers did not have access to their place of residence.
If the researchers had chosen to interview only females from battered women’s shelters, it would have made cluster random sampling complicated. In that case, the number of participants would have been considerably lower, which would have made the research less reliable. Not all impoverished women suffering from violence go to battered women’s shelters. Many of them need to be reached in the streets, in shelters, or at home. Also, interviewing only the females staying in battered women’s shelters would limit the research results within the time frame. The interview questions covered the last six months of the women’s lives; such shelters usually lodge women with recent traumas. Thus, questioning the females from other places than the battered women’s shelters would make the research more thorough and valid.
Considering the characteristics of the study population, purposive sampling was applied by the researchers. This kind of sampling helped them standardize the measuring instrument since the women taking part in the research belonged to the age group chosen by the authors, and their living conditions corresponded to those dictated by the research purpose.
The research by Wenzel et al. (2006) showed that a considerable segment of impoverished women suffers from various kinds of violence. This statistic primarily concerns females from ethnic groups. The authors found that women in housing were less likely to be abused than women in shelters. The researchers suggested educating females about violence, both physical and psychological, as one preventative measure.
References
Wenzel, S., Tucker, J., Hambarsoomian, K., & Elliott, M. (2006). Toward a more comprehensive understanding of violence against impoverished women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(6), 820-839.