Interrogating the resilience of women affected by violence

abstract

Violence against women is a serious health and social problem for women not just in South Africa but across the globe. Violence renders women vulnerable and in most cases seeks to disempower them. However, most women, once out of the violent situation are able to overcome their adversity. Using Ungar‘s Social Ecology of Resilience Theory as a framework, this paper demonstrates the journey of women affected by violence to overcome their adversity. It does this through interviews with four women temporarily housed in a “shelter” and three women social workers at the shelter - a non-governmental organisation (NGO). Views, positioning the women‘s coping strategies in the face of adversity, were solicited from the women and the social workers. The face-to-face interviews through which data was generated was qualitative in nature. Findings show that external resources in the social ecologies of the women, community, state and families, are facilitating resilience in sexually and physically violated women.

keywords:

• resilience
• abused women
• survivors of gender violence
• women‘s shelter

Introduction

Although much research has been reported on the nature and trends of violence against women, few studies have focussed on what may be regarded as necessary for their ‘survival‘ during and post- violence. The aim of this article therefore is to explore what makes resilience more likely to occur when women are affected by violence. This article builds on the well-argued notion that individuals and their social ecologies co-construct resilience (Theron, 2013; Ungar, 2012).

Violence against women is a global phenomenon and involves a spectrum of physical, sexual, and psychological acts of control, threat, aggression, abuse, and assault. Research over many decades has demonstrated that violence against women includes but is not limited to female infanticide, (girl) child abuse, incest, rape, sexual harassment and intimate partner violence (IPV) (Guruge et al, 2012). The short- and long-term impacts of violence are serious (Trickett et al, 2011; People Opposing Women Abuse [POWA], 2010; Wood et al, 2007). Fighting to cope with the impact of violence is often negative and the resultant effect is often entry into drug/alcohol abuse, binge eating, self-injury and suicide. Conversely, in the presence of adversity, some women victims exhibit behaviours associated with survivors. This research study is about those women.

Resilience and women in contexts of sexual violence

Early studies conceptualised resilience as an interplay of risk and protective factors on individual and environmental levels. At the individual level, resilience was regarded as purely internal with some researchers arguing that those who adjusted well to severe stressors possessed certain characteristics such as high self-esteem, intelligence and independence (Herrenkohl et al, 1994; Garmezy, 1993; Masten et al, 1990). Attention to environmental protective factors saw researchers establishing links between the at ‘risk‘ individual and protective factors in the family and community. For example, Werner (1989) found positive family structures such as close parental or caregiver bonds and a positive schooling environment to promote resilience. In other words, resilience is facilitated by both the individual, as well as the social ecology. Valentine and Feinauer‘s (1993) study found that resilient women are able to find emotional support outside the family and have self-regard or the ability to think well of themselves.

However, extensive research on resilience has found that not all resources commonly associated with resilience would generate a positive response to adversity (Phasha, 2010) because resilience changes over time and varies between individuals (Dass-Brailsford, 2005; Rutter, 1987). For example, typical protective resources such as close parent-child attachments will not always be helpful especially if the parent is abusive themselves or are less responsive to their child‘s needs (Hong and Park, 2012; Weinfield et al, 2004). Furthermore, individual experience of stress or difficulty in life might strengthen resistance at a later stage (Rutter, 2006). Likewise, individuals who respond positively at one point in their life may have an adverse response to a later stress (Rutter, 1987). It would be unlikely that any individual would be resilient in all situations across their life span.

resilience changes over time and varies between individuals

Several studies have argued that resilience is a complex construct that does not only place responsibility on the individual but upon institutions and society (Hart et al, 2016; Masten and Monn, 2015). What determines an individual‘s resilience therefore involves multiple interacting systems consisting of psychological, social, cultural and biological factors, which determine how one reacts to sexual and physical violation (Masten and Monn, 2015; Rutter, 2006). From this perspective, resilience is conceptualised as “an interactive concept that refers to a relative resistance to environmental risk experiences or the overcoming of stress or adversity” (Rutter, 2006:1).

The “person-environment interaction” (Ungar, 2012:14) reflects the complexity of resilience and also suggests that social ecological support is essential and outweighs individual contributions to resilience (Bierman et al, 2004). Further, the complexity and diversity of human experiences and human needs reinforces that the interaction between individuals and environments is the source of resilience. For example, Crawford et al‘s (2009) study found mothers who value their motherly role and keep their children safe strengthen resilience. Other scholars suggest that without external resources such as access to social support and childcare the source of resilience may be compromised for women dependent on such support (Karim, 2011). This reiterates Lerner‘s (2006) findings that resilience is based on the strengths of individuals coupled with ecological resources that support growth. Resilience is thus not one trait nor one thing. Essentially then, resilience can and should be developed through intervening in systems (family, social and community).

Ungar (2011) argues that emphasis needs to be placed on the role social and physical ecologies play in developing positive outcomes. For example, Charuvastra and Cloitre‘s (2008) social ecological conceptual framework of post-traumatic stress disorder posits that risk for the development of post-traumatic stress disorder following exposure to a traumatic event and capacity to recover from post-traumatic symptoms are contingent upon the survivor‘s perceptions of social support as well as the actual tangible forms of social support received.

External resources, including government, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), communities and family play an essential role in fostering resilience and therefore should not be ignored (Driskell et al, 2001). The lack of external resources (e.g., family, social and community support) may explain why some women stay in abusive relationships (Hyland, 2014). At the same time, staying in an abusive relationship could also imply that women are able to acquire mechanisms to manage their circumstance suggesting that these women have the resources and competency to improve their situation (Slabbert, 2014). However, with the combination of personal resources and social ecological support many women are able to leave abusive relationships, develop a sense of belonging and security and/or regain control over their lives (Davis, 2002; Pilkington, 2000), thus “bouncing forward” (Walsh, 2002).

Literature on sexual and physical violence proposes that the external support needed by victims includes emotional, psychological, physical and practical resources. External resources can prevent victims from falling back into the cycle of abuse, lower the risk of re-victimisation or of becoming perpetrators of abuse themselves as well as assist in the recovery process (Cordero, 2014; Smallbone et al, 2013). External support comes from a wide range of resources such as family and friends, social support, religious organisations, shelters for women and so on.

Support offered by family and friends has been documented to aid in developing resilience (Oaksford and Frude, 2003). Caring family members are seen as inspirational for providing advice (Yntiso et al, 2014). In addition, the Gender Equality Network (2015) study found that women tend to report incidence of abuse or seek help when they have a friend or relative to support them in the process. Women in a study by Crawford et al (2009) identified family and social support as important to assist in managing ongoing difficulties, especially after leaving the abusive relationship. The ongoing difficulties are related to the practical assistance needed by women. Thus apart from the emotional support provided by family and friends, practical support such as financial help, a place to stay and childcare and transportation to and from court and/or work assist in developing resilience (Karim, 2011; Goodman et al, 1999). While financially independent women may have such needs catered for, they may not have the emotional support from family and friends. Thus, a support system for one might not necessarily be the same for another.

With regards to religious engagement, studies have suggested that involvement in religious activities (i.e. attending church) and the social support provided by members of religious communities promotes resilience (Alim et al, 2008). Potter (2007) and Hage (2006) found that spirituality influences women‘s resilience as believing in God or spirituality not only gave women the strength to leave the abusive partner but to survive after leaving the relationship. However, religious commitments can also cause distress, reported to be caused by the failure of religious leaders to openly speak against violence against women with silence seen as supporting the perpetrator (Herman, 1997).

Some parallels between Ungar‘s Social Ecology of Resilience Theory and the South African concept of Ubuntu can also be drawn. Ubuntu recognises individuals and communities as an operational system. Archbishop Desmond Tutu in his book, No Future Without Forgiveness, describes a person with ubuntu as “open and available to others, affirming of others … has a proper self-assurance.”¹ Theron (cited in Theron and Theron, 2010) has noted that the traditional values of Ubuntu encouraged resilience among the township participants in her study.

While it appears that outside factors (protective factors and interventions) have greater value, Ungar (2012) makes it clear that the available opportunities cannot be useful without accounting for the individual level strengths and challenges. It is then that the individual component acts as an intermediary between the available resources and resilience. It is not the mere interactions with the resources but the quality and meaningfulness of the resources and the availability thereof to the individual. The trajectory of individual responses to adversity not only implies a challenge for existing systems but calls for a system (individuals, families, communities) to adequately respond to adversities/disturbances (Masten and Monn, 2015).

addressing why and how women cope in the face of adversity adds to the discourse on the types of support that abused women need

As resilience is not static and varies amongst individuals, this study too challenges notions that recovery from an abusive situation is contingent upon the primary agency of women. Hence addressing why and how women cope in the face of adversity adds to the discourse on the types of support that abused women need to exit abusive relationships, rather than investing in the much critiqued and stereotyped notion that reliance on abused women‘s internal resources is enough to adequately address the adversities and challenges women confront as a result of sexual violence.

Research design and methodology

Using a purposive sampling strategy (within a qualitative methodological approach and research design), this study generated data from women who have experienced physical, emotional and/or sexual violence and social workers at the Haven Shelter² where the women temporarily reside. The Shelter uses the term ‘clients’ to refer to the women as opposed to victims. The selection of the Shelter was based on accessibility and availability of clients. Violence against women is a sensitive topic and obtaining gatekeepers’ permission was challenging. The two researchers in this study approached a few centres but were denied access due to the sensitive nature of the study. The director of the Shelter, where the researchers eventually had access to participants (clients and social workers) for the study, granted permission with strict provisions of confidentiality and anonymity of the data and participants’ identity respectively.

The Shelter was established in 1994 with funding from the Ubuntu Community Chest and other donors. A 24-hour facility provides safety for abused women and their children. The Shelter affords immediate medical assistance to women if required and provides emotional support through individual, group and family counselling. Opportunities are provided for women to develop their skills in order to seek empowerment, such as skills development programmes that include sewing skills, life skills education, bead making, gardening, etc. The Shelter is also in communication with employment agencies in an attempt to access employment opportunities for the women.

Three dedicated house mothers (not part of the study) are always available to provide care and support to the women who are admitted to the Shelter. All three house mothers work on a shift rotation, ensuring assistance for the women on a 24-hour basis. The Shelter situated in a suburb in Durban has 24-hour security and has a partnership with the local South African Police Services (SAPS), to ensure the protection and safety of the women and children. Admission into the Shelter is via the Child Welfare Society or the SAPS. Once the women are admitted into the Shelter, they are immediately linked with social workers (included in the study) who assist with their emotional and psychological recovery. Women are taught about their rights, responsibilities and capabilities.

The Shelter provided a small sample comprising seven participants (four female clients and three female social workers) (see table 1 and 2 below), from four South African race groups (as per historical apartheid era classifications) namely African, Indian, Coloured and White. They ranged between 23 and 48 years of age. This small sample size was influenced by the number of clients and social workers available at the Shelter during the study period.

Table 1: Biographical data of clients

Participant	Age	Race	Number of Children	Educational Background
S1	31	White	2	Grade 12
S2	26	Coloured	1	Grade 11
S3	35	African	1	Grade 12
S4	23	Coloured	1	Grade 12

Data were collected through two focus group interviews with the clients and one face-to-face interview with each social worker. Given the sensitive nature of the study (exploring resilience in abused women) interviews were found to be useful as it made the data generation process less intimidating and enabled greater sensitivity by the researchers to the participants’ experiences. The researchers first conducted an introductory interview with the clients where the nature of the research study was shared. At this stage, clients were invited to participate. This stage allowed the researchers to establish rapport and gain clients’ confidence to participate in the study.

Both clients and social workers were requested to sign consent forms, which gave permission for their participation and the recording of interviews (subsequently transcribed verbatim and coded). The researchers have used pseudonyms in all instances to circumvent any possible link to the participants.

In the subsequent focus group interviews with the clients and the face-to-face interview with social workers the researchers utilised a set of interview questions (listed below) relating to the aim of the study with leeway to probe where necessary. This proved successful in generating meaningful data. Often probing was necessary for clarity to clients’ responses. Clients and social workers were asked similar questions that related to clients’ decision to seek help and the role of external resources and support (community, state and families) in supporting and sustaining this decision. Questions to the clients included:

1. What motivated your decision to leave the relationship?

2. What role can your family/friends play in helping you stay focussed on your decision?

3. How can the community support you in your decision?

4. How has the Shelter helped you remain focussed on your decision?

Social workers were asked one question: What in your opinion motivated clients to leave the abusive relationship?

In the event that clients were distressed when recalling their experiences and needed debriefing, a trained social worker was available during and after the interviews. Each interview lasted approximately 45 minutes. The nature of the questions in the interview process allowed for in-depth responses and meaningful data.

All interviews were conducted in English on the Shelter‘s premises. English is the language of communication at the Shelter and all participants were proficient in English, hence consented to the interviews being conducted in English. One of the researchers acted as moderator while the other researcher sat in.

Data analysis

Using Braun and Clarke‘s (2006) thematic analysis model, data themes were identified from the transcribed interviews and are discussed. The researchers transcribed each interview with clients and social workers and found recurring themes for each question. The themes identified indicate the resilience-enabling resources within women‘s social ecologies.

Participants are referred to by a code namely S1, S2, S3 and S4 (clients) and M1, M2, M3 (social workers). Table 1 presents the biographical data of clients and Table 2, the social workers.

Table 2: Biographical data of social workers

Participant	Age	Race	Years of experience	Educational Qualification
M1	46	Indian	20 years	(Director) Bachelor of social work
M2	25	Indian	5 years	Psychology degree
M3	48	Indian	20 years	Diploma

Findings and discussion

This section presents and discusses the findings drawn from responses to the key research question of this study: What motivated clients in this study to leave the abusive relationship? With respect to social workers, the data speaks to the question: What from your experience informed clients’ decision to leave the abusive relationship? Based on the questions that were asked the following themes are discussed: intrinsic motivation to leave the abusive relationship; the role of children and family as a motivating factor; the role of the community in supporting the decision.

Intrinsic motivation to leave the abusive relationship

In response to question 1 (stated above) clients’ responses confirm Ungar‘s (2012) argument that available opportunities cannot be useful without accounting for individual strengths. Resilience is a skill that can be developed over time, but only as much as the individual‘s inner “resilience bandwidth” will allow (Hyland, 2014:14). Among the variables reported to contribute to thriving under pressure are a proactive and positive personality; feeling in control; having balance and perspective; and, a perception of social support (Sarkar and Fletcher, 2014). Hence, the individual acts as an intermediary between the available resources and resilience. The responses below suggest that the women were ready to take control of their lives (and risk possible consequences). The responses further show that they had given up hope that the relationship could work and recognised that the only way to live safely is in resolve to leave, with or without access to external support. Clients demonstrated their internal motivation through the following responses:

S1 realised she had to take a decision:

“I decided to leave the abusive relationship after reflecting on my life and realising that I was just tired of the abuse.” (S1)

S2′s response suggests that she stayed in the abusive relationship until she was able to challenge the excuses her husband made. She eventually realised that the abuse would continue and that she would not be any wiser if she remained:

“whether I stayed or left I had nothing to lose – because once all the excuses are used up and have been recycled every time I was either physically abused and emotionally abused, the excuses finally run out, because even though I am an orphan and truly have nowhere to go - I left!” (S2)

S3 stated that she had little or no external resources such as family, work and support from society to turn to. Staying was for her more dangerous than leaving:

“Once you stop making excuses, you start making progress. I had given him many chances, however, the abuse increased, no matter what I did he continued abusing me so I ran away from there.” (S3)

S4 realised the choice to feel safe required she distance herself from the abuse even though she was not certain of immediate or extended family support she could call on:

“I was tired of excuses, and had no family no relatives to help me. The abuse has made me a hard person. I don‘t want to be scared anymore.” (S4)

The above responses demonstrate the women‘s determination to liberate themselves from their respective abusive situations. Although expressed somewhat differently by the participants, all showed a single objective, namely determination to be free from the fear and pain of abuse they were subjected to.

All participants, both clients and social workers, mentioned that in addition to recognising the problem, acting on it needed to be backed by willpower and the motivation to seek help. S1 said that her determination as a woman to carry on was a strength for her: “my willpower motivated me to seek help.”

The social workers’ understanding of the clients’ decision to abandon the abusive relationship is framed within clients’ inner strength or resolve to leave. For example, M1 noted that women come into the Shelter determined to leave the abuse behind. M2 added that women themselves must have resolve to change their situation. While for M3 “developing resilience starts from within … . When individuals had enough of the abuse and self-reflect on the situation … they realise it is time to get out.” M3 also pointed out that resilience is developed differently amongst women. Some women may find their strength in dealing with the constant abuse: “The inner strength that women did not know they had comes out through their abusive relationship.”

Children and family as a motivating factor

Literature has shown family bonds and relationships to play an important part in resilience (Karim, 2011). In the study this was found to hold true in the strong ties women who left abusive relationships had with their children, as well as in the part played by a supportive family relationship The safety of children becomes the most important priority for many women (Crawford et al, 2009); it may also serve as the primary reason why women leave and/or stay away from the abusive relationship (Cordero, 2014). Similarly, participants in this study mentioned the important role their children and family members played in their decision to depart from a violent or abusive situation. S2 mentioned that her decision to leave was influenced by her children and that any decision she makes revolves around her children. Participants also saw their role as mothers as an important part of the process of moving forward with their lives:

“My daughter‘s birth brought hope and made me happy. My child has given me hope to recover – I have built a strong relationship with my baby … that is one thing that I am happy about … that is the reason I am healing.” (S3)

S3′s reflections show her child to be a strong motivating factor in her decision to leave the abusive relationship and this has given her a reason to recover and move on positively with her life. S1 believed, “Women are a lot stronger when they have children as they want to protect their children.”

Although three of the clients interviewed indicated they did not have family to turn to when they decided to leave, S3′s sister was a source of practical and emotional support which gave her an escape route that lead her to the Shelter. She stated, “I received help from my sister who advised me to go to child welfare. I was then sent to the shelter.” Her response suggests that family support not only assists in the leaving process but is also a conduit for providing the practical information and advice they may require. M2′s response emphasised the role of family assisting clients in their decision to leave a violent or abusive relationship: “family support is vital in the sense that victims will always get on hand support, someone who will stand by their side no matter what.”

The role of the community as resource

The availability of community support is important in the process of co-constructing resilience in the social ecologies within which abused women are vulnerable. S2 saw community support as a network of friends in her neighbourhood who supported her decision to leave her partner.

“After meeting friends in my area I was encouraged not to be afraid, and to believe in god. They encouraged me to be a single mother and to always keep my job.” (S2)

Clients spoke positively of the Shelter as an important role player in supporting abused women by providing a safe space to heal and where they can get back on their feet. S1 said that with the help of the Shelter she has gained her dignity, pride, mothering skills and confidence. She now feels able to protect herself and feels supported knowing that there is someone there to listen. For S2, security is important and the Shelter “provides a place of safety and peace”. All clients agreed that the counselling provided by the Shelter has contributed to developing their confidence, self-esteem, strength and decision-making.

On the question of how external community resources, e.g. shelters, assist in overcoming the adversity confronted by abused women, all the clients agreed that if the women take the programme seriously it has the potential to “reduce the cycle of abuse/vulnerability”. S2 had come to understand how to protect herself from abuse:

“The centre equipped me with knowledge on how to prevent abuse and how to protect myself and not to fall back into the cycle of abuse.” (S2)

S4 saw the Shelter as a support and an external resource that increased her self-authority and ability to take back the power necessary to take decisions for herself again. She also saw the Shelter as a source of “hope and support”. S3 said the Shelter helped her “gain her confidence back which motivated her to move on with her life”. S1 said that the Shelter as an external support resembled a lifeboat; it restored her dignity, confidence, motherhood, and assisted in redefining her identity. She asserted: “It has given me a place of hope emotionally. It has taught me never to allow anyone to abuse me ever again.”

The social worker perspective offered by M1 reinforces the need for external support systems by women post-abuse who are starting new lives.

“When clients realise they need the financial support of their abusive husbands, their will power to seek help is diminished. It is therefore useful to have support systems available to assist women in the long term.” (M1)

Her response confirms that social ecologies co-construct resilience and both emotional and practical support is needed to enhance resilience (Karim, 2011; Goodman et al, 1999). Even though women might have the initial motivation and resolve to leave violent relationships, resilience is heavily vested in institutions and society (Hart et al, 2016). Thus while the internal motivation is necessary to free themselves from the abuse, external support is required for the ability to recover and bounce forward (Walsh, 2002).

The above responses strongly dovetail with Hart et al‘s (2016) argument that resilience is a complex construct that cannot place the sole responsibility on the individual capacity for resilience: the responsibility must be with social institutions and society which re/create conditions of risk and adversity. The community, family and the Shelter are external resources that contribute positively to the women‘s journey to recovery.

Participants felt strongly that there was a need for the public to be educated on how to help women who are victims of abuse. Preparing a system (individual, families and communities) to adequately respond to adversity/disturbance is therefore essential (Masten and Monn, 2015). This finding confirms that the quality and availability of system resources to abused women are important in supporting the decision to leave abusive relationships. External agencies, including government, NGOs, communities and family play an essential role in fostering resilience and therefore should not be ignored (Driskell et al, 2001). S2 stated:

“The community needs to be educated on how to assist and how they can help provide us protection so we won‘t feel afraid … .Friends are helpful but need to be educated on how to assist discretely so that the abusive spouse does not get to know and discourage them from assisting.” (S2)

Participants agreed that there is a need for programmes where victims are able to speak to each other in order to be able to support each other and that the state should give more attention to the problem of the abuse of women. They believed that support and counselling centres should be funded to assist those who are abused, as gender violence is a social problem that needs to be addressed.

Social workers’ emphasis on the individual level of resilience needed by women gives credence to the importance of women‘s desire for change, to escape the threat of abuse and hope for a new life. This should not be interpreted as meaning that the responsibility for addressing sexual abuse rests on abused women or the clients. Social workers do not mention the role of support given by the Shelter in their understanding of what informed clients’ decision to leave the abusive relationship. The decision to leave is nonetheless contingent on clients’ access to information, their resolve and to different degrees, access to external support. Social workers’ responses nevertheless propose that without external support the decision to leave and the capacity of clients to start new lives is easily placed in jeopardy. The role of external systemic support is therefore central to the co-construction of resilience to address the adversities and threats of women abuse.

Conclusion

Based on our research with a sample of participants in a shelter in a suburb in Durban the data identified that clients need both individual agency and social ecological support to sustain them during and after their decision to quit their abusive relationships. The role of their emotional bond with the family suggests the importance of this bond in facilitating the exit from the abuse. The responses suggest their desire to make things normal for those they care about. The role of the community emerged as an important aspect of support that further facilitated exit from the abusive situation. In addition, the support from the shelter and being in a safe environment encouraged clients to stay focused on what they now wanted for themselves and their children. This suggests the critical role shelters play in transforming the lives of women who leave violent relationships. Although the social workers’ responses focussed strongly on the individual agency of clients, they also indicate that external support is needed for women to leave, recover and stay on course with their lives. This perspective provides an analytic lens that prompts the need for social awareness and education on resilience as a process, rather than an individual stand-alone trait.

Hence, this study has shown that although the women have come to believe that they can or should mostly rely on themselves, they identify the role that the community and family can play in supporting them. An additional view not expressed in other research findings is the role of (discrete) family and community support to avoid detection by the abuser. Participants suggested that overt or conspicuous support by these units extends the abuse to the supporters.

The research findings support Masten‘s (2015) notion that resilience is dynamic: the capacity for adaptation to adversity is distributed across systems and individual resilience depends on the resilience of other systems. The findings further resonate with Wathen et al (2016:873) who suggest that:

understanding the role of different abuse experiences, risk and protective factors, and trajectories can assist in more accurate identification and appropriate care provision for women exposed to IPV.

In conclusion, the responsibility for addressing sexual violence and abuse is a social one and cannot be misconstrued as an individual or private problem, at the risk of perpetuating gender injustice. Social workers’ recognition of the need for agency or will power in facilitating clients’ seeking intervention is important provided that this is balanced against the availability of external resources that are critical for the journey to recovery from any abusive situation. This study not only shows that government, community and family are key to facilitating coping but also highlights that the quality and availability of resources run parallel to the individual factor. This study recommends a larger scale quantitative study for intervention purposes.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Nirmala Gopal

NIRMALA GOPAL joined the University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN) in 2006 as a lecturer and was promoted to senior lecturer in 2008. Prior to joining UKZN she lectured in the Department of Criminology in Fort Hare University in the Eastern Cape. She received the majority of her qualifications from the University of Durban Westville. Her teaching interests include juvenile and adult offending, women and children as victims of criminal offending and psychosocial effects of illicit drugs. She is an NRF rated scientist based on her contribution to the national discourse on school violence. Her interest in biopsychosocial causes and prevention of violence is shaping her most recent research agenda. Nirmala is interested in mentoring a new generation of academics by encouraging co-publications and supervision of a number of Masters and PhD students in criminology. Email: [email protected]

Reema Nunlall

REEMA NUNLALL is a PhD candidate in the Discipline of Criminology and Forensic Studies at the University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN), South Africa. Her master‘s research focused on the conviction rate for adult female rape. Reema is a human rights activist and volunteers her time at non-governmental organisations (NGOs). She is also a part time lecturer at UKZN and has supervised post-graduate students on topics related to African Criminology and Governance and Criminology. Reema has a strong interest in gender-based violence and continues to work on projects around the discourse of gender-based violence. Email: [email protected]

Notes

1. See: https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2006/sep/29 (site accessed 5 August 2017).

2. For the safety of the clients, the name of the shelter was replaced with a pseudonym (Haven Shelter).