annotated bibliography of new zealand research into family violence

model for developing, funding, monitoring and auditing services; the collation of nationalstatistics about the incidence of violence against women and children; and family violencedeath reviews.The report will be used by the Ministry of Women’s Affairs for the 2006 CEDAW report.Newbold, G. (2004). A reply to Buckingham’s ‘‘‘Newsmaking’ criminology or ‘infotainment’criminology?" Inaccuracy, distortion and feminist doctrine. Australian and New ZealandJournal of Criminology, 37(2), 276-285.See: www.nzfvc.org.nz/12945.pubTopic Areas: Intimate partner abuse, Child abuse and neglect, Women, Perpetrators/offenders, Violence against men, Justice, GenderAbstract: This article is the author’s response to Judith Buckingham’s "‘Newsmaking’Criminology or ‘Infotainment’ Criminology?". In her article, Buckingham reviewed researchput forward in Newbold’s work and a criminology PhD thesis by Samantha Jeffries, GenderJudgements: An Investigation of Gender Differentiation in Sentencing and Remand in NewZealand, co-supervised by Newbold, that finds discrimination against men in the NewZealand criminal justice system. In particular, Buckingham argues that the way in which thiscontroversial and high profile media approach to criminology treats domestic violence againstwomen, can influence and mislead both the general public and public policy. At the heart ofthis debate is the question of gender asymmetry in domestic violence and the selective use ofresearch to support this. In particular, research from the longitudinal DunedinMultidisciplinary Health and Development Study is cited. One perspective on this research, asfavoured by Newbold, claims that both men and women have similar rates for committingpartner abuse; whilst the alternative view finds men 4 times more likely to be the perpetrator.In his response, aside from questioning the appropriateness of PhD students critiquing thesesin international peer-reviewed journals, Newbold claims that Buckingham selectivelymisrepresents his work, for instance, ignoring his more recent publication, co-authored withGlennis Dennehy, The Girls in the Gang, which looks at the physical and psychologicaloppression of women in the domestic context of the gang. Newbold contends that the justicesystem appears to pathologise women and see them as victims, often leading to a lessersentence. Some case studies of women who have violently offended against their children orpartners, taken from Jeffries’ PhD thesis, are used as examples to illustrate gender bias in thejustice system. However, Newbold agrees that men do more damage when they are theperpetrators of domestic violence due to their greater physical strength. Newbold argues thatBuckingham has taken his research out of context, leading to gross distortion andmisinterpretation of his work, and denies any undue influence over Jeffries’ PhD findings.Newbold recognises that unequal power relations between men and women contribute to thecontext of domestic violence, and concurs with Buckingham that different research methodswill produce differing results, so must be interpreted cautiously. He argues, however, thatBuckingham’s article goes beyond a difference of interpretation of research findings and is‘polemical’.Newton, D. (2001). Children’s perspectives on family violence. Unpublished master’s thesis,University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.See: www.nzfvc.org.nz/13152.pubTopic Areas: Intimate partner abuse, Child abuse and neglect, Children, Children aswitnesses, Cultural factors, Mental health, Policy, Social services136