Domestic Violence Service Providers’ Technology Readiness and Information Needs

Technology-based applications hold promise as effective, efficient means of disseminating research- and practice-based information to professionals whose work relates to domestic violence. Other related uses of technology in the field have grown, including safety planning to address technology-related risks to victims and software programs being integrated into domestic violence agencies. However, to date, the levels of technology readiness and technology-related information needs of these professionals have received minimal research attention. This study involved a national survey of 471 professionals whose work addresses domestic violence. The findings demonstrate differences in professionals’ technology readiness based on key demographic and professional characteristics. They also reveal the most frequently noted information needs within this professional field. Implications for future research and practice are provided.     

“The Test of a Civilization Is the Way that It Cares for Its Helpless Members”: Violence Against Older Women

Violence against women is a major health risk nationally and internationally. However, despite its impact, violence against older women remains an understudied area. Abuse of older women is frequently unrecognized unless encompassed under “elder abuse.” The purpose of this article is to (1) provide a summary of current research on violence against older women, (2) describe methodological biases in research on violence against older women, (3) discuss methodological biases that have kept the problem of violence against older women hidden from view, and (4) propose new directions for feminist research, advocacy, and therapy.     

Preventing Family Violence: An Educational Model

This article gives an example of cross-cultural teaching between the United States and Korea using Bible study, lecture, and psychodrama by Korean students on the topic of domestic violence. In the process, basic education on domestic violence is presented in a culturally sensitive way.

Trading jobs for health: Ionizing radiation,occupational ethics,and the welfare argument

Blue-collar workers throughout the world generally face higher levels of pollution than the public and are unable to control many health risks that employers impose on them. Economists tend to justify these risky workplaces on the grounds of the compensating wage differential (CWD). The CWD, or hazard-pay premium, is the alleged increment in wages, all things being equal, that workers in hazardous environments receive. According to this theory, employees trade safety for money on the job market, even though they realize some of them will bear the health consequences of their employment in a risky occupational environment. To determine whether the CWD or hazard-pay premium succeeds in justifying alleged environmental injustices in the workplace, this essay (1) surveys the general theory behind the “compensating wage differential”; (2) presents and evaluates the “welfare argument” for the CWD; (3) offers several reasons for rejecting the CWD, as a proposed rationale for allowing apparent environmental injustice in the workplace; and (4) applies the welfare argument to an empirical case, that of US nuclear workers. The essay concludes that this argument fails to provide a justification for the apparent environmental injustice faced by the 600,000 US workers who have labored in government nuclear-weapons plants and laboratories. Shrader-Frechette is O’Neill Professor of Philosophy and Concurrent Professor of Biological Sciences. She teaches ethics, philosophy of science, quantitative risk assessment, and environmental science. The latest of her 280 articles and 14 books is her 2002 volume from Oxford University Press, Environmental Justice: Creating Equality, Reclaiming Democracy. Shrader-Frechette is grateful to the National Science Foundation, Ethics and Values Program, for research support for this article through grant SES-98-10611. All opinions are those of the author, not the NSF.