Despite increasing acknowledgment of intimate partner violence (IPV) as a potentially traumatic experience, there is a gap in research investigating women’s perspectives of trauma related to their experiences of IPV from an intersectional lens. Intersectionality, which illuminates interconnected inequalities due to constructions of race, gender, sexuality, class, and culture, is particularly important for exploring the broader contexts of women’s experiences of IPV and trauma. In response to this dearth in research, this paper presents qualitative findings from a constructivist grounded theory study of 15 women’s experiences of IPV and trauma. To conceptualize IPV-related trauma from an intersectional lens, this study addressed the following research questions: (a) How do women who have experienced IPV understand and view trauma? (b) What do women who have experienced IPV indicate are experiences of trauma? and (c) How do women’s differing identities, experiences of oppression, or other hardships or adversities relate to their experiences of IPV? Through analysis, six distinct themes were identified: (a) changing perceptions of trauma; (b) the pain of trauma; (c) fear, anxiety, and triggers; (d) lasting impact of trauma; (e) struggle for acceptance; and (f) growth and insight. Implications from these findings illustrate the pervasiveness of IPV and other forms of trauma among women who have been abused by a partner, the long-lasting traumatic impacts of IPV, and the multiple experiences of being blamed and not believed that many women have experienced. These findings represent first steps in understanding the relationship between IPV and trauma from the perspectives of women who have survived IPV, offering an important contribution to previous knowledge on IPV. As well, this study provides first steps in understanding the interacting, intersectional effects of multiple forms of adversity, oppression, and IPV, and their relationships to trauma.

Faith-based organisations (FBOs) are receiving growing attention for their roles in addressing HIV and AIDS in southern Africa. These roles, however, are not without philosophical challenges. Yet, to date, most references to the successes or limitations of FBOs have remained the domain of theoretical and, often, ideological debate. In this context, discussions about the roles of faith and FBOs in responding to HIV and AIDS often evoke extreme positions-either advocating for or critiquing their involvement. In place of this there is a need for empirical evidence and analyses that shed light on both the challenges and opportunities of faith-based HIV-prevention programming. This article presents a critical sociological analysis of the complexities confronting one FBO in its effort to deliver an abstinence-focused HIV-prevention programme to school-going adolescents in a poor peri-urban area of South Africa. As one aspect of a larger mixed-methods evaluation, this analysis is based on 11 focus group discussions, variously held with parents, teachers, learners and programme facilitators, in an effort to determine how and why the participants perceived the programme to work. We present and analyse four sources of tension appearing within the data which relate to the programme's faith-based orientation: a) enthusiasm for sexual abstinence despite awareness of the structural constraints; b) a dichotomous framing of behaviours (i.e. good versus bad); c) mixed messages about condoms; and d) administering faith-based programming within secular public schools. Through this analysis we aim to identify opportunities and challenges for faith-based HIV-prevention efforts more broadly. We argue that any assessment of faith-based HIV-prevention programming ought to respect and reflect its complexity as well as the complexity of the context within which it operates.

Always cite the published version, so the author(s) will receive recognition through services that track citation counts, e.g. Scopus. If you need to cite the page number of the author manuscript from TSpace because you cannot access the published version, then cite the TSpace version in addition to the published version using the permanent URI (handle) found on the record page.

No abstract