This qualitative study explores whether individuals working within the domestic violence (DV) field in the United States have utilized a human rights framework and identifies potential benefits of this framework. Using the critique and experiences of women of color as a focal point, data were gathered through interviews with key individuals working with national and regional DV and human rights organizations. This article focuses on challenges within the mainstream DV movement and how a human rights approach could potentially ameliorate some of these concerns by supporting a more holistic approach to DV and increasing coalition building and community engagement.

This article examines whether the international “women's rights as human rights” movement has influenced the field of domestic violence in the United States and the possible barriers to redefining domestic violence as a violation of human rights. The qualitative study that is presented was based on semistructured interviews with key individuals throughout the United States who work in national organizations on issues of domestic violence and/or human rights. The findings focus on the manner in which power situated within the state would result in significant barriers to reframing domestic violence related to themes of resonance, U.S. exceptionalism, funding, and the criminal justice system.

This research examines the framing of health care and immigration policy debates by high profile cable television (TV) pundits on FOX News and MSNBC. The study uses an interpretive framework to apply Lakoff’s (2006) conceptualization of “freedom” as a contested idea within political discourse in the United States. Qualitative content analysis was used to examine 322 TV transcripts. Findings indicate that in both the health care debates of 2009 and immigration debates of 2010, conservative and progressive cable TV pundits overtly drew on deep frames that produced inherently contradictory conceptualizations of “freedom” in political discourse. Conservatives framed government health care as an intrusion on personal freedom, yet applauded government intervention on the issue of immigration in the name of security, whereas progressives framed access to health care as security for the greater good, while viewing immigration legislation as racial profiling and a violation of personal freedom. Employing a qualitative approach to the study of cable TV pundits provides insight into how framing processes are communicated and reinforced in the midst of political debate.

No abstract

No abstract