Producing comparable and valid data on the extent of violence against women in Europe? Some experiences from European Prevalence Research. Presentation for the UK Royal Statistical Society, London, 8 Mai 2006 Dr. Monika Schröttle Bielefeld University, Germany

Challenges for European Prevalence Research 1. Comparability (between countries, time periods, population groups) 2. Differentiation (levels of violence, types of victimisation) 3. Overcome Fragmentation (multiple victimisation through lifetime and life contexts; various victim-perpetrator-contexts)

1. Comparability Why do we need comparable data in Europe? How can we produce comparable prevalence data in Europe? What is important? Possibilities and problems

1. Comparability - Conclusion Same definitions, measurement, methodology / research design. Pay attention on differences in reporting behaviour and improve measurement. Investigate differences in reporting behaviour by additional questions relating to reporting behaviour.

2. Differentiation Levels of violence (in relations to acts and to a series of acts) / seriousness of victimisation Types of violence (e.g. in relations to intimate partner violence)

2. Differentiation - Conclusions Develop standardized and multidimensional measures / definitions for levels of violence and victimisation. Develop standardized questions and definitions for types of domestic violence (interculturally transferable / comparable).

3. Overcome Fragmentation Describe multiple violence experiences in a more integrated way (various forms and acts, in different life situations, through lifetime). Describe interconnectedness between various victim-perpetrator-contexts in society (e.g. between violence against women/men, violence between children and youth, violence/crime in the public sphere)

Conclusions … Politics and practical work against violence needs a good empirical basis of what really happens and how it could be changed. It needs knowledge of the interconnectedness of problems. And it needs monitoring and data comparison that shows the effects of political activities and social change.

Conclusions … Several current international research and network activities (in Europe and the UN) that are aiming to develop standards for data collection and monitoring have to be connected now in order to include the broad expertise that is already existing. We need: more international and interdisciplinary conferences, coordination and network activities as well as more high-expert-working groups and basic research on the impact of methodology and data collection on prevalence rates before final standards for data collection and prevalence research are fixed.

Conclusions … Central aim: develop a systematic, intelligent and comparative pattern for data collection from various sources and combine it with direct population based studies in way that helps to identify differences and changes in the extent of violence, reporting behaviour and the influence of political strategies on the situation. Underreporting, non-participation of specific population groups (e.g. migrant women, women in shelters or under hard control of violent partner), differences between types and seriousness of victimisation as well as differences and changes in reporting behaviour have to be considered carefully in order to gain comparable and valid prevalence data.

Internet - source for studies /reports German Prevalence Survey: snetz/forschungsberichte,did=20560.html snetz/forschungsberichte,did=20560.html Homepage European Research Network Coordination Action on Human Rigths Violation – CAHRV (with reports):