3. Benjamin Roebuck, Ph.D. Professor of Victimology, Algonquin College
Resilience & Victims of Violence Understanding strengths to enhance victim assistance training
Benjamin Roebuck, Ph.D.
Professor of Victimology, Algonquin College

4. Positive Victimology
Focus on strengths, resilience, restorative justice [1]
Strengths are ‘developed competencies and characteristics’ [2]
Alternative to deficit-based approaches [3]
Positive Victimology [4]
[1] (Ronel & Elisha, 2010)
[2] (Rawana & Brownlee, 2009)
[3] (Nissen, 2006; Roebuck, Roebuck, & Roebuck, 2011)
[4] (Ronel & Ya’ara Toren, 2012)

6. Discourse on Resilience
Ability to bounce back [1]
A process, an outcome, an attribute [2]
Risk and protective factors [3]
Return to baseline functioning [4]
Competent functioning [5]
Absence of psychopathology [6]
Ecological perspective [7]
[1] (Joseph, 1994; Wolins, 1993)
[2] (Roebuck & Roebuck, 2016; Wright, Perez & Johnson, 2010 )
[3] (Garmezy, 1993; Masten 2001)
[4] (Ungar, 2004; 2004a; 2005; 2008)
[5] (Cicchetti, 2003; Masten & Coatsworth, 1995)
[6] (Almedom & Glandon, 2007)
[7] (Brofenbrenner,1989; Cicchetti & Lynch, 1993; Garabino, 1995)

7. Constructionist Discourse on Resilience
Who defines resilience?
A subjective human experience [1]
Resilience is a process of resolving tensions [2]
Navigation and Negotiation
What tensions do victims and survivors experience?
How do internal and external strengths influence responses to victimization?
[1] (Crann & Barata, 2016; Massey, Cameron, Oullette, & Fine, 1998)
[2] (Ungar, 2004; 2004a; 2005; 2008)

8. Resilience: Navigation & Negotiation
Victim of Crime
Criminal Justice System
Victim Assistance Services
Informal Support Networks

10. Posttraumatic Growth (PTG)
Trauma can lead to personal growth [1]
Positive change beyond baseline levels [2]
Rumination and shifts in thinking [3]
Does not negate posttraumatic stress [4]
Growth domains may include: [5]
relating to others, new possibilities, personal strength, spiritual change, and appreciation for life
[1] (Calhoun & Tedeschi, 2014; Roebuck 2014)
[2] (Joseph, 2011; Roebuck & Roebuck, 2016; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2003)
[3] (Berger, 2015; Crann & Barata, 2016; Calhoun & Tedeschi, 2014)
[4] (Joseph, 2011; Berger, 2015)
[5] (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996)

11. Research Methodology Violence Not in court 18+ Violence Against Women
Inclusion Criteria
Identified Subgroups
Violence
Not in court
18+
Violence Against Women
Family Survivors of Homicide
Male Survivors

12. Research Methodology Mixed methods
Online survey (n=414)* [closes at the end of June]
Includes:
Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI)
Satisfaction with Criminal Justice System
Helpful
Unhelpful
Advice
Change
Labels

13. Research Methodology Mixed methods
Qualitative narrative interviews (n=65)
Homicide
Sexual Assault
Violence
Intimate Partner Violence
Other Violence
Child
Childhood
Home Invasion
Terrorism
Partner
Adulthood
Physical attack
Control
Impaired driving
Murder-Suicide
Trafficking
Attempted murder
Female /
Male Survivors
Disabilities*

15. [Q37] What was the relationship to you of the family member who was murdered? My...
Response
Chart
Percentage
Count
Child
20.9% 19
Father
6.6% 6
Mother
4.4% 4
Spouse or partner
9.9% 9
Sibling
22.0% 20
Grandparent
1.1% 1
Uncle
Niece
2.2% 2
Other, please specify:
23.1% 21
Prefer not to answer
8.8% 8
Total Responses 91

16. [Q17] What kind of partner violence or abuse was it?
Response
Chart
Percentage
Count
Threats of violence ( to you, your loved ones, or pets)
60.3% 85
Physical violence
82.3%
116
Sexual violence
43.3% 61
Emotional or psychological abuse
78.0%
110
Harassment
44.0% 62
Stalking
31.2% 44
Destruction or damage of property
45.4% 64
Financial or economic abuse
48.9% 69
Human trafficking
2.8% 4
Other (please specify)
11.3% 16
Prefer not to answer
0.7% 1
Total Responses
141

17. [Q40] Following the experience of violence or abuse, did you interact with any of the following? [mark all that apply]
Response
Chart
Percentage
Count
Police
62.2%
245
Criminal Court
39.1%
154
Family Court
11.7% 46
Civil Court
5.1% 20
Criminal Injuries Compensation
16.5% 65
Provincial Review Board (where the accused was found unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible)
1.3% 5
Parole Board
10.4% 41
I did not interact with any of the above
34.5%
136
Prefer not to answer
1.0% 4
Total Responses
394

18. Experiences as a Researcher
Comparison
Language
Advocacy
Men
Labels
Politics
Learning nuances:

19. [Q56] With which of the following terms do you most closely identify?
Response
Chart
Percentage
Count
Victim
14.5% 53
Survivor
38.6%
141
Other, please specify:
18.1% 66
I try not to use these labels
27.7%
101
Prefer not to answer
1.1% 4
Total Responses
365

20. Implications for Victimology & Victim Assistance
Defining the field of victimology
Human agency and perception
Learning nuances from lived experience
Supporting the ‘ordinary magic’ of resilience [1]
Adopting a growth mindset
[1] (Masten, 2001)

21. Benjamin Roebuck, Ph.D.
Professor of Victimology, Algonquin College
THANK YOU!!