Martín Hernán Di Marco^[1], Subasri Narasimhan^[2],
Melanie E. Maino Vieytes^[3] and Dabney P. Evans^[4]

Abstract

Theories about femicide have existed for over half a century, yet no systematic review has synthesized the perspectives of male perpetrators. The objective of this paper was to analyze theories and methodological strategies employed in research on intimate femicide perpetration, using qualitative content synthesis. We performed a keyword search of ten databases using terms related to femicide. Fourteen studies focused on perpetrators’ perspectives were included for data extraction. This work identified gaps in shared semantics, theory, and methodological approaches. Given the complex nature of intimate femicide, trans- and interdisciplinary agendas are necessary to save lives. The review findings highlight the need for integrating theory on perpetration including the intrapsychic perspectives on men who have committed femicide.

Introduction

Femicide, the intentional killing of a woman based on gender-related motives, represents an extreme form of violence against women (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime [UNODC], 2018). One in three female homicides are perpetrated by an intimate partner, making intimate femicides the predominant form of the phenomenon (Stöckl et al., 2013). Justifiably, most femicide research has focused on victims. However, this approach has left gaps in knowledge about perpetrators, the key drivers of such acts (Brookman, 2015; Di Marco & Evans, 2020; Dobash & Dobash, 2017). Their first-hand accounts of perpetrators are notably sparse. However, prior research has triggered the formulation of several theories on femicide.

While direct research with intimate femicide perpetrators has been sparse, theories about the rationalizations of perpetration of crimes have existed for over half a century. In 1957, Frye differentiated roles that criminals adapt in their narratives (Frye, 1957). In 1968, Scott and Lyman focused on four types of excuses made by perpetrators of crime (Scott & Lyman, 1968), following the criminological work of Sykes and Matza (1957) on neutralization techniques. In addition, several more recent works have provided explanatory categories and archetypes. Elisha et al. (2010) presented three types of femicide perpetrators evaluating the relationship between the victim and offender, crime motivation, and other characteristics. Kivisto (2015) described four subtypes of femicide perpetrators: the mentally ill, the under controlled/dysregulated, the chronic batterer and the overcontrolled/catathymic types. Most recently, Di Marco and Evans (2020) proposed four archetypes that evaluated subjects based on both the frequency of violence in the relationship and the locus of explanation resulting in four types.

To date, work on femicide perpetrators has been dominated by secondary analyses (Brookman, 2015; Dobash & Dobash, 2011 & 2015). These analyses include police reports, psychological assessments, and medical examiner reports (Weizmann-Henelius et al., 2012). Some publications (Graham et al., 2020; Harden et al., 2019; Kivisto, 2015) have used qualitative methodologies. According to criminological perspectives, involvement in the criminal justice system as well as general crime recidivism has been linked directly to intimate femicide (Dobash et al., 2004, 2009; Lien & Lorentzen, 2019). The Canadian Violent Crime Linkage Analysis System concluded that 76% of male intimate femicide offenders had prior contact with carceral and mental health systems before committing the murder (Eke et al., 2011). Risk factors for extreme violence and intimate partner homicide include prior criminal offenses, history of violence, and history of substance use, specifically alcohol-use disorder (Dobash et al., 2009; Dobash & Dobash, 2015, p. 26; Fals-Stewart et al., 2003). While these papers bring perpetrator analyses to the forefront of femicide discussion, there is still a need for a narrower focus on the emic perspectives of male perpetrated femicide to understand the internal processes driving this violent phenomenon (Di Marco & Evans, 2020; Hearn, 1998).

Past reviews on the topic have investigated perpetrator demographics, motivations, and psychiatric characteristics (Kivisto, 2015). Harden, Spencer, and Stith recently synthesized studies that included qualitative interviews with victims of attempted intimate partner homicide, family or friends of victims, and perpetrators of attempted or completed intimate partner homicide. It is important to note that this review included female perpetrated intimate partner homicide as a form of self-defense (Harden et al., 2019; Spencer & Stith, 2020). While this work offers increased knowledge on the examination of the perspective of perpetrators, we believe self-defense to be fundamentally different from the motives of male perpetrated intimate femicide.

Furthermore, work using subjective narratives has made important contributions to the understanding of perpetration (Adshead et al., 2015 & 2003; Dobash & Dobash, 2015; Johnson & Hearn, 2001). Hearn’s 1998 work is the foundation for considering subjective narratives, including perpetrators’ denials, justifications, and rationalizations (pp. 107–108). Likewise, a study based on interviews with male prisoners who have been convicted of femicide in the United Kingdom examined the cognitions, life events, and impulses of these men (Dobash & Dobash, 2015). Dobash and Dobash observed a denial of responsibility, lack of remorse and lack of empathy for victims or others involved (Dobash & Dobash, 2015, p. 85-91). These works act as key references for theory, policy, and practice.

Grounded in the data collected through a systematic review of intimate femicide perpetration, the objective of this paper was to analyze the theories and methodological strategies employed in research on intimate femicide perpetration with a focus on the perspectives of male perpetrators.

Methodology

We conducted a search of ten databases for peer reviewed literature focused on male perpetrators of intimate femicide. Publications were eligible for inclusion if they were published in English, Spanish, or Portuguese; primary and secondary analyses were eligible for inclusion and there were no limits on publication dates. We performed a keyword search using terms related to homicide and femicide combined with terms related to intimate partners (i.e., husband). We imported the search results into EndNote X9 and then converted them into an XML file.

Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework we merged the search results. The resulting 7,305 records were uploaded to Covidence. Next, we removed duplicates (n=3,031), screened titles and abstracts for relevance (n=4,273). Two authors independently assessed articles at the titles and abstract, and full text stages of review. During title and abstract review, articles focused on victims of intimate partner violence as well as those articles exclusively focused on non-fatal intimate partner violence were excluded resulting in 112 articles for inclusion at the full text review stage.

During the full text review, we excluded articles where the perspective of the perpetrators was not included as well as articles about honor killings, and multiple victim murders (i.e., murder suicides and family annihilations). The decision to not include honor killings in this review was based on the fact that these killings are typically perpetrated by family members and not intimate partners. Following the full text review fourteen articles were included in the extraction stage where two authors independently extracted data from each article. We extracted the following variables: author name, publication year, data source (primary or secondary), methodology (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed), data collection instrument, sampling technique, sample size, and analytical approach. Further details on the methodology are included in the parent study (Evans et al., 2023).

Results

Of the fourteen synthesized papers, eleven countries were represented. These countries represented all regions of the world excluding Asia. Though much of the development of work around femicide has taken place in Latin American countries, all papers were published in English indicating a bias toward the English language within publishing efforts.

Here, using qualitative content synthesis we focus on the terminology, theories, methodological approaches, and limitations within each paper. We examined the publication journal to determine the discipline where papers were published. Most of the studies were from the discipline of criminology (n=9) (Adams, 2009; Dilmon & Timor, 2014; Di Marco & Evans, 2020; Dobash et al., 2009; Elisha et al., 2010; Goussinsky & Yassour-Borochowitz, 2012; Johnson et al., 2019; Matthews, Jewkes & Abrahams, 2015; Stout, 1993) while one was from the field of violence studies (n=1) (Duff, Nampweya & Tree, 2020). Several papers represented cross-disciplinary work, three studies were from psychology (Bach, 1980; Mathews, Jewkes & Abrahams, 2011; Podreka, 2019) and sociology while one (Adams, 2009) was classified as criminology and sociology. Adams (2009) was published in a criminology journal, but utilized social learning theory, common to sociology and adapted to many other disciplines, to understand the intergenerational transmission of violence. Publications from the disciplines of gender, masculinity and feminist studies were absent. Additionally, other disciplines which have considered gender-based violence extensively, including social work, nursing, and public health were notably absent (Table 1).

Defining intimate femicide

The terms used to identify the killing of women varied greatly. While six papers used the term femicide/feminicide, the other studies used a range of terms to refer to the same phenomenon. These include: spouse homicide, uroxide, intimate partner homicide, conjugal violence, intimate partner murder, men who killed their wives or girlfriends, passion killing, and spouse killing.

Since the reviewed studies used diverse terms to conceptualize this phenomenon, the definitions of femicide were a key element in analyzing the literature. Five papers provided explicit definitions of femicide (Di Marco & Evans, 2020; Duff et al., 2020; Elisha et al., 2010; Johnson et al., 2017; Mathews et al., 2011, 2015), while four papers (Adams, 2009; Dilmon & Timor, 2014; Goussinsky & Yassour-Borochowitz, 2012; Stout, 1993) provided indirect conceptualizations of femicide, by referencing the legal punishments of the crime or the psychological process of the perpetrators. The remaining five papers did not include definitions.

Furthermore, the theoretical underpinning and scope of the terms used varied. When considering the publication year of the reviewed studies, the change in terminology and analytical framing shifted from an individual to contextual or normative focus. The earliest two papers (Bach, 1980; Stout, 1993) analyzed the crime with less references to societal context and an emphasis in psychological mechanisms, while all others predominantly provided references to patterns or violence against women and/or cultural norms.

Theories and Typologies

Nearly all studies employed a theory to ground their analysis (n=13) (Adams 2009; Bach 1980; Di Marco & Evans 2020; Dilmon & Timor 2014; Dobash & Dobash 2011; Dobash et al. 2009; Elisha et al. 2010; Goussinsky & Yassour-Borochowitz 2012; Johnson et al 2012; Matthews, Jewkes & Abrams, 2011, 2015; Podrka, 2019; Stout, 1993); three studies suggested typologies in addition to theories to underpin their work (Di Marco & Evans 2020; Elisha et al. 2010) and one study did not draw from any theories or typologies as the basis for their study (Duff, Nampweya & Tree 2020). Most works relied on multiple theoretical frames to discuss their understanding of male perpetration of intimate femicide, though none were theories specific to femicide perpetration.

Theories fell into three broad categories: (1) gender and power; (2) psychological or social development; and (3) explanations of abuse. Half of studies (n=7) used gender and power frameworks drawn from feminist perspectives, they described power relative to gender hierarchy including descriptions of patriarchy, hegemonic masculinities, male sexual proprietariness, coercive control, and male dominance. Most often intimate femicide was described as part of a process attributed to men’s needs to maintain or regain power over female partners.

Five studies (36%) used psychological and social development theories, which explained femicide due to perpetrator childhood trauma or experiential learning. Largely, studies described exposure to violence in childhood as an explanation for the normalization of violence in intimate relationships. In addition, most articles discussed volatile, violent, neglectful, or unpredictable relationships, specifically with mothers (n=4), as establishing the perpetrators’ negative attitudes toward women, which ultimately extended to their female partners (Adams 2009; Elisha et al., 2010; Mathews 2011 & 2015). These studies drew on attachment and insecure parental relationships as the underlying cause of the insecure attachment perpetrators felt to their intimate partners, which ultimately manifested in violent behaviors to retain power over their partners. Further, six studies (43%) described theories that served as explanations for abuse, including techniques used by perpetrators to rationalize or deny culpability for the killing. For example, Bach (1980) relied on “spoiler-punishment theory” which posits that a perpetrator is motivated to commit abuse or murder of their partner because of her violation of the idealized expectations of passionate love or the relationship. Notably absent from this review were criminology and masculinity studies theories.

Finally, three studies (21%) used typologies, or classifications of the perpetrator’s narrative, to explain the femicide (Elisha et al., 2010; Dilmon & Timor, 2014; Di Marco and Evans, 2020). Dilmon and Timor (2014) interpreted their findings within the context of Frye’s (1957) existing theory of criminal narratives where all the participants presented themselves in the role of the victim. Di Marco and Evans (2020) proposed four archetypes which evaluated subjects based on both the frequency of violence and the locus of explanation; archetypes included: victim, redemption, extraordinary, and outburst. Elisha et al. (2010) presented three types: betrayed husband, abandoned obsessive lover, and tyrant. The typologies characterized perpetrators by evaluating the relationship between the victim and offender, crime motivation, and other characteristics. Although Elisha et al. (2010) did not include a victim archetype, the theme of perpetrator perceiving himself as a victim was present in the paper.

Methodological approaches

Most papers used qualitative approaches (n=12), with Dobash, et al., (2009), Dobash & Dobash (2011), and Mathews et al., (2011, 2015) utilizing the same dataset across publications. The rationale for dominance of qualitative methodologies was linked to goals of identifying, understanding, and interpreting male perpetrators’ accounts of femicide throughout studies. Additionally, most studies drew on primary data (n=8) (Adams, 2009; Di Marco & Evans, 2020; Dilmon & Timor, 2014; Duff, Nampweya & Tree, 2020; Goussinsky & Yassour-Borochowitz, 2020; Mathews, Jewkes & Abrahams, 2011, 2015; Podreka, 2019) or combined primary and secondary data sources (n=4) such as criminal records, records from pre-sentencing hearings, and case files where perpetrator accounts were available (Bach, 1980; Dobash et al., 2009; Elisha et al., 2010; Stout, 1993). In these studies, the secondary material included information which contextualized perpetrator narratives, including perpetrators’ criminal and relationship histories, and accounts of the femicide from perpetrators, police, psychologists and other carceral actors (Dobash & Dobash, 2011). Only two studies capitalized on only secondary data from larger studies on lethal violence against women (Dobash & Dobash, 2009; Johnson et al., 2019).

Most papers (n=8) utilized a semi-structured interview format (Bach, 1980; Dilmon & Timor, 2014; Duff et al., 2020; Elisha et al., 2010; Goussinsky & Yassour-Borochowitz; 2012; Mathews, Jewkes & Abrahams; 2011, 2015; Stout, 1993) while only Di Marco & Evans (2020) used unstructured interviews utilizing a biological hermeneutic methodology. Of those utilizing semi-structured interviews, a minority (n=3) described utilizing phenomenological approaches (Elisha et al., 2010; Dilmon & Timor, 2014; Goussinsky & Yassour-Borochowitz, 2012). Finally, Adams (2009) and Johnson et al. (2019) employed a structured interview format as they focused on the role of one specific type of behavior as a risk factor for intimate femicide. Johnson (2019) aimed to understand the contribution of coercive control to intimate femicide, and Adams (2009) hoped to elucidate the role of childhood adverse events in the perpetration of intimate femicide.

Across studies, authors employed two main analysis techniques including inductive analysis (n=7) (Adams, 2009; Stout, 1993; Mathews et al., 2011, 2015; Di Marco & Evans, 2020; Dilmon & Timor, 2014; Duff et al., 2020; Matthews, Jewkes, & Abrams, 2011, 2015), and content analysis (n=7) (Podreka, 2019; Dobash & Dobash, 2011). Notably, Bach (1980), employed “impressionistic factor analysis,” a form of inductive thematic analysis and Duff et al. (2020) employed inductive phenomenological analysis. From the quantitative studies Johnson et al., (2017) used a descriptive analysis and bivariate analyses; another study used a bivariate analysis of association that included chi-square goodness of fit tests and odds ratio (Dobash et al., 2009).

Nearly all studies employed non-random sampling (n=12). Among these a clear description of the methods for obtaining samples was absent (n=5) although the need for non-random sampling strategies was explained in several papers alongside the challenges of achieving a representative sample within the context of jails or prisons. A small minority (n=2) employed representative sampling strategies, including simple random sampling (Stout, 1993), and systematic sampling after a specified number (Dobash & Dobash, 2011).

Sample sizes of intimate femicide perpetrators ranged from 10 to 68 participants, resulting in between 10 and 74 interviews in total. By contrast, studies that employed the analysis of secondary documents included larger samples, the most being court files related to 104 male femicide perpetrators (Dobash et al., 2009; Dobash & Dobash, 2011; Mathews et al., 2011, 2015).

The sample size of all non-representative studies was based on two aspects: sampling for saturation and obtaining the highest possible number of participants. Three studies included a comparison group; these included victims of attempted femicide (Adams, 2009), those who committed manslaughter and attempted murder (Elisha et al., 2010), and perpetrators of non-lethal IPV (Goussinsky & Yassour-Borochowitz, 2012). One study (Johnson et al., 2017), compared femicide perpetrators with a history of violence to those who did not have that history. Across studies, response rates were reported infrequently and when reported (n=3) they were generally observed to be low (25%-52%). Only Adams (2009) documented in detail reasons for refusal including pending court dates, ongoing legal issues, and statements of innocence. Refusal reasons were not captured across other studies.

Although research questions and interests varied, there were common facets across papers. These commonalities included four dimensions that include: (1) biographical background of the perpetrator’s (including but not limited to: childhood and adolescent adverse experiences, social trajectories, social networks, and meaningful events); (2) detailed descriptions of the perpetrator and victim’s relationship; (3) conditions of the femicide, including emotional experiences; and (4) narrative justifications and rationalizations.

Methodological challenges and limitations

Studies of intimate femicide suffered from several significant and similar limitations. In order to study perpetrators of completed femicide, participants are most easily recruited from incarcerated populations. This poses significant administrative and ethical challenges. Recruitment is often dictated by bureaucratic entities; Duff et al., (2020) and Stout (1993) detailed their involvement with correctional facility personnel. Mathews et al., (2011, 2015) and Duff et al. (2020) detailed the steps taken to ensure both informed consent and freedom from coercion. Some studies considered the mental health of offenders and employed a social worker (Mathews et al. 2011, 2015), conducted interviews in a group therapy setting (Bach, 1980) and recruited only individuals participating in some form of therapy (Di Marco & Evans, 2020). Furthermore, perpetrators were reluctant to participate in studies about their crime, especially with concern that data may be used as evidence in legal proceedings. As Adams (2009) detailed, the main reasons cited for refusal to participate were pending appeals (72%) followed by maintenance of innocence of the crime (18%). Stout (1993) pointed out that incarcerated men seeking parole would be more inclined to deny any form of IPV to “save face” (p. 92). Furthermore, the proximity of inmates to each other and their confinement poses unique challenges. Di Marco & Evans (2020) highlighted how perpetrators incorporated expert theories and labels into their accounts (e.g., psychological and psychiatric terms). Goussinsky & Yassour-Borochowitz (2012) emphasized that narrative analysis must include study of the institutional context to fully understand perpetrator accounts.

All studies cautioned against assuming generalizability due to small sample sizes, methodological approach, and sampling strategies. They advised against ascribing lessons from narratives to other contexts namely, femicide perpetrators as a whole or those who commit homicide in other dyads (e.g., female-to-male relationships), gender-identities, or non-heterosexual relationships (Dilmon & Timor, 2014; Di Marco & Evans, 2020; Elisha et al., 2010).

Finally, triangulation was largely absent from these accounts with most researchers employing exclusively first-hand interviews or secondary data sources. Only two studies (Stout, 1993; Elisha et al., 2010) used multiple types of data to triangulate information. Elisha et al. (2010, p. 501) described both source types as necessary to “achieve broad and comprehensive information” viewing interview data as being subject to external influence.

Discussion

Terminology used within the papers to allude to the killing of a woman by her partner differed greatly. The diversity in terminology underscores the transformation of this topic since its inception (Alvazzi del Frate, 2011; Corradi et al., 2016), while also signifying a need for clear and concise global definitions and language that can accurately identify various types of femicides. Naming femicide served to establish it as a distinct phenomenon (Radford & Russell, 1992; Russell & Harmes, 2001). Defining femicide through unifying language enables practitioners globally to accurately assess the crime and compare more accurately across studies, which has been a topic tackled by international organizations and scholars alike (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime [UNODC], 2018; Weil et al., 2018). For example, in countries like the United States where no law against femicide exists, a clear definition would support and improved measurement and further advocacy efforts supporting the need for femicide law. Precise terminology and accompanying definitions will help clarify relationships between perpetrators and victims (e.g., intimate femicide) in turn adding necessary nuance to future research.

To date, intimate femicide perpetration research has been dominated by criminology to the detriment of a broader understanding of the phenomena (Hartmann, 2017; Jackman, 2002). Given the dearth of research on femicide perpetration in the fields of gender, masculinity, and feminist studies, we call upon scholars in these fields to examine this issue from their specific disciplinary perspectives. We also call on researchers across fields —especially those such as public health, nursing, and sociology which concern themselves with violence against women—to consider inter- and cross-disciplinary work on this topic. The disjuncture in violence research has detrimentally resulted in a lack of a clear comprehensive understanding of the admittedly complex phenomenon. The wicked problem of femicide will only be solved through deliberate, collaborative, and cross-disciplinary actions. This study identifies some of the implications of femicide research focused on male perpetrators and, furthermore, it underscores the relevance of reviews that critically assess existing literature (table 2).

As a phenomenon, femicide has generally been explained theoretically from feminist, sociological, criminological, human rights, and decolonial perspectives (Corradi, 2016) with a predominant focus on individual experiences and behaviors and with no theories specific to femicide itself. Authors utilized gender and power theories, and psychological or social development theories underscoring the predominance of these conceptual frameworks in the study of IPV broadly and femicide specifically (Campbell, 2007; Dobash & Dobash, 2017; Harden et al., 2019). All theories focused on individual or interpersonal interactions while none focused on engagement with formal social systems (e.g., carceral systems). This indicates a greater need to understand both the intergenerational and societal/social transmission of violence. Possibly because of the qualitative methodologies employed, papers included theoretical references as a broad frame but did not ground analysis in those theories suggesting the need for a grounded theory analysis in addition to Graham’s systematic review examining theoretical models of intimate partner homicide perpetration (Graham et al., 2020).

The relative absence of criminological and masculinities theories is noteworthy. This absence was striking given that many of the papers appeared in criminology journals and that most papers alluded to the gender basis of this phenomenon. Given that femicide has been criminalized in many contexts and that most perpetrators are male, scholars in these fields are well positioned to contribute knowledge to the study of femicide. The fact that feminist and power theories have been used to address femicide provides an opportunity for engaging with other academic fields that have neglected this social problem. Furthermore, the need for the applications of theories about change and of conceptual frameworks from other fields to better understand and address the issue beyond descriptive analysis—as the research about IPV and masculinities has shown (Flood, 2019; Heilman & Barker, 2018; Jewkes et al., 2015)—is paramount. Importantly no theory specific to femicide perpetration exists. Nor do existing theories provide a framework or model to explain the mechanism of perpetration leaving a gap in our theoretical understanding of the phenomenon.

Intimate femicide research inherently poses methodological challenges, but these are not insurmountable. While promising that data on femicide perpetrators are being examined quantitatively these data appear largely limited to demographic, psychological and criminological attributes (Di Marco & Evans, 2020; Dobash & Dobash, 2017), contributing to potential bias in the analysis of lethal violence (Brookman, 2015). By contrast, the papers we examined were largely qualitative with few using mixed methods. Each methodological approach has its strengths and limitations, and all are necessary to gain a full understanding of the complex phenomena of intimate femicide. Additional research using mixed methods would add to the evidence base, especially if data are triangulated from multiple sources as some researchers included in this work have done (Dobash et al., 2009; Elisha et al., 2010; Stout, 1993). Moreover, random, and other forms of systematic sampling would contribute to the potential for generalizability of research findings while reaching saturation in research studies among perpetrators may also be a goal within qualitative studies contributing to the possibility of transferability. Specifically, a pooled or multicountry analysis of femicide perpetration would shed light on the universal versus relativist elements of intimate femicide.

This review was global in scope and did not exclude based on country, religion, culture, or other socio-political aspects. We were intentional with our sampling as described in the methodology section. Namely, we examined only male-perpetrator female-victim heterosexual dyads, because previous research indicates that the majority of femicides are of this nature (SVRI & EQI, 2021; United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime [UNODC], 2018; World Health Organization & Pan American Health Organization, 2012). The relative absence of research in non-Western countries and cultures, and of non-English publications is a result of this review and, simultaneously, an indicator of the current state of the field of femicide studies, which poses as a barrier to promote diversity. Including a wide range of terms used in different cultural contexts was, therefore, one strategy to remedy this bias (Tajima, 2021).

Conclusion

Global research on femicide including perpetrator narratives is sparse; while attention to femicide has increased over the past two decades (SVRI & EQI, 2021; United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime [UNODC], 2018; World Health Organization & Pan American Health Organization, 2012) semantic, theoretical, and methodological challenges abound. This work calls attention to the absence of research focusing on intimate femicide perpetrator’s perspectives across disciplines and identified gaps in shared semantics, theory, and methodological approaches. Given that all papers were published in English despite the inclusion of other languages in our search, this work also demonstrates the need for open-access publications in more languages to reach scholars globally. The study of femicide would be strengthened by increasing discussions between academics and activists invested in the issue to further guide practice and policy.

This work highlights the critical importance of research on perpetrators as the main drivers of intimate femicide. Understanding the risk factors, motivations, and rationalizations behind these perpetrators is essential for more effective policy and programming around this issue to prevent dangerous behaviors and save lives. Given the complex nature of intimate femicide trans- and interdisciplinary agendas are necessary linking intimate femicide to violence against women and children; The Global Shared Research Agenda on Violence Against Women has set the groundwork for agenda development highlighting gaps in research on perpetrators, qualitative research on violence, and intimate partner violence prevention interventions (SVRI & EQI, 2021). Drawing upon the recommendations of the Global Shared Research Agenda work on intimate femicide prevention, focused on perpetrators and those at risk of perpetration is a worthwhile effort. A prospective global study of intimate femicide perpetration would similarly be a worthwhile endeavor given the existing limitations on intimate partner homicide prevalence (Devries et al., 2013).

AUTHOR’S NOTE: The authors wish it to be known that, in their opinion — and grounded in the principle of equity — all authors should be regarded as joint first authors. All/Co-first authors can prioritize their names when adding this paper’s reference to their resumes.

References

Adams, D. (2009). Predisposing Childhood Factors for Men Who Kill Their Intimate Partners. Victims & Offenders, 4(3), 215-229, doi.org/10.1080/15564880903048479.

Adshead, G., Ferrito, M., & Bose, S. (2015). Recovery After Homicide: Narrative Shifts in Therapy with Homicide Perpetrators. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(1), 70-81. doi.org/10.1177/0093854814550030.

Alvazzi del Frate, Anna (2011). “When the Victim Is a Woman”. In Global Burden of Armed Violence 2011: Lethal Encounters, 113–144. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bach, G. R. (1980). Spouse Killing: The Final Abuse. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 11(2), 91-103, doi.org/10.1007/BF0094626.

Brookman, F. (2015). Researching Homicide Offenders, Offenses, and Detectives Using Qualitative Methods. In H. Copes & J. M. Miller (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Qualitative Criminology (pp. 236-252). Routledge Handbooks, doi.org/10.4324/9780203074701.CH16.

Campbell, J. C., Glass, N., Sharps, P. W., Laughon, K., & Bloom, T. (2007). Intimate Partner Homicide: Review and Implications of Research and Policy. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 8(3), 246-269, doi.org/10.1177/152483800730350.

Corradi, C., Marcuello-Servós, C., Boira, S., & Weil, S. (2016). Theories of femicide and their significance for social research. Current Sociology, 64(7), 975-995, doi.org/10.1177/0011392115622256.

Di Marco, M. H., & Evans, D. P. (2020). Society, Her or Me? An Explanatory Model of Intimate Femicide Among Male Perpetrators in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Feminist Criminology, 16(5), 155708512096457, doi.org/10.1177/1557085120964572.

Dilmon, R., & Timor, U. (2014). The Narrative of Men Who Murder Their Partners: How Reliable Is It? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 58(10), 1125-1149, doi.org/10.1177/0306624X13494074.

Dobash, R. E., Dobash, R. P., Cavanagh, K., & Lewis, R. (2004). Not an Ordinary Killer–Just an Ordinary Guy: When Men Murder an Intimate Woman Partner. Violence Against Women, 10(6), 577-605, doi.org/10.1177/1077801204265015.

Dobash, R. E., Dobash, R. P., & Cavanagh, K. (2009). “Out of the Blue”: Men Who Murder an Intimate Partner. Feminist Criminology, 4(3), 194-225, doi.org/10.1177/1557085109332668.

Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. (2015). When Men Murder Women. Oxford University Press.

Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (2017). When women are murdered. In F. Brookman & E. R. Maguire (Eds.), The handbook of homicide (pp. 131-149). Wiley Blackwell.

Duff, S., Nampweya, M., & Tree, J. (2020). Men’s Accounts of Passion Killings in the Namibian Context. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(21-22), 4940-4959, doi.org/10.1177/0886260517718829.

Eke, A. W., Hilton, N. Z., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Houghton, R. E. (2011). Intimate Partner Homicide: Risk Assessment and Prospects for Prediction. Journal of Family Violence, 26(3), 211-216, doi.org/10.1007/s10896-010-9356-y.

Elisha, E., Idisis, Y., Timor, U., & Addad, M. (2010). Typology of Intimate Partner Homicide: Personal, Interpersonal, and Environmental Characteristics of Men Who Murdered Their Female Intimate Partner. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54(4), 494-516, doi.org/10.1177/0306624X09338379.

Evans, D. P., Di Marco, M. H., Narasimhan, S., Vieytes, M. E. M., Curran, A., & White, M. S. (2023). Male Perpetrators’ Accounts of Intimate Femicide. In M. Dawson & S. Mobayed Vega, The Routledge International Handbook of Femicide and Feminicide (1st ed., pp. 542-553). Routledge, doi.org/10.4324/9781003202332-57.

Fals-Stewart, W., Golden, J., & Schumacher, J. A. (2003). Intimate Partner Violence and Substance Use: A Longitudinal Day-to-Day Examination. Addictive Behaviors, 28(9), 1555-1574, doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2003.08.035.

Frye, N. (1957). Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Goussinsky, R., & Yassour-Borochowitz, D. (2012). “I killed her, but I never laid a finger on her”—A Phenomenological Difference between Wife-killing and Wife-battering. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(6), 553-564, doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.07.009.

Graham, L. M., Macy, R. J., Rizo, C. F., & Martin, S. L. (2020). Explanatory Theories of Intimate Partner Homicide Perpetration: A Systematic Review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 1524838020953800, doi.org/10.1177/1524838020953800.

Harden, J., Du, J., Spencer, C. M., & Stith, S. M. (2019). Examining Attempted and Completed Intimate Partner Homicide: A Qualitative Synthesis. Violence and Victims, 34(6), 869-888, doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-18-00128.

Hartmann, E. (2017). Violence: Constructing an Emerging Field of Sociology. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 11, 1-9, doi:10.4119/UNIBI/ijcv.623.

Hearn, J. (1998). Violence and Talking about Violence. In The Violences of Men: How Men Talk about and How Agencies Respond to Men’s Violence to Women (pp. 61-68). SAGE Publications Ltd, doi.org/10.4135/9781446279069.

Jackman, M. (2002). ‘Violence in Social Life’. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 387-415.

Johnson, M. P., & Hearn, J. (2001). The Violences of Men: How Men Talk about and How Agencies Respond to Men’s Violence to Women. Contemporary Sociology, 30(1), 26, doi.org/10.2307/2654326.

Johnson, H., Eriksson, L., Mazerolle, P., & Wortley, R. (2017). Intimate Femicide: The Role of Coercive Control. Feminist Criminology, 155708511770157, doi:10.1177/1557085117701574.

Kivisto, A. J. (2015). Male Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Homicide: A Review and Proposed Typology. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 43(3), 300-312.

Lien, M. I., & Lorentzen, J. (2019). Men’s Experiences of Violence in Intimate Relationships. Palgrave Macmillan, doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03994-3.

Mathews, S., Jewkes, R., & Abrahams, N. (2011). ‘I had a hard life’: Exploring Childhood Adversity in the Shaping of Masculinities among Men Who Killed an Intimate Partner in South Africa. The British Journal of Criminology, 51(6), 960-977, doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azr051.

Mathews, S., Jewkes, R., & Abrahams, N. (2015). ‘So now I’m the man’: Intimate Partner Femicide and Its Interconnections with Expressions of Masculinities in South Africa. British Journal of Criminology, 55(1), 107-124, doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azu076.

Podreka, J. (2019). Characteristics of Intimate Partner Femicide in Slovenia. Zgodovinsko društvo za južno Primorsko, 29(1), 15-26, doi.org/10.19233/ASHS.2019.02.

Radford, J. & Russell, D. E. H. (1992). Femicide: The Politics of Woman Killing. New York: Twayne/Gale Group.

Riches, D. (1986). The Anthropology of Violence. Blackwell.

Russell, D. (2008). Politicizing the killing of females. In PATH et al., Strengthening Understanding of Femicide, Using Research to Galvanize Action and Accountability, Washington, DC, Meeting April 2008, pp. 26-31. Available at t.ly/vN1fQ.

Scott, M., & Lyman, S. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33, 46-62.

Spencer, C. M., & Stith, S. M. (2020). Risk Factors for Male Perpetration and Female Victimization of Intimate Partner Homicide: A Meta-Analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 21(3), 527-540, doi.org/10.1177/1524838018781101.

Stöckl, H., Devries, K., Rotstein, A., Abrahams, N., Campbell, J., Watts, C., & Moreno, C. G. (2013). The Global Prevalence of Intimate Partner Homicide: A Systematic Review. The Lancet, 382(9895), 859-865, doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61030-2.

Stokoe, E. (2010). ‘I’m not gonna hit a lady’: Conversation analysis, membership categorization and men’s denials of violence towards women. Discourse & Society, 21(1), 59-82, doi.org/10.1177/0957926509345072.

Stout, K. D. (1993). Intimate Femicide: A Study of Men Who Have Killed Their Mates. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 19(3-4), 81-94, doi.org/10.1300/J076v19n03_05.

SVRI & EQI (2021). Global shared research agenda for research on violence against women in low and middle-income countries. Sexual Violence Research Initiative, Pretoria.

Sykes, G. M., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 664-670, doi.org/10.2307/2089195.

Tajima, E. A. (2021). First, Do No Harm: From Diversity and Inclusion to Equity and Anti-racism in Interpersonal Violence Research and Scholarship. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(11-12), 4953-4987, doi.org/10.1177/08862605211012999.

UNODC (2018). Global Study on Homicide. Gender-related Killing of Women and Girls, t.ly/sMnMD.

Weil, S., Corradi, C., & Naudi, M. (Eds.) (2018). Femicide across Europe: Theory, research and prevention. Bristol University Press, t.ly/KNECN.

Weizmann-Henelius, G., Matti Grönroos, L., Putkonen, H., Eronen, M., Lindberg, N., & Häkkänen-Nyholm, H. (2012). Gender-Specific Risk Factors for Intimate Partner Homicide: A Nationwide Register-Based Study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(8), 1519-1539, doi.org/10.1177/0886260511425793.

World Health Organization & Pan American Health Organization (‎2012)‎. Understanding and addressing violence against women: femicide. World Health Organization, t.ly/x_wfU.

Table 2. Implications for Research and Practice

Cross-cutting	Use shared terminology and accompanying definitions
	Apply theories about change and conceptual frameworks to better understand and address femicide perpetration
	Expand inter- and cross-disciplinary research and practice (especially in fields such as public health, nursing, sociology)
	Triangulate data from multiple sources
	Make data and reports publicly available (i.e., open access) across languages and settings
Research-based	Improve and expand theoretical analyses by incorporating grounded theory analysis and examining femicide using criminological and masculinities theories
	Focus future research on perpetrator engagement with social systems (e.g., carceral systems)
	Expand mixed-methods research
	Conduct pooled and/or multi-country analysis of femicide perpetration
	Implement randomization and other forms of systematic sampling to promote generalizability
Practice-based	Foster dialogue between academics and activists
	Share practice-based knowledge among professionals working in masculinity programs
	Translate evidence-based knowledge into educational, judicial, and correctional public policies

---