Introduction
Gender-based violence (GBV) against women can take many different forms, including physical, mental, sexual, economic and/or social harm to another person, as well as acts, words, degradation, control, humiliation, intimidation, negligence, discrimination and harassment.1–5 The United Nations defines GBV against women as ‘any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual, or mental harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or private life’.1 In this review, we use the term ‘visible minority women’, which includes racialised, non-Indigenous, cisgender and transgender women of colour, who encounter a heightened risk of GBV as a result of the interplay between sexism, racism and xenophobia.6 7 Sexism, which refers to prejudice by gender,8 coupled with racism that describes discrimination based on race,9 and xenophobia that entails hatred against individuals from different identities such as nationality,10 increases the vulnerability of visible minority women to GBV.
GBV can occur in different contexts, where violence is carried out by an intimate partner, a family member, an acquaintance, a stranger, or an oppressive system.11 Community-level GBV includes physical or verbal attacks against women, non-partner sexual violence, sex trafficking, suppressing freedom or forcing women to act as subordinates to men.12 These acts of violence can come from the members of both majority and minority (including the same or other) communities. At the systemic-level, GBV includes creating hostile and unfair work environments and policies against women, controlling women’s reproductive rights by imposing laws, and sexual objectification in media and political discourses.13–16 It is crucial to understand how intersections of various identities and associated oppressing systems affect visible minority women, particularly community and systemic forms of GBV.
Recently, women in Canada and immigrant and refugee-receiving countries such as the UK, the USA, Australia and others are increasingly experiencing a range of racist and discriminatory acts at the community level that primarily affect visible minority women.7 17 The intersection of multiple identities increases the vulnerability of visible minority women based on higher susceptibility to GBV due to stereotyping and perceived weakness due to appearance, including skin colour, accent and traditional clothing. For instance, Muslim women were reported to be victims of hate crimes and derogatory comments due to wearing ‘hijabs’ or headscarves.18–20 Hindu women have been targeted for wearing a red dot on their foreheads (known as Bindi) and reported verbal harassment such as being called ‘dotheads’.21 This traditional appearance of women may heighten visibility and lead to increased verbal or physical violence both in the workplace and the community.20 21 According to the Ohio Alliance to End Sexual Violence, visible minority women are also disproportionately targeted for sexual violence.22 The perceived and mythical stereotyping and sexual objectification of Black, Latina/Latinx and Asian women increase the risk of violence.22 In addition, research suggests that racist individuals, particularly those who commit hate crimes against people of other races, may see women as ‘physically’ less challenging in comparison to men, resulting in increased incidences of violence against women due to the intersection of racism and gender inequity.23 This trend underscores the need to analyse how GBV intersects with issues of racism and cultural identity, particularly in a diverse society like Canada.
In Canada, systemic-level GBV is evident in the experiences of women, with approximately one-third (32%) encountering sexual violence in public spaces and 29% facing similar incidents in their workplaces.6 7 24 Additionally, women are subjected to significant levels of violence online (18%) and within postsecondary institutions (15%).24 Systemic-level GBV stems from a system that does not provide equitable access to social rights and supports including education, healthcare, employment and legal protection to vulnerable populations and does not hold accountable those individuals who disrupt the equitable distribution of various supports.11 Further, political leaders and celebrities often make controversial statements against women in general or single out women from particular ethnic communities. For instance, despite headscarves being a cultural/religious practice of most Muslim women this has been framed by Western media and political leaders as a mode of ‘oppression’.7 This representation aligns with findings from a study in Canada, which demonstrates that Islamophobic violence, including verbal and physical assaults, is often rooted in gendered Islamophobic discourses that portray Muslim women as passive, weak and oppressed, making them targets for violence due to their visible identity, such as wearing hijabs.25 While forcing women to wear headscarves is a form of gendered violence, the right to wear headscarves must also be preserved. Despite this, it is surprising that in some parts of Canada and some other countries, wearing headscarves for Muslim women or turbans for Sikhs is forcefully prohibited in certain workplaces and public spaces.26 Khiabany and Williamson (2008), two experts in media, culture and racism pointed out the irony of this situation.27 They noted that when Muslim women were oppressed by ‘others’ and remained silent as they were objects of pity. As soon as they started to raise their voices demanding their rights, the privileged in the society wanted to reinforce their subjugation by ruling against wearing headscarves.27 Ultimately, it is Muslim women who continue to lose their freedom of choice and religious and cultural rights. Such systemic promotion and implementation of violence further aggravates community-level violence against visible minority women such as physical or verbal attacks in public spaces. This phenomenon, termed ‘Islamophobic gender-based violence’, encapsulates the reality of violence Muslim women face and is a significant concern in Western societies, including Canada.25
Studies on GBV against visible minority women at community28 and systemic29 levels are relatively less common and underemphasised compared with those on intimate partner violence. Previous studies on GBV typically explored the prevalence and reporting of intimate partner violence,30 impacts of GBV,31 32 exploration of lived experiences,33 calls for actions and interventions34 and support mechanisms.35 Similarly, previous literature reviews including scoping and systematic reviews either focused on intimate partner violence or included other types of non-specified violence in their studies.36 37 In addition, as immigration and multiculturalism (ie, acknowledging and promoting diverse culture38 39) continue to increase rapidly in Canada and other developed countries, it is important to synthesise recent research on community and systemic levels of violence against visible minority women. Moreover, the ways in which racism, xenophobia and other oppressive systems intersect and contribute to the heightened risk of GBV for visible minority women have not been sufficiently examined.40 Therefore, we propose to conduct a systematic review using an intersectional lens41 42 on GBV at community and systemic levels against visible minority women in Canada and four other English-speaking countries with similar cultural diversity and immigration patterns (ie, USA, UK, Australia and New Zealand). The review will answer the following questions:
-
What are the knowledge strengths and gaps related to GBV against visible minority women at community- and systemic levels?
-
What are the existing barriers for visible minority women to access support for GBV at community- and systemic levels?
-
What promising policies and practices are recommended to address GBV experienced by visible minority women at community- and systemic levels?
Theoretical underpinnings
Intersectionality41 43 explains how GBV against visible minority women is rooted in the compounding effects of the multiple systems of oppression such as racism, the systemic devaluation of non-white races; sexism, discrimination based on gender; postcolonial oppression, ongoing negative impacts from historical colonisation and ableism, discrimination favouring able-bodied individuals.44 Visible minority women including immigrant and refugee women from different communities have unique identities, experiences and sociocultural backgrounds that predispose them to one or more systems of oppression. By employing intersectionality, this study will help us understand how the prevalence, experience and consequences of GBV on visible minority women at the community and systemic levels are interconnected to various forms of GBV and stem from survivor’s overlapping identities such as gender, race, sexual orientation or class.45 Collins et al highlight that knowledge, especially the kind fostered and passed down by oppressed groups, plays a pivotal role in resisting political and social domination.46 This knowledge also encompasses lived experiences, cultural narratives and collective memories, contributing significantly to the resilience and resistance of the visible minority women against GBV.
Intersectionality helps us understand the phenomenon and acts as an active tool for social change by exposing the pervasiveness of the violence and human and social factors behind that and the profound long-term consequences in the community.46 Thus, as a theory for this study, intersectionality provides a starting point towards a larger social justice agenda to end violence against women, unlocking the structures of power and its impact on discrimination and disadvantage as experienced by a specific individual.45 It also helps in recognising the unique challenges faced by women in accessing support and justice, often linked with the colonial system, as various systems of oppression often intersect to create barriers that other groups do not experience.46 47 It calls for action-oriented research that not only identifies intersecting oppressions but also seeks to dismantle them.47 This review aims to identify policies and practices that work and do not work, thus contributing to developing strategies that address the root causes of this violence and provide effective support and justice for the survivors. Using this theory in this review will also help us capture how different systems pose barriers to accessing support for gender-based violence and further accentuate the effects.
Methods and analysis
Patient and public involvement
We employed a community-engaged transdisciplinary and cross-sectorial research approach. Community engagement48 is central to our research approach, ensuring that our research design, assumptions and result interpretation are relevant, meaningful and useful to visible minority communities.49 Our team involves visible minority women with lived experience of community- and/or systemic-level GBV.50 Further, we engaged community-based organisations51 that work for visible minority women and advocate against GBV. The individuals and organisations actively participate in all stages of our research, including this protocol and the following steps by providing unique insights from their lived experiences and the communities they work for.52
Additionally, our team reflects the diversity of the community to which we belong. Our team comprises different disciplinary and cross-sectoral members, including academics from different disciplines and visible minority communities, genders and immigration statuses. Our team also has representations from community-based organisations and communities at large. Research partnerships with potential knowledge users, such as community organisations, ensure we can disseminate our work beyond academic avenues. Our team’s diversity, expertise and experience make us trusted in the community, allowing us to deliver high-quality, relevant and meaningful research.53
Mixed-methods systematic review (MMSR)
Given the complex and multifaceted nature of GBV against visible minority women, a mixed-methods systematic review (MMSR) design using a convergent integrated approach is essential to capture the breadth and depth of this issue. By integrating quantitative and qualitative data, we can provide a more comprehensive understanding of GBV at community and systemic levels, identify gaps in knowledge, and develop evidence-based recommendations for policy and practice. Following the Joanna Briggs Institute’s (JBI) guidelines for this type of MMSR, quantitative data will be qualitised and synthesised together with qualitative data to develop a holistic synthesis of the findings. This will allow us to identify the gaps in both qualitative and quantitative literature on community and systemic levels of GBV against visible minority women in Canada, the USA, the UK, Australia and New Zealand.
The review will follow the Population, Phenomenon of Interest, Context (PICo) framework, with the population (P) being visible minority women, the phenomenon of interest (I) being community- and systemic-level GBV and the context (Co) being the five specified countries.54 Our review question incorporates both quantitative and qualitative studies. We are also conducting a qualitative synthesis using a convergent integrated approach. Following the JBI approach for MMSR, the PICo framework is appropriate for this study.55 56 Data extraction will include sample demographics, the prevalence of GBV, risk factors, barriers and facilitators to accessing support for GBV and consequences of GBV for these two levels. By examining sample demographics, we hope to identify differential impacts across communities of visible minority women. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review checklist will be employed (online supplemental appendix I) to ensure transparency and rigour in reporting and a four-phase flow diagram (figure 1) will document the screening process.57
Supplemental material
Flow diagram of search and selection process for the MMSR. MMSR, mixed-methods systematic review.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
This study will include all journal articles, dissertations/theses and grey literature on GBV against visible minority women of all age ranges in Canada, the USA, the UK, Australia and New Zealand, including racialized immigrants and refugees, descendants of immigrants/refugees of colour and mixed-race women (box 1). Studies exclusively on intimate partner violence and violence from the family or the same community members will be excluded. No restrictions will be put on the study design; however, language will be restricted to English only during screening due to the language limitations of the research team.
Search keywords
Keywords for visible minority/immigrant/refugee:
“Undocumented Immigrants” [MeSH] OR Emigrants [Keyword; MeSH] OR “Emigration and Immigration” [MeSH] OR newcomer* [Keyword] OR refugees [MeSH] OR refugee* [Keyword] OR alien* [Keyword] OR foreigner* [Keyword] OR “foreign worker*” [Keyword] OR “Transients and Migrants” [MeSH] OR transient* [Keyword] OR “Migrant Workers” [MeSH] OR “Migrant Farm Workers” [MeSH] OR migrant* [Keyword] OR asylum [Keyword] OR “asylum seeker*” [Keyword] OR humanitarian [keyword] OR “displaced person” [Keyword] OR “displaced population” [Keyword] OR “war population” [Keyword] OR “forced migration” [Keyword] OR “refugee camp*” [Keyword; MeSH] OR “ethnic groups” [Keyword] OR “Minority Groups” [MeSH] OR Ethnicity [MeSH] OR “Minority Groups” [MeSH] OR “Minority Health” [MeSH] OR “Racial Groups” [MeSH] OR “Race Factors” [MeSH] OR “ethnic minorit*” [Keyword] OR “racial minorit*” [Keyword] OR “visible minorit*” [Keyword] OR “national minorit*” [Keyword] OR “Racial Identity” [MeSH] OR “mixed race*” [Keyword] OR “multiracial person” [Keyword] OR “minority communit*” [Keyword] OR “marginalized group*” [Keyword] OR “marginalized communit*” [Keyword] OR “marginalized people” [Keyword] OR “marginalized population*” [Keyword] OR “marginalised group*” [Keyword] OR “marginalised communit*” [Keyword] OR “marginalised people” [Keyword] OR “marginalised population*” [Keyword] OR “people of colo?r” [Keyword] OR BME [Keyword] OR BIPOC [Keyword] OR BAME [Keyword] OR immigrant* [Keyword] OR “international protection applicant” [Keyword]
Keywords for gender-based violence:
“gender violence” [Keyword] OR “gender-associated violence” [Keyword] OR “gender-related violence” [Keyword] OR “forced sex” [Keyword] OR “non-partner sexual violence” [Keyword] OR misogyny [keyword] OR “sexual violence in the workplace” [Keyword] OR “Sexual Harassment” [MeSH] OR “Sexual and Gender Minorities” [MeSH] or “sexual violence” [Keyword] OR “violence against women” [Keyword] OR “Battered Women” [MeSH] OR “sexual abuse in workplace” [Keyword] OR “sexual assault” [Keyword] OR “gender-based violence” [Keyword, MeSH] OR “physical abuse” [Keyword, MeSH] OR rape [Keyword, MeSH] OR “exposure to violence” [Keyword, MeSH] OR “workplace violence” [Keyword, MeSH] OR “sexual abuse” [(Keyword]) OR “Sex offenses” [MeSH] OR “violence against girls” [Keyword] OR “violence against females” [Keyword] OR “gender stereotyp*” [Keyword] OR “gender bullying” [Keyword] OR sexism [MeSH] OR sexist* [Keyword]
Keywords for xenophobia/racism
Xenophobia [Keyword, MeSH] OR discrimination [Keyword] OR “Social discrimination” OR “psychological discrimination” [MeSH] OR othering [Keyword] OR [Keyword] OR oppress* [Keyword] OR hostil* [Keyword] OR Hostility [MeSH] OR “racial violence” [Keyword] OR “race-based trauma” [Keyword] OR “race-based stress” [Keyword] OR “racial stress” [Keyword] OR “racial trauma” [Keyword] OR “racial discrimination” [Keyword] OR “racial oppression” [Keyword] OR “ethnic discrimination” [Keyword] OR “hate crimes” [Keyword] OR “racial prejudice” [Keyword] OR “racial slur” [Keyword] OR “racial bully” [Keyword] OR “racial stereotyp*” [Keyword] OR ethnocentrism [Keyword] OR apartheid [Keyword, MeSH] OR “racial disparities” [Keyword] OR “ethnic disparities” [Keyword] OR “racial segregation” [Keyword] OR “ethnic segregation” [Keyword] OR community-level violence [Keyword] OR “community adj3 violence” [Keyword] OR “institutional violence” [Keyword] OR “institution* adj3 violence” OR “Gendered racism” [Keyword] OR “gendered Islamophobia” [Keyword] OR Prejudice [MeSH] OR Racism [MeSH] OR “workplace violence” [Keyword, MeSH] OR “physical abuse” [Keyword, MeSH] OR “Ethnic Violence” [Keyword, MeSH] OR “Systemic Racism” [Keyword, MeSH] OR “systemic violence” [Keyword]
Comprehensive systematic search
Our systematic search58 will include 15 indexed databases from multiple disciplines (table 1). Our search strategy was developed in consultation with an academic librarian. It will be broad and include keywords and subject headings related to racism, xenophobia and sexism, along with GBV and visible minority women-related terms. The search strategies for all databases are provided in online supplemental appendix II. We will further employ the Google Scholar search engine for any additional related articles. Relevant studies from the reference lists of the finally selected studies will be reviewed. If they meet the inclusion criteria, they will be included. The grey literature, which entails non-peer-reviewed articles such as policy briefs, organisational reports and presentations,59 60 will be searched using OAISter, ProQuest (dissertations and theses), Google and relevant organisational websites such as the United Nations website.61 62 We will use the Canadian Institute of Health Information and Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health guidelines,63 applying the AACODS (Authority, Accuracy, Coverage, Objectivity, Date, Significance)64 checklist to ensure credibility.
Supplemental material
Academic and grey literature databases to search
Two-stage screening for study selection
This study will employ a two-stage (title-abstract and full-text) screening process following the specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. After systematic searches are complete, we will remove duplicates using COVIDENCE. Two independent reviewers will conduct the screening using COVIDENCE. The level of agreement between the two reviewers will be reported. Conflicts between the reviewers will be resolved by discussions facilitated by a third reviewer to reach a consensus. Both stages of screening will follow the same process.
Quality appraisal
We will appraise the articles using the mixed-method appraisal tool (MMAT)65 since we will not restrict inclusion based on study designs. We will use MMAT’s checklists for five types of study designs—randomised and non-randomised controlled trials, qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods studies.
Data extraction
Two trained reviewers will conduct data extraction for the selected articles. The extracted information will include the citation, study location, study objective(s), sample characteristics including ethnicity (eg, Black, Hispanic/Latinx, South Asian, Arab, etc), faith, immigration status (immigrants, refugees, etc), age, income level, disability, violence setting (eg, workplace, street, domestic environment, etc), study design and data collection method used (tables 2 and 3). We will also extract the description of GBV experiences, factors associated with higher or lower GBV incidents, support mechanisms of GBV such as a workplace policy that protects from systemic GBV, barriers and facilitators to accessing support for GBV and recommendations for addressing GBV against visible minority women. Women in this context include cis- and trans-women and women of different sexual orientations. Information on how GBV against women differs from other genders will also be extracted. All findings will be reported separately on community and systemic levels.
Study characteristics
GBV-specific findings
Data integration and synthesis of the findings
The extracted data will be qualitatively analysed using Thomas and Harden’s guidelines for thematic synthesis informed by an intersectionality lens.66 Following JBI recommendations, we will take a convergent integrated approach to handle the mixed data types, which involves converting different data types into one leading to an integrated synthesis.54 56 After familiarisation with the content in the selected articles we will begin the process of line-by-line coding, using a mix of deductive (based on intersectionality) and inductive coding.67 During analysis, we will convert quantitative data into qualitative textual descriptions.54 56 Then, we will identify codes within qualitised descriptions of quantitative data, which will contribute to the thematic synthesis integrating codes from all select studies. We will refine and organise the codes into categories based on shared meanings to form descriptive themes including summative statements regarding relevant findings from the select studies.66 A community member with lived experience will be an active member of the data analysis team to improve the relevance and interpretation of the findings.
Once these descriptive themes have been finalised, we will develop analytical themes by moving beyond the content of the select studies.66 We will attempt to infer and interpret themes beyond that presented by the authors of the select studies and find answers to our research questions. The final themes will be refined through in-depth discussions with the entire team.
Discussion
This MMSR protocol aims to address the knowledge strengths and gaps related to GBV against visible minority women at community and systemic levels. This review will also identify barriers visible minority women experience when accessing support for GBV and how it intensifies the GBV and its effects. Additionally, it intends to identify promising policies and practices to address GBV experienced by visible minority women at these levels. We expect that the results of this study will have a significant impact on future research, practice and policy. Therefore, we need to use different types of research findings for our comprehensive understanding of this topic. These different types of research findings will require different types of synthesis. Thus, an MMSR is the method of choice for our research objective.
We anticipate that through this review we will identify which specific visible minority communities are being affected by community- and systemic-level GBV, and how and why they are being affected in the selected five countries. Similarly, findings will highlight any differences among visible minority communities in the forms, intensity and consequences of GBV as well as any actions and/or policies implemented to address community- and systemic-level GBV. Analysing studies from five countries with diverse populations and with certain similarities and differences will allow us to highlight effective practices and policies within comparable immigration, sociocultural, and political patterns and multicultural populations. This can be an important resource for policymakers and practitioners as they create and put into practice evidence-based interventions to combat GBV against women of colour. We will report on the barriers and facilitators to implementing useful policies and practices as well as support programmes to help those being affected by GBV. This will allow us to suggest tailored interventions to address the unique challenges faced by the population. Furthermore, the identification of barriers to accessing support will inform the development of more inclusive and accessible services that cater to the specific needs of visible minority women. It is significant that this study will add to the expanding body of research that highlights the necessity of a thorough and intersectional approach to comprehending and addressing GBV.
We recognise the need for a multilevel strategy to address GBV at community and systemic levels to initiate and sustain changes. Therefore, we will take a comprehensive community-engaged approach to conduct the review and mobilise the findings among various stakeholders, including policymakers, practitioners, researchers and community organisations. Engaging these stakeholders will help identify and address the unique challenges faced by different visible minority groups and develop targeted interventions. Additionally, investing in future research, as indicated by this review, will help fill existing knowledge gaps and inform evidence-based policy and practice interventions.
This post was originally published on https://bmjopen.bmj.com