Prevention & Treatment, Volume 3, Article 22, posted June 2, 2000
Copyright 2000 by the American Psychological Association

IN MEMORY OF NEIL S. JACOBSON

Domestic Violence: Combining Scientific Inquiry and Advocacy

Amy Holtzworth-Munroe
Indiana University

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Amy Holtzworth-Munroe, Department of Psychology, 1101 East 10th Street, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405-7007.
E-mail: holtzwor@indiana.edu

Neil Jacobson was my graduate school advisor; he remained a friend and colleague in the years following my graduation. Neil and I moved, together, into the research area of marital violence. When I began graduate school in 1982, Neil was not conducting research on marital violence, as was true of most marital distress/therapy researchers. At that time, very little attention was paid to the problem of husband violence by social and behavioral scientists. The first nationally representative survey, which documented the prevalence of family violence, had only recently been published (Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980), as had the first empirical study of husband violence by marital researchers (Rosenbaum & O'Leary, 1981). While these early publications sparked some interest, most of us in the marital field remained ignorant regarding the problem. If we gave the issue any thought at all, we tended to assume that it was a problem limited to an extreme group of individuals whom we did not see in our clinics or research.

This assumption proved false. In response to these early publications, Neil and I conducted an informal survey of the prevalence of violence in his marital therapy clinic, administering a measure of physical aggression to couples. We were shocked to find that over half of the couples reported the occurrence of husband physical aggression in their relationship (Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 1992). Neil's reaction to these findings exemplified his approach to science—he let the data change his understanding of the world. There he was, a leading authority on marital therapy, who had never considered the problem of husband violence, and he was suddenly confronted with data suggesting that half of the couples in his clinic used physical aggression. In the spirit of the true researcher that he was, Neil did not ignore these data but rather gave them much thought, struggling to understand how these findings would change his conceptualization of marriage, marital distress, and marital therapy.

Around the same time, with Neil's support and encouragement, I decided to complete a dissertation on marital violence. The period in which I wrote my dissertation proposal proved to be one of the most intellectually stimulating times of my career, as Neil and I read and discussed everything we could find on the topic of husband violence. Given that the science in this area was still in its infancy, we did not limit our reading to empirical papers but rather read feminist political treatises, work in related sciences (e.g., medicine, sociology, nursing, social work), and even works of fiction! In fact, what we were doing reflected how the field of domestic violence research has developed, as it is truly an interdisciplinary field. At the time, however, what we were doing reflected Neil's tremendous intellectual appetite. He had become interested in this new research problem and wanted to devour anything he could that would help him to better understand it, to be able to wrap his mind around it and use the information to inform a deeper understanding of interpersonal relationships. We spent many hours discussing a variety of issues—How could men be violent? How did the violence described by women in shelters relate to the violence reported by the couples in Neil's clinic? Did battered women stay with these men or not? How was violence related to marital distress? And so on. Neil relished every moment of those intellectually stimulating conversations.

During this time, John Gottman joined the University of Washington faculty and began working with us to write a grant proposal to study husband violence. In planning this study, another of Neil's admirable qualities was evident—he did not limit himself to existing paradigms or methodologies. Rather, he was interested in studying the problem from new angles. Thus, the study included procedures that either had rarely been used (e.g., coding videotaped marital problem discussions of violent couples) or had never been used (e.g., psychophysiological measures of violent men). I also remember the study planning meetings as reflecting the best parts of science—we openly and freely debated a wide variety of issues, ranging from methodological difficulties (e.g., what screening criteria to use) to theoretical questions (e.g., the idea of subtypes of violent men) to political and ethical concerns (e.g., whether to tell the women in the study that we disapproved of their husbands' violence and supported them in taking steps to end the violence or take the stance of objective scientists studying a problem without intervention).

This study led to a series of interesting publications, including the one in this issue. Indeed, one of Neil's major contributions to the field of husband violence research has been the publication of several empirical articles in major psychological journals. At the time, few articles in this research area had been methodologically strong enough to be published in prestigious psychological journals (with exception; e.g., Margolin, John, & Gleberman, 1988; O'Leary et al., 1989). Yet, doing so was necessary to bring this problem to the attention of psychologists, therapists, and researchers. Once manuscripts by Neil (and others) began to appear in major journals, those in the field could not ignore the problem of husband violence. Rather, they began including the topic in their classes and graduate student training, which, in turn, encouraged new researchers and therapists to enter this field. Relatedly, before his death, Neil began work with the state of Washington to draft clinician training criteria in the area of domestic violence. He wanted to ensure that therapists were familiar with relevant empirical findings in this area.

Following the completion of this study, Neil became more heavily immersed in his other two research areas (i.e., marital therapy and depression). To be honest, given how busy he was, I assumed he would exit the field of domestic violence. This did not happen. Instead, it became increasingly clear that Neil cared passionately about the problem of husband violence. As an example, Neil once called me to discuss his dismay that the Seattle battered-women advocates did not seem "friendly" or interested in his work. We discussed the reasonableness of this from an historical perspective (i.e., advocates' distrust of male researchers who had recently entered the field with little understanding of the problem, but who then obtained resources for their work that, alternatively, might have been available for direct service to women). We discussed the fact that it would take time and good faith on Neil's part to form working relationships with advocates; he would have to attend their meetings, prove he was well intentioned, etc. I expected Neil to scoff at this. After all, he was a well-known scientist who generally did not need to politic in order to gain the respect of others. Also, he was so busy that it was hard to imagine him carving out the time to take these steps. But, to my surprise, he did take the time—he regularly attended meetings with advocates, judges, and other community groups. Indeed, he was so successful that in September 1998, he funded a small working conference to bring researchers and battered-women advocates together to talk. Neil's dedication thus forged an alliance that few others have been able to accomplish. Similarly, Neil formed working relationships with judges and others in the criminal justice system. He was interested in training judges to understand the problem of husband violence and to use the data to better inform their decisions. At the time of his death, he was developing plans to work with the Seattle court system to conduct treatment outcome research.

Neil also continued to attend conferences on the topic of domestic violence, and his attendance at conferences always amused me. He loved to question existing paradigms, often creating quite a stir. In the marital violence area, he was a relative newcomer. This did not stop his barrage of questions regarding existing assumptions. On occasions, I believe that Neil intentionally made completely outrageous statements to spark discussion and inquiry, to make us question our presumed knowledge about a topic.

Neil's interest in this area increasingly moved toward helping battered women. His interviews with battered women convinced him that these were strong survivors, not victims, whom the system did not adequately support. This interest was reflected in his book, coauthored with John Gottman, When Men Batter Women: New Insights Into Ending Abusive Relationships (Jacobson & Gottman, 1998). Neil made many press appearances regarding this book, discussing how battered women could use the information to break free from the cycle of violence. Admittedly, Neil loved the limelight of this publicity, but he was also genuinely interested in reaching as many battered women as he could. Consistent with this, his wife, Virginia Rutter, and children (Matthew, Emily, and Jesse) decided that contributions in Neil's memory should be made to a fund to help battered women.

As I review my comments, I believe they reflect one of Neil's most admirable qualities—he was not a dispassionate scientist. Instead, he was truly an applied researcher, combining research, politics, and clinical work in the belief that a scientific understanding of a problem could be used to shape public policy and interventions to make a real difference in the lives of individuals. At his memorial service, many of his college friends discussed Neil's active involvement in the political movements that affected our country in the 1960s. This piece of information resonated with my observations of Neil as a scientist who took his findings to the public and used them to help individuals and to change policy.

Finally, Neil's research in the area of domestic violence illustrated another important part of Neil's life—his love of research. Like many of us in this area, Neil initially stumbled into his interest in husband violence and was unaware of how important a problem it is. Yet in typical Neil fashion, he embraced this topic with passion and devotion. Quite simply, Neil loved his work. He encouraged those of us who worked with him to feel similarly—to conduct research in areas about which we truly care and feel impassioned.

References