Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38343552›Full record

ArticleSocial currents2021

Surviving Victimization: How Service and Advocacy Organizations Describe Traumatic Experiences, 1998-2016.

Andrew Messamore, Pamela Paxton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Social currents, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Andrew MessamoreThe University of Texas at Austin, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5771-7625
Pamela PaxtonThe University of Texas at Austin, TX, USA.

Funding

Population Research CenterR24HD042849 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AUSTIN · PI HAYWARD, MARK D. · 2002 to 2016
$8.4M
Training Program in Population StudiesT32HD007081 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AUSTIN · PI Aprile Dawn Benner, Christy L. Erving · 1985 to 2026
$6.8M
Scientific & Technical CoreP2CHD042849 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN · PI MARK D. HAYWARD · 2017 to 2026
$5.2M
NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD042849NICHD NIH HHS R24 HD042849NICHD NIH HHS T32 HD007081
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Service and advocacy organizations have long struggled to find the appropriate language to name traumatic experiences when working with vulnerable populations. Organizations have been pressed to adopt either "victim"-based language or "survivor"-based language, with both terms seen as having mutually exclusive meanings. However, despite academic and popular debates, no recent studies have documented trends in language used to describe traumatic experiences, whether of sexual and relationship violence, or of experiences of war, disaster, or major illness. In this research note, we use administrative data from the Internal Revenue Service to analyze how 3,756 service and advocacy organizations use trauma-related language between 1998 and 2016. Descriptive analysis shows that survivor language has been on the rise as victim language declined. Victim remains a common way to name trauma, however, and survivor tends to join, rather than displace, victim terminology. Further analysis also points to gendered use of both terms. Victim and survivor are used together most often in organizations that work with trauma experienced by women and in the field of sexual and relationship violence. We suggest these findings indicate a more complex story of how communities of language users emerge, which aligns with recent sociological treatments of discourse.

Indexed as

discoursegendernonprofitssurvivortext analysistraumavictim

Identifiers

PMID38343552
PMCPMC10857855

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.