By Mia Hatch,
University of Surrey.
This dissertation investigates the construction of gendered narratives in UK newspaper coverage of female-perpetrated domestic abuse (DA). Even though existing research and campaigning has extensively explored DA, there remains to be an insufficient focus on the portrayal of female perpetrators and male victims in news media. This raises important questions around how evolving dynamics of DA is going to be understood, if reporting still operates under outdated gendered frameworks. To fill this gap, this study analyses how narratives of perpetration and victimhood are constructed in tabloid and broadsheet coverage of the case involving Jordan Worth (Worth), a female who was convicted of coercive control and violence against her boyfriend, Alex Skeel (Skeel). Using Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) informed by Fairclough (1989), 41 news articles from UK tabloids (Daily Mail, The Sun, The Mirror) and broadsheets (The Independent, The Times, The Telegraph), are analysed, focusing on linguistic strategies, discursive patterns and wider social practices.
The findings indicate how Worth is constructed through gendered narratives of the evil female, dual identity framing and exceptionalism. In contrast, Skeel’s victimhood is partially legitimised through narratives of extreme suffering and institutional validation. This makes certain experiences seem more recognisable than others. While the case seems to fundamentally challenge dominant DA stereotypes, this disruption is limited by tabloids and broadsheets operating under the same underlying gendered frameworks. In summary, female perpetration is individualised and presented as unique, whereas male victimhood is conditionally recognised. Overall, these findings are significant in demonstrating how news discourse has the ability to alter public recognition of DA perpetrators and victims, creating hierarchies and hindering more inclusive understandings of alternative dynamics.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21515794
By Beatrise Razgulajeva,
London Metropolitan University.
This dissertation examines the role of mentoring initiatives in supporting desistance from crime among men in the UK criminal justice system, with a particular focus on mentors with lived experience of imprisonment. The study is grounded in desistance theory (Maruna, 2001; Farrall, 2002), cognitive transformation perspectives (Giordano et al., 2002), and a theory of change framework which highlights the relational and psychological mechanisms underpinning behavioural change. A qualitative research design was adopted, using semi-structured interviews conducted via WhatsApp with five male participants currently or formerly engaged in mentoring roles within the criminal justice system. The data were analysed using thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006), focusing on how participants construct meanings around mentoring, identity change, and desistance from offending.
The findings suggest that mentoring is closely linked to identity transformation, where participants move away from offending towards pro-social identities through reflection, key turning points, and sustained relational support. Five key themes were identified: the absence or limitation of positive male role models during childhood and its influence on later motivation to mentor; identity transformation expressed through redemption scripts and narratives of “giving back”; the importance of shared lived experience in establishing trust and credibility; mentoring as a space that enables emotional openness and the reconstruction of positive masculinity; and the reciprocal nature of mentoring, where it provides both meaning and purpose for mentors while reinforcing desistance processes. Overall, the study concludes that mentoring does not directly cause desistance but contributes to it indirectly through relational, emotional, and identity-based mechanisms. Desistance is understood as a gradual, non-linear, and socially embedded process shaped by both individual agency and wider structural conditions.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21478220
By Tansy Hobson,
London Metropolitan University.
This dissertation argues that domestic abuse can be more effectively understood through the lens of modern slavery as both involve a sustained system of coercion and restricted autonomy. Rather than treating domestic abuse as a series of isolated incidents, this dissertation reconceptualises coercive control as a multifaceted form of domination that is enacted through time, space and technology. Using a secondary qualitative research approach, it draws on criminological theory, policy documents and research on technology-facilitated abuse to examine how victims become entrapped in conditions that resemble exploitation, even in the absence of physical confinement. It first examines the concept of spatial control, looking at how the home can be transformed from a place of safety into one where movement and perceived escape are restricted. It then develops the concept of chronological control to show how perpetrators manipulate time and exhaustion to limit victims’ capacity for resistance and future planning. Finally, it analyses technological control, demonstrating how digital systems and surveillance tools extend coercion beyond physical proximity.
By bringing these dimensions together, this dissertation directly challenges the institutional separation between domestic abuse and modern slavery. It argues that criminal justice frameworks remain limited by incident-based models of harm, which often fail to recognise cumulative and non-physical forms of control. Reframing domestic abuse through modern slavery therefore offers a more expansive understanding of coercive control as a sustained system of exploitation. This has significant implications for policy and victim protection, particularly in developing responses that recognise patterns of continuous control, rather than isolated acts of violence.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21455046