Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project: Implications for Law Enforcement Responses to Domestic Violence

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Perceptions of Female Offenders

Abstract

Violence between intimate partners (PV) is widely regarded as a crime committed by men against women, and this paradigm has informed policy on criminal justice interventions for the past three decades. Having found symmetry across gender in many aspects of PV, most scholars now question this paradigm and argue for more gender inclusive, evidence-based policies. Still, while many feminists now acknowledge gender symmetry in overall rates of perpetration, few would agree that women also engage in the more serious pattern of PV known as battering. This article explores the extent to which current law enforcement responses and training are based on credible, up-to-date research. We first explore findings from the largest partner violence research project ever undertaken, the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project (PASK), to determine what the empirical data suggests about the extent, causes and consequences of battering. We then report on our national study on police training manuals in 16 states with so-called dominant aggressor laws. Our findings indicate that even when framed as the more serious crime of battering, PV is mostly symmetrical across gender; yet current law enforcement training continues to reflect the prevailing gender paradigm and support practices that seriously discount violence perpetrated by women.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This term has little to do with any individual researcher’s commitment to gender equality, their allegiance to one political party or another, or how they vote; rather, it indicates a particular orientation toward partner violence (PV) research in which the role of gender is considered primary over all others (Winstok, in press).

References

  • Adams, S. R., & Freeman, D. R. (2002). Women who are violent: Attitudes and beliefs of professionals working in the field of domestic violence. Military Medicine, 167(6), 445–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 651–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, J. (2004). Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings: A meta-analytic review. Review of General Psychology, 8(4), 291–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, J. (2006). Cross-cultural differences in physical aggression between partners: A social-role analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(2), 133–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  •  

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartholomew, K., & Cobb, R. J. (2010). Conceptualizing relationship violence as a dyadic process. In L. M. Horowitz & S. Strack (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal psychology: Theory, research, assessment, and therapeutic intervention (pp. 307–330). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belknap, J. (1995). Law enforcement officers’ attitudes about the appropriate responses to woman battering. International Review of Victimology, 4(1), 47–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruno v. Codd, 396 N.Y.S. 2d 974, 976–77 (Sup.Ct. 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  • Buzawa, E., & Hotaling, G. (2000). The police response to domestic violence calls for assistance in three Massachusetts towns: Final report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capaldi, D. M., Knoble, N. B., Shortt, J. W., & Kim, H. K. (2012). A systematic review of risk factors for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 3(2), 231–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carney, M., & Barner, J. (2012). Prevalence of partner abuse: Rates of emotional abuse and control. Partner Abuse, 3(3).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cormier, N. S., & Woodoworth, M. R. (2008). Do you see what I see? The influence of gender stereotypes on student and Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) perceptions of violent same-sex and opposite sex relationships. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, and Trauma, 17(4), 478–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, C., Drozd, L., & Wong, F. (2006). Navigating custody & visitation evaluations in cases with domestic violence: A judge’s guide. Reno, NV: University of Nevada: NCJFCJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, R. (2008). Domestic violence: Intervention, prevention, policies, and solutions. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dekeseredy, W. S. (2011). Feminist contributions to understanding woman abuse: Myths, controversies and realities. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(4), 297–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLeon-Granados, W., Wells, W., & Binsbacher, R. (2006). Arresting developments: Trends in female arresets for domestic violence and proposed explanations. Violence Against Women, 12(4), 355–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desmarais, S. L., Reeves, K. A., Nicholls, T. L., Telford, R., & Fiebert, M. S. (2012a). Prevalence of physical violence in intimate relationships—Part 1: Rates of male and female victimization. Partner Abuse, 3(2), 140–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desmarais, S. L., Reeves, K. A., Nicholls, T. L., Telford, R., & Fiebert, M. S. (2012b). Prevalence of physical violence in intimate relationships—Part 2: Rates of male and female perpetration. Partner Abuse, 3(2), 170–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dragiewicz, M. (2008). Patriarchy reasserted: Fathers’ rights and anti-VAWA activism. Feminist Criminology, 3(2), 121–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, D. (1994). Patriarchy and wife assault: The ecological fallacy. Violence and Victims, 9(2), 167–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, D. (2006). Rethinking domestic violence. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, D. (2011). The case against the role of gender in intimate partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 99–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, D., Corvo, K., & Hamel, J. (2009). The gender paradigm in domestic violence research and practice. Part II: The information website of the American Bar Association. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14, 30–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, D., Hamel, J., & Aaronson, J. (2010). The gender paradigm in family court processes: Re-balancing the scales of justice from biased social science. Journal of Child Custody, 7(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, D., & Nicholls, T. (2005). The gender paradigm in domestic violence research and theory: The conflict of theory and data. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10(6), 680–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eitle, D. (2005). The influence of mandatory arrest policies, police organizational characteristics, and situational variables on the probability of arrest in domestic violence cases. Crime & Delinquency, 51, 573–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  •  

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1979–2003). Uniform crime reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felson, R. (2002). Violence and gender reexamined. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Felson, R., & Outlaw, M. (2007). The control motive and marital violence. Violence and Victims, 22(4), 387–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felson, R., & Pare, P. (2007). Does the criminal justice system treat domestic violence and sexual assault offenders leniently? Justice Quarterly, 3, 435–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finn, M. A., & Bettis, P. (2006). Punitive action or gentle persuasion: Exploring police officers’ justifications for using dual arrest in domestic violence cases. Violence Against Women, 12, 268–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finn, M., & Stalans, L. (1997). The influence of gender and mental state on police decisions in domestic assault cases. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24(2), 157–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frieze, I. (2004). Hurting the one you love: Violence in relationships. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelles, R. J. (1999). The missing persons of domestic violence: Battered men (pp. 18–22). Autumn: The Women’s Quarterly.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, G. L. (1991). Gender stereotypes and power: Perceptions of the roles in violent marriages. Sex Roles, 24, 439–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamberger, L. K. (2005). Men’s and women’s use of intimate partner violence in clinical samples: Toward a gender-sensitive analysis. Violence and Victims, 20(2), 131–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamberger, K., Lohr, J., Bonge, D., & Tolin, D. (1997). An empirical classification of motivations for domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 3, 401–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamel, J. (2005). Gender-inclusive treatment of intimate partner abuse: A comprehensive approach. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamel, J. (2008). Intimate partner and family abuse: A casebook of gender inclusive therapy. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamel, J. (2011). In dubious battle: The politics of mandatory arrest and dominant aggressor laws. Partner Abuse, 2(2), 224–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamel, J., Desmarais, S. L., & Nicholls, T. L. (2007). Perceptions of motives in intimate partner violence: Expressive versus coercive violence. Violence and Victims, 22(5), 563–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamel, J., Desmarais, S. L., Nicholls, T. L., Malley-Morrison, K., & Aaronson, J. (2009). Domestic violence and child custody: Are family court professionals’ decisions based on erroneous beliefs? Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 1(2), 37–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamel, J., & Nicholls, T. (2007). Family interventions in domestic violence: A handbook of gender-inclusive theory and treatment. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, M., & Worthen, M. G. (2011). Sex disparities in arrest outcomes for domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(8), 1159–1578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, M., & Harway, M. (1995). Intervening with violent families: Directions for future generations of therapists. In M. Hansen & M. Harway (Eds.), Battering and family therapy (pp. 227–251). Newbury Park, NJ: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, R. J., & Cook, C. A. (1994). Attributions about spouse abuse: It matters who the batters and victims are. Sex Roles, 30, 553–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henning, K., & Feder, L. (2005). Criminal prosecution of domestic violence offenses: An investigation of factors predictive of court outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32(6), 612–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hines, D. (in press). Extent and implications of the presentation of false facts by domestic violence agencies in the United States. Partner Abuse.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschel, D., & Buzawa, E. (2002). Understanding the context of dual arrest with directions for future research. Violence Against Women, 8(12), 1449–1473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschel, D., & Buzawa, E. (2009, October). An examination of the factors that impact the likelihood of arrest in intimate partner violence cases. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Justice Research Statistical Association, St. Louis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hotaling, G., & Buzawa, E. (2003). Foregoing criminal justice assistance: The non-reporting of new incidents of abuse in a court sample of domestic violence victims. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hotaling, G., & Sugarman, D. (1986). An analysis of risk markers in husband to wife violence: The current state of knowledge. Violence and Victims, 1, 101–122.

    Google Scholar 

  •  

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. P. (2006). Conflict and control: Gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 12, 1003–1018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. P. (2008). A typology of domestic violence. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. (2011). Gender and types of intimate partner violence: A response to antifeminist literature review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(4), 290–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimmel, M. (2002). “Gender symmetry” in domestic violence: A substantive and methodological research review. Violence Against Women, 8, 1332–1363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, T., & Winstok, Z. (in press). Partner abuse worldwide. Partner Abuse, 4(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., & McCullars, A. (2012). Motivations for men and women’s intimate partner violence perpetration: A comprehensive review. Partner Abuse, 3(4) (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  •  

    Google Scholar 

  • Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Misra, T. A., Selwyn, C., & Rohling, M. L. (2012). Rates of bi-directional versus uni-directional intimate partner violence across samples, sexual orientations, and race/ethnicities: A comprehensive review. Partner Abuse, 3(2), 199–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laroche, D. (2005). Aspects of the context and consequences of domestic violence: Situational couple violence and intimate terrorism in Canada in 1999. Institut de la statistique du Quebec. Available at: www.stat.gouv.qc.ca.

  • Lawrence, E., Orengo-Aguavo, R., Langer, A., & Brock, R. (2012). The impact of partner abuse on partners. Partner Abuse, 3(4).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, E., Yoon, J., Langer, A., & Ro, E. (2009). Is psychological aggression as detrimental as physical aggression? The independent effects of psychological aggression on depression and anxiety symptoms. Violence and Victims, 24(1), 20–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leisring, P., Dowd, L., & Rosenbaum, A. (2005). Abuse histories and symptoms of posttraumatic stress in partner-aggressive women. Family Violence & Sexual Assault Bulletin, 21(1), 5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  •  

    Google Scholar 

  • Maiuro, R., & Eberle, J. (2008). State standards for domestic violence perpetrator treatment: Current status, trends and recommendations. Violence and Victims, 23(2), 133–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medeiros, R., & Straus, M. (2007). Risk factors for physical violence between dating partners: Implications for gender-inclusive prevention and treatment of family violence. In J. Hamel & T. Nicholls (Eds.), Family interventions in domestic violence: A handbook of gender-inclusive theory and treatment (pp. 59–86). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, S. L. (2001). The paradox of women arrested for domestic violence: Criminal justice professionals and service providers respond. Violence Against Women, 7, 1339–1376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morley, R., & Mullender, A. (1992). Hype or hope? The importance of pro-arrest policies and batterers’ programmes from North America to Britain as key measures for preventing violence against women in the home. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 6(2), 265–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muller, R., Nicholls, T., Desmarais, S., & Hamel, J. (2009). Do judicial responses to restraining order requests discriminate against male victims? Journal of Family Violence, 24, 625–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NCADV. (2012). State coalition list. Retrieved June 19, 2012 from: http://www.ncadv.org/resources/StateCoalitionList.php.

  • Pagelow, M. (1981). Woman-battering: Victims and their experiences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pattavina, A., Hirschel, D., Buzawa, E., Faggiani, D., & Bentley, H. (2007). A comparison of the police response to heterosexual versus same-sex intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 13, 374–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pence, E., & Dasgupta, S. (2006). Re-examining “Battering”: Are all acts of violence against intimate partners the same? West Chester, PA: Praxis International Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poorman, P. B., Seelau, E. P., & Seelau, S. M. (2003). Perceptions of domestic abuse in same-sex relationships and implications for criminal justice and mental health responses. Violence and Victims, 18(6), 201–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ragatz, L., & Russell, B. (2010). Sex, sexual orientation and sexism: What influence do these factors have on verdicts in a crime of passion case? The Journal of Social Psychology, 150(4), 341–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renauer, B., & Henning, K. (2005). Investigating intersections between gender and intimate violence recidivism. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 41(4), 99–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renzetti, C. M., & Miley, C. H. (1996). Violence in gay and lesbian domestic partnerships. New York: Huntington Park Press.

    Google Scholar 

  •  

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, B. L., Ragatz, L. L., & Kraus, S. W. (2009). Does ambivalent sexism influence verdicts for heterosexual and homosexual defendants in a self-defense case? Journal of Family Violence, 24, 145–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, B. L., Ragatz, L., & Kraus, S. (2010). Self-defense and legal decision making: The role of defendant and victim gender and gender neutral expert testimony of the battered partner’s syndrome. Partner Abuse, 1(4), 399–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott v. Hart. (1976). C76-2395 (N.D. Cal.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Seelau, E. P., & Seelau, S. M. (2003). Gender and role-based perceptions of domestic abuse: Does sexual orientation matter? Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 21, 199–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seelau, S. M., & Seelau, E. P. (2005). Gender-role stereotypes and perceptions of heterosexual, gay, and lesbian domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 20(6), 363–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, L. W., & Berk, R. A. (1984). The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic assault. American Sociological Review, 49, 261–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shernock, S., & Rusell, B. (2012). Gender and racial/ethnic differences in criminal justice decision making in intimate partner violence cases. Partner Abuse, 3(4).

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, T., Anderson, M., Thompson, M., Crosby, A., Shelley, G., & Sacks, J. (2001). Attitudinal acceptance of intimate partner violence among US adults. Violence and Victims, 16, 115–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, L., Doss, B., Wheeler, J., & Christensen, A. (2007). Relationship violence among couples seeking therapy: Common couple violence or battering? Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 33(2), 270–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorenson, S., & Taylor, C. (2005). Female aggression toward male intimate partners: An examination of social norms in a community-based sample. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 78–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stark, E. (1996). Mandatory arrest of batterers: A reply to critics. In Schlesinger Buzawa & Buzawa (Eds.), Do arrests and restraining orders work? (pp. 115–149). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: The entrapment of women in personal life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stith, S., McCollum, E., Amanor-Boadu, Y., & Smith, D. (2012). Systemic perspectives on intimate partner violence treatment. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38(1), 220–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Straus, M. (1993). Physical assaults by wives: A major social problem. In R. Gelles & D. Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp. 67–87). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straus, M. (1994). Beating the devil out of them: Corporal punishment in American families. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straus, M. (1999). The controversy over domestic violence by women: A methodological, theoretical, and sociology of science analysis. In X. Arriaga & S. Oskamp (Eds.), Violence in intimate relationships (pp. 17–44). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Straus, M. (2005). Women’s violence toward men is a serious social problem. In D. R. Loseke, R. J. Gelles, & M. M. Cavanaugh (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (2nd ed., pp. 55–77). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straus, M. (2008). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(3), 252–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Straus, M., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (2006 [1980]). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family. Garden City, NY: Doubleday/Anchor Books (Reissued by Transaction Publishing, 2006 [New Brunswick, NJ], with a new foreword by R. J. Gelles and M. A. Straus).

    Google Scholar 

  • Straus, M., Kaufman-Kantor, G., & Moore, D. (1997). Change in cultural norms approving marital violence from 1968 to 1994. In G. Kaufman Kantor & J. Jasinski (Eds.), Out of the darkness: Contemporary perspectives on family violence (pp. 3–16). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugarman, D., & Frankel, S. (1996). Patriarchal ideology and wife-assault: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Family Violence, 11(1), 13–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swan, S., Gambone, L., Caldwell, J., Sullivan, T., & Snow, D. (2008). A review of research on women’s use of violence with male intimate partners. Violence and Victims, 32(3), 301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thurman v. City of Torrington, DC, 595 F.Supp.1521 (D. Conn. 1984).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, nature, and consequences of intimate partner violence. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1998). National Crime Surveys: National sample, 1973–1983. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (6 ICPSRth ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Development Programme. (1997). Human development report. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, W., & DeLeon-Granados, W. (2002). Analysis of unexamined issues in the intimate partner homicide decline: Race, quality of victim services, offender accountability, and system accountability (Final report, 46 pp.). U.S. Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winstok, Z. (2012). Partner violence: A new paradigm for understanding conflict. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winstok, Z. (in press). What can we learn from the controversy over the role of gender in partner violence? Partner Abuse

    Google Scholar 

  • Yllo, K. (1988). Political and methodological debates in wife abuse research. In K. Yllo & M. Bograd (Eds.), Feminist perspectives on wife abuse (pp. 28–50). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank student research assistants Megan Faulkner, Rachel Jensen, and Patrice Williams for their assistance in coding police training manuals.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LCSW, Private Practice, 70 Mitchell Boulevard, Suite 103, San Rafael, CA, USA

    John Hamel

  2. Department of Applied Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University, 7009, Tulpehocken Road, Reading, PA, 19610, USA

    Brenda L. Russell

Authors
  1. John Hamel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brenda L. Russell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Hamel .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University, Franco Bldg 131, Reading, 19610, Pennsylvania, USA

    Brenda L. Russell

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hamel, J., Russell, B.L. (2013). The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project: Implications for Law Enforcement Responses to Domestic Violence. In: Russell, B. (eds) Perceptions of Female Offenders. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5871-5_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation