Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) within LGBTQ+  

Relationships in South Africa:  

A Systematic Review 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Philip Neethling Slabbert 

2552772 

Supervisor: Mr Michael Owen 

May 2023 

 

 

Research report  

presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of 

Master of Arts in Clinical Psychology in the Department of Psychology, 

School of Human and Community Development, Faculty of Humanities, at the 

University of the Witwatersrand 



 

1 
 

      5 May 2023 

 

Declaration 

 

By submitting this research report electronically, I declare that the entirety of the work contained 

therein is my own, original work, that I am the sole author thereof, that reproduction and publication 

thereof by the University of the Witwatersrand will not infringe any third-party rights and that I have 

not previously, in its entirety or part, submitted it for obtaining any qualification. 

 

 

 

 

_____________________        _______________ 

Signed          Date 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2023 University of the Witwatersrand 

 All rights reserved  



 

2 
 

Abstract 

Within South Africa, the causes of intimate-partner violence (IPV) among heterosexual couples have 

been well studied, with various IPV interventions developed over the past decades. This project 

presents a systematic review of IPV occurring among queer individuals, that is, queer intimate 

partner violence (QIPV). This systematic review was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for 

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to increase transparency and track the 

flow of information. The literature was screened using Rayyan and relevant literature was assessed 

for eligibility using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) quality evaluation instrument. 

Descriptive and analytical data were then extracted and analysed using thematic synthesis to aid our 

understanding of why and how QIPV is taking place in South Africa (SA). The findings reveal a dearth 

of research focusing on LGBTQ+ individuals' IPV experiences, primarily due to heteronormativity 

and everyday stereotypes about queer relationships. Myths and fears that obstruct discourse around 

this phenomenon have caused a silencing within the public sphere creating a cloud of secrecy around 

QIPV. Six primary themes were identified; these include: (1) silence of QIPV; (2) characteristics of 

QIPV in SA; (3) barriers to seeking help; (4) successes and failures of protective factors; (5) lack of 

research and accurate knowledge about QIPV, and; (6) proposed strategies to decrease QIPV. 

Seemingly, the flawed epistemic foundation of IPV, rooted in heteronormativity, weaves through all 

these themes. The findings of this systematic review indicate that safe spaces are needed, which allow 

for QIPV to be openly discussed and approached by queer and heterosexual communities to break 

the silence around this topic and allow for epistemic and social justice. Here, the potential role of 

action research is emphasised in producing accurate context specific knowledge and interventions for 

epistemic justice in SA. Findings accentuate the need for greater inclusion of queer persons in the 

IPV and mental health discourses and the importance of social support for QIPV victims. 

Keywords: LGBTQ+, intimate partner violence (IPV), systematic review, secondary victimisation, 

South Africa 

  



 

3 
 

Table of Contents 

Declaration ....................................................................................................................................... 1 

Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ 2 

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. 3 

List of Tables and Figures ................................................................................................................ 6 

List of Appendices ........................................................................................................................... 7 

Glossary ........................................................................................................................................... 8 

Nomenclature ................................................................................................................................. 10 

Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 11 

1.1 Queerphobia in Africa and South Africa and the Invisibility of LGBTQ+ IPV ................. 11 

1.2 Research Aims ..................................................................................................................... 12 

1.3 Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 13 

1.4 Outline of the Report ........................................................................................................... 13 

Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................................................................. 14 

2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 14 

2.2 Scoping Search .................................................................................................................... 14 

2.3 The Scope, Severity and Nature of IPV .............................................................................. 14 

2.4 The Invisibility of QIPV in Africa and South Africa .......................................................... 16 

2.5 Risk Factors for QIPV ......................................................................................................... 17 

2.6 Effects of QIPV ................................................................................................................... 18 

2.7 Theoretical Framework ....................................................................................................... 19 

2.7.1 The Epistemic Injustice of Heteronormativity .............................................................. 19 

2.7.2 Post-Structuralist Feminist Conceptualisation of Power ............................................. 20 

2.7.3 Queer Theory ................................................................................................................ 20 

Chapter 3: Methods ............................................................................................................................ 22 

3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 22 

3.2 Research Design .................................................................................................................. 22 

3.3 Review Procedure................................................................................................................ 22 

3.3.1 Define the Research Question (Step 1) ......................................................................... 23 

3.3.2 Formulating a Search Strategy (Step 2) ....................................................................... 23 

3.3.3 Determining Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria (Step 3) ............................................... 24 

3.3.4 Screening the Literature (Step 4) .................................................................................. 25 

3.3.5 Conducting a Quality Assessment (Step 5) ................................................................... 25 

3.3.6 Extracting Data (Step 6) ............................................................................................... 26 

3.3.7 Analysis (Step 7) ........................................................................................................... 26 



 

4 
 

3.3.8 Disseminate Findings (Step 8) ...................................................................................... 27 

3.4 Reflexivity ........................................................................................................................... 27 

3.5 Ethical Considerations ......................................................................................................... 28 

Chapter 4: Results .............................................................................................................................. 30 

4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 30 

4.2 Procedure Results ................................................................................................................ 30 

4.2.1 Study Selection .............................................................................................................. 30 

4.2.2 Assessment of Study Sample Quality ............................................................................ 32 

4.3 Included Articles: Characteristics ....................................................................................... 36 

4.3.1 General Description of Sample or Data Source, Including Methodology ................... 36 

4.3.2 Overall Sample Characteristics .................................................................................... 41 

4.4  Thematic Analysis ............................................................................................................... 41 

4.1.1 Theme 1: Silence of Queer IPV: The Normative Context of QIPV in SA ..................... 44 

4.4.2 Theme 2: Characteristics of QIPV in SA ...................................................................... 49 

4.4.3 Theme 3: Barriers to Seeking Help .............................................................................. 56 

4.4.4 Theme 4: Successes and Failures of Protective Factors in SA .................................... 62 

4.4.5 Theme 5: Lack of Research and Accurate Knowledge ................................................. 65 

4.4.6 Theme 6: Strengths and Weaknesses of QIPV Interventions ........................................ 70 

Chapter 5: Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 77 

5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 77 

5.2 QIPV in SA ......................................................................................................................... 77 

5.2.1 The Normative Context of QIPV in South Africa .......................................................... 77 

5.2.2 Intersectionality of QIPV in SA .................................................................................... 80 

5.2.3 Effects on Queer-identifying Individuals and Their Relationships ............................... 83 

5.2.4 Detrimental Outcomes of QIPV .................................................................................... 85 

5.3 Barriers to Seeking Help ..................................................................................................... 87 

5.3.1 Secondary Victimisation ............................................................................................... 87 

5.3.2 Internalised Queerphobia: Resisting Victimhood ........................................................ 89 

5.3.3 Understanding Barriers to Help: Epistemic Injustice .................................................. 89 

5.3.4 Psychological Effects of Barriers to Help .................................................................... 90 

5.4 Lack of Research and Accurate Knowledge ....................................................................... 91 

5.4.1 Silence, Invisibility, and Erasure of QIPV .................................................................... 91 

5.4.2 Intersectionalities ......................................................................................................... 92 

5.4.3 Nuances of QIPV .......................................................................................................... 93 

5.4.4 Research Recommendations: Scholarship Agenda ...................................................... 93 



 

5 
 

5.5 Strengths, Weaknesses and Ways Forward for QIPV Interventions ................................... 95 

5.5.1 Macro-Level: Utilising Legislation, Redirecting Resources and Improving 

Infrastructure ................................................................................................................ 97 

5.5.2 Meso-Level: Improve Training, Education and Research .......................................... 100 

5.5.3 Micro-Level: Individual and Couple Interventions .................................................... 102 

5.6 Limitations of this Systematic Review .............................................................................. 104 

5.7 Strengths of this Systematic Review ................................................................................. 105 

5.8 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 106 

References .................................................................................................................................... 108 

Appendices ................................................................................................................................... 119 

 

  



 

6 
 

List of Tables and Figures 

Table 3.1 Databases to be used and reasons for selecting them …………………… 23  

Table 3.2 Inclusion and exclusion criteria …………………………………………. 24  

Figure 4.1 PRISMA four-phase flow diagram ……………………………………… 31  

Table 4.2 Summary of CASP qualitative Checklist ……………………………….. 33  

Table 4.3 Summary of CASP quantitative Checklist ……………………………… 34  

Table 4.4 Summary of CASP theoretical Checklist ………………………………. 35  

Table 4.5 Studies included in the systematic review of QIPV …………………… 36  

Table 4.6 Thematic map of themes and subthemes ………………………………. 42  

Table 4.7 Thematic map of themes and subthemes per article ……………………. 43  

Table 5.5 Key recommendations for practice and policy interventions …………… 96  

Table 5.6 Macro-level ……………………………………………………………… 97  

Table 5.7 Meso-level ………………………………………………………………. 100  

Table 5.8 Micro-level ………………………………………………………………. 103  

    

    

  



 

7 
 

List of Appendices 

   

Appendices A Initial Scoping Search Procedure …………………………………….….. 119 

Appendices B PRISMA Checklist …………………………………….………………… 120 

Appendices C PRISMA Four-phase Flow Diagram ………………………………….… 122 

Appendices D CASP Qualitative Checklist …………………………………….….……. 123 

Appendices E Adapted CASP for Quantitative Research ………………………………. 126 

Appendices F Adapted CASP for Theoretical Papers …………………………………... 129 

Appendices H Clearance Certificate ……………………………………………………... 130 

   

   

  



 

8 
 

Glossary 

  

Epistemic injustice “A wrong done to someone specifically in their capacity as a 

knower” (Fricker, 2009, p. 1) 

Biphobia Denotes negative attitudes, prejudice, and discrimination from 

homosexual and heterosexual individuals (Messinger, 2017). 

Gender “The socially constructed roles, behaviour, activities and 

attributes that a particular society considers appropriate for 

women and men based on society’s conceptions of femininity 

and masculinity” (Lynch & Sanger, 2016, p. 4). 

Hermeneutical injustice Occurs when a narrative is incomprehensible due to the 

speaker's social identity (Fricker, 2009). 

Heteronormativity “Refers to the privileged position associated with 

heterosexuality based on a normative assumption that there are 

only two genders, that gender always reflects the person’s 

biological sex as assigned at birth, and that only sexual 

attraction between these “opposite” genders is considered 

normal or natural” (Lynch & Sanger, 2016, p. 7). 

Heterogendered “Taken-for-granted understandings of gender roles. In this 

normative understanding of gender, women have specific roles 

that are tied to ideas of heterosexual femininity: providing care, 

being responsive to others’ needs, and being gentle. Men, on 

the other hand, are associated with roles tied to normative 

heterosexual masculinity: expressions of power, control, 

assertiveness, and aggression” (Lynch & Sanger, 2016, p. 12). 

Heterosexism “A system of beliefs that privilege heterosexuality and 

discriminate against other sexual orientations. It assumes that 

heterosexuality is the only normal or natural option for human 

relationships and posits that all other sexual relationships are 

either subordinate to, or perversions of heterosexual 

relationships. In everyday life, this manifests as the assumption 

that everyone is heterosexual, until proven otherwise” (Lynch 

& Sanger, 2016, p. 7). 



 

9 
 

Homophobia “Refers to an irrational fear of and/or hostility towards lesbian 

women and gay men, or same-sex sexuality more generally” 

(Lynch & Sanger, 2016, p. 7). 

Internalised queerphobia, 

homophobia, transphobia, or 

biphobia 

Negative beliefs and attitudes about one’s own sexuality 

because of chronic exposure to prejudice and discrimination 

(queerphobia, homophobia, transphobia, biphobia) (Messinger, 

2017). 

Patriarchy “A social hierarchy that privileges men over women and 

masculinity over femininity” (Lynch & Sanger, 2016, p. 7). 

Queerphobia An umbrella term that includes homophobia, transphobia, and 

biphobia (Messinger, 2017). 

Sex “The biological and physiological characteristics socially 

agreed upon” (Lynch & Sanger, 2016, p. 8). 

Sexual orientation “The way in which a person’s sexual and romantic desires are 

directed. The term describes whether a person is attracted 

primarily to people of the same or other sex, or to both” (Lynch 

& Sanger, 2016, p. 8). 

Testimonial injustice Occurs when a narrative is invalidated because of dominant 

belief systems (Fricker, 2009). 

Transphobia “An irrational fear of and/or hostility towards people who are 

transgender or who otherwise transgress traditional gender 

norms” (Lynch & Sanger, 2016, p. 8). 

  



 

10 
 

Nomenclature 

  

Critical Appraisal Skills Programme CASP 

  

Domestic Violence Act  DVA 

  

Intimate partner violence IPV 

  

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, Asexual plus LGBTQ+ 

  

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual LGB 

  

Men who have sex with men MSM 

  

Men who have sex with men and women MSMW 

  

Non-Government Organization NGO 

  

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses PRISMA 

  

Queer intimate partner violence QIPV 

  

Same-Sex Intimate Partner Violence SSIPV 

  

South Africa SA 

  

World Health Organisation WHO 

  

University of the Witwatersrand WITS 

  

Women who have sex with women WSW 

  

United Kingdom UK 

  

United States of America USA 

  

United Nations UN 

  

  

  



 

11 
 

Chapter 1: Introduction 

On a global scale, intimate partner violence (IPV) remains a crucial health concern. Moreover, 

researchers have found that queer intimate partner violence (QIPV) is of similar concern, with some 

studies indicating that it occurs at elevated levels relative to heterosexual IPV. Nevertheless, QIPV 

has largely been rendered invisible (Messinger, 2011; Walters et al., 2013). This is a consequence of 

heteronormativity, which refers to the dominant societal belief that opposite-sex attraction is normal; 

while anything that diverges from this is deemed 'abnormal' (Cannon et al., 2015; Luyt, 2012). Queer 

relationships, including the unique manifestation of violence in these relationships, are thus rendered 

invisible, both socially and within research (Collison, 2018; Messinger, 2017; Rollè et al., 2018). 

Despite this invisibility, results from a national survey (n=18,049) in the United States of America 

(USA), found elevated experiences of psychological IPV (gay males: 60%; bisexual males: 53%; 

lesbian females: 63%; bisexual females: 76.2%) (Walters et al., 2013). Furthermore, the prevalence 

of severe episodic violence was found to be equal or higher for LGB individuals (lesbian females: 

29.4%; bisexual females: 49.3%; gay males: 16.4%) relative to straight individuals (heterosexual 

females: 23.6%; heterosexual males: 13.9%) (Walters et al., 2013). The survey shows that instances 

of IPV among LGB couples across their lifespan (61.1% of bisexual females and 43.8% of lesbian 

females; 37.3% of bisexual males and 26% of gay males) are comparable to, or higher than, 

heterosexual couples (35% of heterosexual females; 29% of heterosexual males) (Walters et al., 

2013). In consonance with these findings, Messinger (2011) suggests (based on a USA nationally 

representative sample; n=14,182), that all forms of IPV are more prevalent within queer relationships 

than within their heterosexual counterparts. 

Considering the prevalence of various forms of IPV experienced by queer individuals, a West African 

study, conducted by Ogunbajo et al. (2020), found that 45% of the participants had experienced 

emotional abuse, 31% physical violence, 20% sexual assault, 55% monitoring, and 22% controlling 

behaviours, all perpetrated by an intimate partner. Additionally, a Namibian study by Stephenson et 

al. (2020), found that 10.2% of participants reported bi-directional QIPV, while 7.3% reported uni-

directional experiences of QIPV. These statistics allude to the severity of QIPV internationally and 

in Africa. Despite the scope and severity of the problem, the research gap hinders our understanding 

of this phenomenon and thus our ability to address it.  

1.1 Queerphobia in Africa and South Africa and the Invisibility of LGBTQ+ IPV  

Despite the scope and high severity of QIPV both locally and internationally, several researchers have 

noted the invisibility of this phenomenon within society (Buller et al., 2014; Messinger, 2017; 



 

12 
 

Ogunbajo et al., 2020; Stephenson & Finneran, 2013). The South African Constitution protects queer 

people, yet vulnerability remains understood and defined in gendered and heteronormative societal 

terms (Judge & Nel, 2018). This vulnerability is made tangible when LGBTQ+ individuals are 

restricted from freely and openly expressing their queerness. For instance, state systems, such as 

healthcare workers and police, frequently re-traumatise survivors of QIPV by rendering them invalid, 

invisible or simply disregarding QIPV (Sioga, 2018). Certain South African non-government 

organisations (NGOs), such as the Triangle Project, have also noted the invisibility of QIPV within 

the queer community (Triangle Project, 2017). South Africa is currently experiencing an IPV 

epidemic, however, within this context, QIPV is often rendered invisible, disregarded or invalidated 

which constitutes further abuse and epistemic injustice (Sioga, 2018). These responses contradict the 

Constitution, which demands that vulnerable groups be protected (Judge & Nel, 2018; SA 

Constitutional Assembly, 2012).  

In summary, there is evidently a pressing need to focus on QIPV and improve the services that these 

marginalised communities receive, while simultaneously making these services more accessible and 

sensitive to LGBTQ+ communities’ needs. Policies need to be established that are geared towards 

optimising third-party responses to QIPV to prevent further stigmatisation of the queer community. 

However, prior to making recommendations on improving existing policy and services, exploration 

and comprehension of the current QIPV issues in SA are required. This review focuses on 

understanding why there are gaps in QIPV knowledge while simultaneously gathering and reviewing 

the existing knowledge on LGBTQ+ IPV in SA. The focus is directed towards highlighting the nature 

of QIPV, including its forms, risk factors and effects as well as identifying the barriers and challenges 

around providing support and adequate services to victims of QIPV in SA. Synthesised knowledge 

in this regard would help to establish intervention guidelines as well as to identify gaps within existing 

research on QIPV, thus allowing for more focused recommendations for future research.  

1.2 Aims of the Research 

This study aims to systematically review (collate, summarise, and critically analyse) the existing 

literature on QIPV within the SA context in order to identify dominant themes and highlight the gaps 

in the existing queer literature. Dominant themes will be extracted to elucidate this silenced topic 

within queer and heterosexual communities. Themes will then be used to make recommendations for 

interventions that are more attuned to the issue of IPV in queer relationships in SA. Finally, the 

systematic review process will reveal gaps in the existing knowledge and research, while elucidating 

further QIPV research directions in SA.  



 

13 
 

1.3 Research Questions 

The research questions for this systematic review are both descriptive and exploratory (Laher & 

Hassem, 2020). In the context of IPV within queer relationships in SA and consistent with the research 

rationale, this study attempts to answer the following research questions: 

1) What are the dominant themes in the QIPV literature in SA? 

2) What are the gaps in existing QIPV literature in SA? 

3) What recommendations can be made for future research and intervention? 

1.4 Report Outline 

This research report consists of five chapters. Chapter Two provides an overview of the existing 

African and international literature on QIPV in the form of a literature review, establishing a 

foundation for the current study. Chapter Two also outlines the theoretical framework that is used to 

understand the findings. Chapter Three indicates the methods used to guide the systematic review 

process. In Chapter Four, I report the findings of this systematic review, including the sample 

characteristics, research processes incorporated, and the main themes identified in the selected 

research articles. Chapter Five presents a discussion of the findings within the context of other 

existing international research, highlighting the similarities and unique characteristics of QIPV in SA. 

In this chapter, I use relevant theory to make sense of, and discuss, my findings. This chapter further 

presents the limitations and strengths of this study and includes recommendations for intervention 

and research. 

  



 

14 
 

Chapter 2: Literature Review 

2.1 Introduction 

In this literature review, I will: (1) present my approach to scoping the existing literature on QIPV; 

(2) define and discuss the various forms of IPV, including characteristics unique to queer individuals; 

(3) discuss QIPV as a public health concern within the South African context; (4) elucidate some of 

the factors that render QIPV invisible and create significant barriers to seeking help in South Africa 

(SA) and other parts of the African continent; (5) consider the risk factors for QIPV; and (6) discuss 

the effects of IPV on queer individuals. 

2.2 Scoping Search 

An initial scoping search was undertaken, also known as a preliminary literature search, to indicate 

the depth and range of the existing literature in the field of QIPV, both globally and in SA specifically. 

This allowed me to gauge the feasibility of my systematic review topic (Boland et al., 2017) (See 

Appendix A for more details on my preliminary scoping search strategy). 

The scoping search yielded no systematic reviews on QIPV in SA. The preliminary search yielded 

eight studies focusing on LGBTQ+ IPV in SA (e.g., Finneran et al., 2012; Henderson, 2012; 

Henderson & Shefer, 2008; Metheny et al., 2021; Moodley & Bowman, 2021; Sanger & Lynch, 2018; 

Stephenson et al., 2011, 2020). The search also yielded four theoretical articles on QIPV (e.g., Mailula 

& Mokgoroane, 2020; Moothoo-Padayachie, 2014; Naidu & Mkhize, 2011; Ximba, 2021), two theses 

(e.g., Kaighobadi et al., 2019; Moodley, 2013) and two research reports (e.g., Lynch, 2018; Triangle 

Project, 2017). This preliminary search suggested a significant lack of published, peer-reviewed 

research surrounding QIPV. From this initial search, I determined that the dearth of research is too 

substantial to focus solely on one subgroup of the queer community. Consequently, I elected to 

broaden my focus by including all queer individuals.  

2.3 The Scope, Severity and Nature of IPV 

The World Health Organisation (2021) approximates that, in their lifetime, 30% of women globally, 

experience physical or sexual IPV. In terms of the scope and severity of IPV, Machisa et al. (2011) 

found that 37.7% of heterosexual female participants had experienced either sexual or physical IPV, 

18.8% reported experiences of sexual IPV and 46.2% experienced economic or psychological abuse. 

Additionally, UN Women (2016) found that 56% of heterosexual female murders in SA were due to 

intimate femicide, where boyfriends or husbands were the perpetrators, as opposed to strangers. These 

statistics highlight the complexity and danger for women in South African society. Understandably, 



 

15 
 

there has been a significant focus on addressing this public health concern by focusing on female 

victims/survivors and male perpetrators. Consequently, discourse around IPV and interventions to 

address IPV are steeped in heteronormativity (Messinger, 2017). Thus, QIPV is essentially erased in 

society and in academic institutions (Collison, 2018; Messinger, 2017; Rollè et al., 2018).  

Intimate partner violence is a violation of an individual’s human rights and represents a significant 

public health concern, the burden of which is primarily borne by females (World Health Organisation, 

2013). Intimate partner violence includes many behaviours within intimate relationships that 

frequently result in substantial harm and distress (Ogunbajo et al., 2020; World Health Organisation, 

2013). Examples of IPV include: (1) sexual IPV, for instance, forced sexual intercourse and sexual 

coercion; (2) psychological IPV, for example, emotional abuse including insults, continuous 

humiliation, threats and intimidation; (3) physical IPV, such as kicking, hitting and slapping; (4) 

controlling behaviour, such as gaslighting; and (5) restricting access, including any behaviour that 

limits another person’s access to healthcare, employment, finances, friends, family, or education 

(World Health Organisation, 2013). 

Both internationally and in SA, IPV is predominantly conceptualised through a traditional feminist 

paradigm that women are abused by men to assert power and dominance within a patriarchal society 

(Cannon et al., 2015). Therefore, IPV research and investigations have predominantly focused on 

heterosexual gendered norms and how these influence power dynamics, coercion and abuse, 

specifically, how these align with female powerlessness and male aggression based on the gender 

binary (Cannon et al., 2015). Although this is one way to conceptualise IPV, it does not account for 

female perpetrators or same-sex IPV (Cannon et al., 2015). Most IPV research has utilised this very 

narrow understanding of this phenomenon, resulting in several gaps in QIPV research. Subsequently, 

interventions are not geared toward targeting the queer community.  

Queer intimate partner violence refers to “abuse within a current or former romantic or sexual 

relationship involving at least one LGBTQ+ partner” (Messinger, 2017, p. 61). This type of IPV may 

be bi-directional, referring to two individuals in a relationship using IPV tactics, or it may be uni-

directional, referring to a single person using IPV tactics in the relationship (Messinger, 2017). This 

abuse manifests similarly to heterosexual individuals; however, several additional abusive tactics are 

at the abuser’s disposal due to social and legal stigmatisation (Messinger, 2017; Callan et al. 2021). 

For instance, threatening to “out” a partner at work or to their family. Cannon et al. (2015) further 

assert that such abuse cannot be interpreted in the same way as IPV within heterosexual relationships 

due to the unique relations of power that arise as a result of queer individuals’ intersectional 

positionality.  



 

16 
 

2.4 The Invisibility of QIPV in Africa and South Africa  

Despite the scope and severity of QIPV, both locally and internationally, several researchers have 

noted the invisibility of this phenomenon (Buller et al., 2014; Messinger, 2017; Ogunbajo et al., 2020; 

Stephenson & Finneran, 2013). In this section, I will briefly describe some factors within African and 

South African contexts that contribute to this silencing as well as provide a description of the context 

in which QIPV occurs.  

Heteronormativity and queerphobia (an umbrella term that includes homophobia, transphobia, and 

biphobia) persist in African countries and are frequently accompanied by violence. Amnesty 

International (2018) reports that homosexuality is still punishable by death in four of the 53 African 

countries and remains illegal in 37 of these. Matebeni (2014) contends that hostility persists, despite 

being in a postcolonial society, due to “colonial laws [which] ... criminalised allegedly 'unnatural' 

sexual acts” (p. 7). Epprecht (2009) postulates that colonial accounts of sexuality and gender, 

purposefully suppressed the multiplicity of African sexuality and gender to align with colonial 

agendas and beliefs. Through this process, queerness came to be seen as un-African. Stephenson et 

al.'s (2014) findings support the prevalence of heteronormativity and resulting queerphobia in 

Namibia, including the notion that queerness is ‘un-African’. Stephenson et al. (2014) contend that 

several sub-Saharan African leaders have called to criminalise homosexuality and framed being gay 

as “an imported relic of a European colonial history” (p. 482). Consequently, by associating queer 

individuals with colonialism, they are framed as oppositional to notions of African pride. Considering 

this invisibility, Epprecht (2009) suggests that a Foucauldian excavation of the history of sexuality in 

Africa would be corrective, while simultaneously speaking to issues such as IPV and sexual ill-health 

in Africa (Epprecht, 2009; Foucault, 1978). By conceptualising queerness as un-African, queer 

individuals' experiences are rendered invisible. This creates gaps in knowledge, making it 

exceedingly difficult to claim experiences of IPV as a queer individual. 

In SA, LGBTQ+ individuals constitute approximately 1.4% of the population (Sutherland et al., 

2016). The human rights of LGBTQ+ minority groups have not always been upheld in SA. 

Accompanying the end of apartheid in 1994, all citizens’ human rights came to be protected by the 

Constitution of South Africa (SA Constitutional Assembly, 2012; Stychin, 1996). However, the 

Constitution represents an ideal, and the reality of queer human rights does not always reflect this 

ideal. Thus, despite the attempt to root out discrimination, SA is still dominated by heteronormative 

attitudes, often manifesting as queerphobia (Luyt, 2012). This is in consonance with inferences made 

from a South African survey (with a nationally representative sample) suggesting that 72% of South 

Africans believe it is immoral to engage in same-sex sexual activity (Sutherland, 2016). The survey 

further elicits that 49% of South Africans believe that equal human rights should not be conferred to 



 

17 
 

queer persons. Within this intolerant societal milieu, IPV within the queer community is marginalised, 

silenced and rendered invisible.  

The dominance of heteronormativity poses unique barriers to help-seeking for QIPV survivors. 

Barriers to assistance include internalised negativity, fear of secondary victimisation, stigma, ridicule, 

not being taken seriously, and being ‘outed’ (having one’s sexual orientation or gender identity 

involuntarily disclosed) to one’s family, friends or colleagues (Denysschen & Evans, 2022; Rollè et 

al., 2018). These barriers result in a cloud of secrecy around IPV within the queer community and 

silence QIPV survivors in society (Rollè et al., 2018). For instance, Ahmed et al. (2013) found that 

despite the prevalence of IPV within LGBTQ+ relationships, less than 5% of queer IPV 

survivors in the USA sought protection orders, no statistics were found for the South African 

context. These international findings align with several South African newspaper articles 

highlighting the invisibility of QIPV (e.g., Collison, 2018; Gallagher, 2021; Sioga, 2018; Stanley & 

Ncobela, 2021; Wicks, 2017). These articles highlight that QIPV is being appraised within a 

heteronormative context that is frequently threatening and abusive to alternative genders, sexualities, 

and lifestyles. Consequently, heterosexism and queerphobia compound queer individuals’ 

experiences of, and responses to, QIPV and restrict their access to social support. This is in agreement 

with Messinger’s (2017) contention that heteronormativity privileges heterosexual couples while 

undermining QIPV survivors. This affects research, practice and policy responses, while 

simultaneously affecting how individuals view their own experiences. Gaps in current 

conceptualisations of IPV result in testimonial injustice, as queer individuals feel incapable of 

claiming experiences of IPV because their testimonies are incomprehensible, questioned or 

disregarded. 

2.5 Risk Factors for QIPV 

Kimmes et al. (2019) contend that heterosexual and same-sex relationships share several risk factors 

of IPV, for instance, jealousy, substance use and inequalities within the couple (e.g., class, race, level 

of education and age). However, findings also suggest unique risk factors, including external 

homophobic aggression, variations in ‘outness’ regarding gender or sexual orientation, and gender 

roles (Buller et al., 2014; Goldenberg et al., 2016). These factors are in line with Kimmes et al.’s. 

(2019) findings for both male and female perpetrators in the queer community. Rollè et al. (2018) 

conclude that heteronormativity plays a unique role in IPV within queer relationships and should be 

considered a significant risk factor. This is in alignment with Stephenson et al.’s (2020) findings that 

external homophobia and internalised homophobia are significant risk factors for IPV. More 

specifically, Badenes-Ribera et al. (2019) found that internalised queerphobia was associated with an 



 

18 
 

increased likelihood of perpetrating, or being a victim of, QIPV. In the same vein, Kimmes et al. 

(2019) found that the intersection of internalised homophobia and HIV status was the most significant 

risk factor for male and female victims of QIPV. Several of these findings are consistent with 

Stephenson et al.’s (2014) Namibian study which concluded that ‘traditional’ African perspectives of 

masculinity shaped violence and queer individuals’ ability to subvert gender. Thus, same-sex 

relationship power dynamics mirror ‘traditional’ heterosexual gendered relationship norms, including 

the deployment of violence to maintain power (Stephenson et al., 2014). For instance, some 

individuals refer to their partners in masculine terms while to themselves in feminine terms, 

reinforcing heterosexual gendered power dynamics (Rabie & Lesch, 2009; Stephenson et al., 2014). 

In SA, discourse around masculinity is predominantly established through conceptualisations of men 

as dominant and women as subordinate (Rabie & Lesch, 2009; Ratele et al., 2007). In line with this, 

Stephenson et al. (2014) conclude that queer individuals with more feminine traits are more 

vulnerable to sexual and physical IPV. The authors elaborate that IPV is used to assert power and 

dominance and prove the masculinity of the perpetrator. This is specifically relevant in SA due to the 

region’s colonial and apartheid history, which aimed to disempower; amplifying the need to assert 

masculine dominance, even decades later (Stephenson et al., 2014). Heterosexual gendered norms 

intersect with other social inequalities (e.g., class, race, income, level of education, HIV status), 

creating and sustaining power imbalances in relationships and resulting in abuse (Stephenson et al., 

2014).  

2.6 Effects of QIPV 

Experiences of IPV are traumatic and the effects of these experiences persist long after the abusive 

relationship has ended (Messinger, 2017). Research indicates that the detrimental effects of IPV 

include negative impacts on individuals’ economic, mental, and physical health and social welfare 

(World Health Organisation, 2013). In line with this, Messinger (2017) and Buller et al. (2014) note 

the following consequences for queer individuals exposed to IPV: injury, substance use, economic 

outcomes, sexual risk behaviour (condomless sex and thus potential HIV infection and other sexually 

transmitted diseases), fear of personal safety and mental health issues.  

Henry et al. (2021) conducted a survey in the USA and found a significant association between 

participants’ experiences of IPV and anxiety and depression. The authors found that physical, 

psychological and sexual IPV were associated with anxiety, whereas physical abuse was associated 

with depression. In a similar study, an in-depth analysis of the psychological health problems 

associated with various types of LGBTQ+ IPV was conducted by Ogunbajo et al. (2020) in West 

Africa. Findings suggested that experiences of emotional and sexual abuse, as well as monitoring and 



 

19 
 

controlling behaviours, were all correlated with an increased risk of depressive and anxiety symptoms 

(Ogunbajo et al., 2020). Moreover, increased loneliness was associated with experiences of emotional 

abuse, physical violence and controlling behaviour. All forms of IPV were associated with increased 

suicidal ideation and attempts which is in line with the findings of Messinger (2017). Ogunbajo et al. 

further contend that frequent exposure to IPV is associated with an increased risk of psychosocial 

health issues. It is thus crucial that this under-researched phenomenon receive more attention in 

academia. 

2.7 Theoretical Framework 

This section introduces epistemic injustice as a framework for understanding fallacies about QIPV, 

while using post-structural feminism and queer theory to re-theorise IPV. Traditional feminist and 

societal paradigms construct men as powerful aggressors while women are powerless and vulnerable 

to victimisation. These theories allow for a more relational, fluid and dynamic framing of power, 

opening up novel ways of conceptualising IPV and contributing to our understanding of current 

misconceptions (Cannon et al., 2015; Cannon & Buttell, 2015).  

2.7.1 The Epistemic Injustice of Heteronormativity 

Queerness and QIPV both have a long history of being erased, rendered invisible and misunderstood 

in the public domain and within academic institutions. This section makes sense of this by reflecting 

on how heteronormativity underwrites epistemic injustices and thus contributes to the successive 

erasure and invisibility of QIPV. Rules, privileges, and cultural beliefs maintain heteronormativity 

through rewards and sanctions or punishment (Francis & Msibi, 2011; Luyt, 2012; Miller & Irvin, 

2017). Sexual minorities are often marginalised as a consequence of their subjectivities being 

constructed relative to heterosexuality. This framework maintains conventions of acceptable and 

valid subjectivities and, by extension, relationships. Queer subjectivities and their relationships 

transgress these conventions which increases their susceptibility to epistemic injustice. 

Epistemic injustice manifests interpersonally when an individual listens to, but is incapable or 

unwilling to accept, another person’s social identity, resulting in prejudice rooted within the social 

system, such as heteronormativity (Fricker, 2009). Heteronormativity results from a defective 

epistemological base; therefore, society’s approach to producing and conceptualising knowledge is 

fallible and produces inequalities (Fricker, 2009). Fricker (2009) defines epistemic injustice as a 

“wrong done to someone specifically in their capacity as a knower” (p. 1), consequently eroding an 

individual’s capacity to self-validate their experience. Fricker conceptualised two forms of epistemic 

injustice: testimonial injustice, which occurs when a narrative is invalidated, and hermeneutical 

injustice, which occurs when a narrative is incomprehensible due to the speaker’s social identity. An 



 

20 
 

example of testimonial injustice is when a queer individual reports that they have experienced QIPV, 

but their testimony and knowledge of their own experience is invalidated because of stereotypes about 

same-sex partners having equal power in relationships (Messinger, 2017; Rollè et al., 2018). An 

example of hermeneutical injustice is when the police dismiss and deny a queer individual’s claim to 

IPV due to their sexual orientation, and therefore the idea that it cannot occur (Rollè et al., 2018; 

Santoniccolo et al., 2021). Thus, queer individuals experience a lessened ability to be subjects with 

socially comprehendible experiences. This illustrates how a queer individual’s experience of violence 

in relationships is erased due to social norms. 

2.7.2 Post-Structuralist Feminist Conceptualisation of Power  

Post-structuralist feminist conceptualisation of power allows us to understand IPV in novel ways by 

ensuring that the manifestations of power operating in relationships are not dismissed in favour of a 

patriarchal explanation (Cannon et al., 2015). Within a post-structuralist feminist paradigm, power is 

conceptualised using a Foucauldian approach that understands power as operating within a relational 

field. Specifically, individuals’ social location determines their strategies and tactics to power 

(Cannon et al., 2015). However, the traditional feminist paradigm established the societal norm that 

only men are capable of several types of violence and possess the motives for utilising violence, 

whilst women only use violence in self-defence (Cannon & Buttell, 2015). This binarized approach 

oversimplifies and obscures how power is used, who has access to it and how they might utilise the 

power available to them. A post-structuralist approach deconstructs this binary, revealing that women 

are just as capable of initiating violence as men. This is consistent with research findings that indicate 

that women have a range of motives for perpetrating violence and enact violence almost as often as 

men do (Donald et al., 2023; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2012). This perspective emphasises that 

women have independent subjectivities, experiences, and histories, with their own motives for 

exercising power in both heterosexual and LGBTQ+ relationships. Nevertheless, Cannon (2015) 

states that “both [men and women] may punch, [but] how we understand their acts of aggression and 

power differ because of the way society is gendered, and sexuality is organised” (Cannon et al., 2015, 

p. 673). A post-structuralist feminist paradigm accommodates such an intersectional understanding 

of power, based on how identity categories intersect (Crenshaw, 1991). Thus, individuals may have 

specific strategies and tactics to utilise power at their disposal; IPV may be one of these within a 

specific context.  

2.7.3 Queer Theory 

Queer theory aims to reveal and deconstruct normativities (Pluckrose & Lindsay, 2020). Queer theory 

similarly utilises a Foucauldian approach to deconstruct gender and sexuality while simultaneously 



 

21 
 

revealing power dynamics, including instances of oppression within society due to these categories 

(Cannon & Buttell, 2015). Queer theory can thus be used to reveal heteronormativity’s operation in 

the traditional feminist paradigm, which is the dominant lens through which IPV is currently 

conceptualised. Thus, where there is gendered-heteronormativity at the base of research into QIPV, 

there will be gaps in research and the knowledge it produces; resulting in epistemic injustice.  

A traditional feminist paradigm used to understand QIPV results in limitations of understanding. 

Specifically, this paradigm limits the understanding of a female perpetrator’s exercise of violence 

within a same-sex relationship, to her using patriarchy to enact IPV. Queer theory can be used to (1) 

re-conceptualise IPV; (2) reveal how a heteronormative understanding of IPV, that assumes a female 

victim and male perpetrator, further marginalises queer individuals; and (3) reveal the importance of 

social location (Cannon et al., 2015). Queer theory’s use of a Foucauldian approach allows one to 

understand that such violence is only one of several strategies available to queer individuals based on 

their intersectional social location (Butler, 2010; Cannon & Buttell, 2015; Crenshaw, 1991). 

Consequently, violence within queer relationships requires its own unique conceptualisation. 

Although the violence may look similar, it is crucial to be aware that heterosexual persons have access 

to more dominant forms of power. 

An individual’s social location determines the type and amount of power available to them within 

their relational field. Power is deployed through various tactics and strategies by both men and 

women, as well as straight and queer individuals. Nevertheless, all have access to power. From this 

perspective, it is easier to understand how queer individuals are equally capable of IPV, as violence 

is one power-harnessing tactic that may be deployed against their partner within the relationship. By 

deconstructing gender, sexuality and associated power binaries, IPV can be understood differently. 

This reframe is essential to advancing research and the development of interventions that consider 

people’s social location. 

  



 

22 
 

Chapter 3: Methods 

3.1 Introduction 

This section outlines the methodology of this study. It describes the approach I took to answer my 

research question. This approach involved extracting and analysing data from published academic 

articles with a qualitative, quantitative or mixed-method research design, as well as theoretical 

articles. I then present the systematic review process, based on the eight-step review procedure put 

forth by Uman (2011). Procedural steps include: (1) defining the research question; (2) formulating 

a search strategy; (3) determining the inclusion and exclusion criteria; (4) screening the literature; (5) 

conducting a quality assessment; (6) extracting data; (7) analysis, and; (8) dissemination of findings 

(Laher & Hassem, 2020; Uman, 2011). The methods section concludes with my reflexivity as a 

researcher and ethical considerations.  

3.2 Research Design  

A systematic review methodology was used to conduct my study. Systematic reviews employ 

methods that are transparent and rigorous to provide reliable answers to specific questions by finding, 

selecting, and critically assessing pertinent primary research and then synthesising and analysing the 

results of selected articles to reliably answer a specific question (Moher et al., 2016). Systematic 

review findings are crucial to influencing decision-making and informing policy change (Boland et 

al., 2017). 

This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items 

for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines (Liberati et al., 2009; Moher et al., 2016). 

These guidelines aim to support researchers in producing improved systematic reviews through the 

use of a checklist with 27 items (see Appendix B) and flow diagram with four phases (see Appendix 

C) (Laher & Hassem, 2020). PRISMA appears to be the preferred application, over other systematic 

review guidelines, particularly in the South African context (Laher & Hassem, 2020).  Using 

PRISMA increased the transparency of the current study and the flow of information through the 

various stages are represented in a flow diagram (see figure 4.1 on p. 30). Moher et al. (2016) contend 

that a systematic review is an iterative process; consequently, the protocol presented below was 

adapted as the research process progressed.  

3.3 Review Procedure 

The review procedure was structured according to the eight-stage framework proposed by Uman 

(2011); these steps are discussed in more detail below. 



 

23 
 

3.3.1 Define the Research Question (Step 1) 

In preparation for this study, I conducted a scoping search (see Appendix A) to get an indication of 

the depth and range of the current literature in the QIPV field in SA, as well as to ascertain the 

feasibility of a systematic review for my topic (Boland et al. 2017). The scoping search allowed me 

to formulate the systematic review’s Aims and Questions described under ‘Research Aims and 

Questions’ (see Chapter One). 

3.3.2 Formulating a Search Strategy (Step 2) 

Accessing evidence. Primary qualitative and quantitative research, as well as theoretical papers, were 

systematically reviewed in this study. Articles providing evidence relevant to the research question 

were accessed through the online library of the University of Witwatersrand, using seven electronic 

databases. Table 3.1 captures the databases that were searched as well as the rationale for selecting 

each database in the process of accessing evidence. These databases provide access to research 

relevant to well-being and mental health. Given the paucity of literature found in the initial scoping 

search, I expanded my search to include theoretical literature (Kugley et al., 2017).  

Table 3.1 

Databases utilized and rationales for selecting them 

 

Databases Reason for Selection 

PsycInfo Grants access to mental health literature. 

PubMed Grants access to mental health literature. 

EBSCO Grants access to a global body of multidisciplinary literature. 

Science Direct Grants access to a global body of multidisciplinary literature. 

Google Scholar Increases the probability of locating South African studies that are often 

excluded on Western databases. 

Africa-Wide Grants access to multidisciplinary literature in Africa. 

Sabinet Allows literature to be accessed from African electronic journals. 

 

Using specified keywords, the titles, abstracts and full-text articles within each database listed above 

was searched by me. Only published, full-text articles that were in English were selected. Keywords 

were linked with Boolean phrases using Boolean operators (OR, AND, NOT) and wild cards (*) 

where appropriate. This added power to the search and increased productivity and focus by increasing 

specificity and efficacy in identifying relevant papers, while decreasing the number of irrelevant 

papers by increasing sensitivity (Boland et al., 2017; Laher & Hassem, 2020). The following search 



 

24 
 

string was used for the search of the literature within the databases listed above: “interpersonal 

violence” OR “domestic violence” OR “intimate partner violence” OR “IPV” AND “LGBT*” OR 

“Lesbian, gay, homosexual, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer, pansexual” AND “same-sex” OR 

“same sex” OR “sexual minority” AND “Africa*” OR “South Africa*”. Alerts were created on each 

database to identify any newly released studies up until the end of December 2022. 

I selected the following options for keywords on the various databases when executing my searches 

utilising the Boolean phrase: “apply equivalent subjects”, “apply related words”, and “search the full 

articles”. In line with Laher and Hassem (2020), I stopped my search of the databases when saturation 

was reached, specifically, the point at which identical articles repeatedly appeared in the search 

results, or when the titles ceased to be relevant to the research question. 

3.3.3 Determining Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria (Step 3) 

Research studies considered eligible for inclusion in the systematic review were identified based on 

the inclusion and exclusion criteria listed in Table 3.2 below. Inclusion criteria refer to specific 

characteristics of the research studies and their target population that make them ideal for answering 

the systematic review’s research questions (Patino & Ferreira, 2018). Due to the paucity of QIPV 

literature in SA, no time criterion was included. Exclusion criteria refer to features that exempt studies 

from the systematic review, as they will not aid in answering the research question (Patino & Ferreira, 

2018). 

Table 3.2 

Inclusion and exclusion criteria 

Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria 

The study must explore LGBTQ+ IPV / QIPV Same-sex violence among individuals that are 

not in a same-sex relationship (e.g. sexual 

violence in prisons) 

Qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods  

(contain primary research) or theoretical papers 

IPV among heterosexual couples 

Conducted in South Africa Policy documents, commentaries on policy 

documents, or review articles 

Physical, sexual, or psychological IPV among 

queer individuals 

Research published in a language other than 

English 

 Grey literature 

The criteria was further developed as per established search instruments, PICO (Population, 

Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) and SPIDER (Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, 



 

25 
 

Evaluation, Research type). PICO is generally utilised in quantitative systematic reviews, while 

SPIDER is an adaptation of PICO used for qualitative systematic reviews. As my review incorporates 

qualitative, quantitative, mixed-method studies and theoretical articles, my eligibility criteria 

included aspects of both (Methley et al., 2014; Ryan et al., 2018). The inclusion and exclusion criteria 

assisted me in further developing and refining the search terms discussed in Step 2 (Laher & Hassem, 

2020). 

3.3.4 Screening the Literature (Step 4) 

The literature search for the review was conducted in three phases:  

1) Specific search terms were used to identify studies that were potentially relevant. Article 

titles and abstracts were then downloaded into Rayyan, a software programme designed 

to aid the systematic review process (Boland et al., 2017; Ouzzani et al., 2016). 

2) Duplicates were deleted using Rayyan. Following this, inclusion and exclusion criteria 

were applied to titles and abstracts to screen for eligibility (Laher & Hassem, 2020). 

Research studies were excluded when they were not compatible with inclusion criteria or 

when they satisfied the exclusion criteria. 

3) Relevant articles identified, through the abstract screening process, were downloaded into 

Mendeley, to aid the data management process (Boland et al., 2017; Singh, 2010). A full-

text article screening process was undertaken to confirm or deny eligibility. This was 

followed by citation chaining whereby the reference lists of eligible articles were searched 

to identify further eligible articles (Boland et al., 2017). 

The selection of articles for inclusion was further guided by the PRISMA checklist (Appendix B) 

(Laher & Hassem, 2020). A PRISMA four-phase flow diagram was used to accurately record, and 

document studies included and excluded through the review process (see Appendix C) (Laher & 

Hassem, 2020). At each stage of the review procedure, the reasons for inclusion and exclusion were 

recorded. In the results chapter, citations are provided as examples, to substantiate the aforementioned 

decision-making process.  

3.3.5 Conducting a Quality Assessment (Step 5) 

Following the screening procedure, studies deemed suitable underwent a quality assessment which is 

a vital part of a systematic review. A quality assessment decreases bias in the review process while 

simultaneously decreasing bias in the primary research included in the review (Boland et al., 2017). 

I used the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme’s (CASP) quality evaluation instrument for eligible 

quantitative and qualitative studies, as well as theoretical papers. The CASP Qualitative Checklist 

Tool is widely regarded as the benchmark instrument in the social sciences (Laher & Hassem, 2020). 



 

26 
 

This tool was developed to evaluate the quality of qualitative research for systematic reviews (Critical 

Appraisal Skills Programme, 2017). Consequently, I used the 10-question CASP instrument to assess 

the eligibility of qualitative studies (Appendix D), as well as an alternate version of the CASP, adapted 

by Laher and Hassem (2020), to assess the eligibility of the identified quantitative research articles. 

The adapted 11-item tool is more appropriate for quantitative studies as it is not only geared toward 

assessing randomised control trials and is thus more user friendly (Appendix E). Finally, a third, six-

item version of the CASP, also adapted by Laher and Hassem (2020), was administered to assess the 

quality of theoretical papers (Appendix F). The CASP qualitative, quantitative and theoretical paper 

Checklist Tools were deemed appropriate for this review as they have been successfully used for 

South African systematic reviews (Laher & Hassem, 2020). 

The results of this quality-assessment were tabulated to summarise the grading of each selected study 

relative to its ‘aims’, ‘methods’, ‘research design’, ‘recruitment strategy’, ‘data collection’, ‘the role 

of the researcher’, ‘ethical issues’, ‘data analysis’, ‘findings’, and ‘value of research contribution’ 

where appropriate (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, 2017). Initially, included qualitative studies 

were given a score on a scale from 0–10, quantitative studies were given a score from 0–11, and 

theoretical papers a score from 0–6 (Laher & Hassem, 2020). These scores were then interpreted. 

Laher and Hassem (2020) posit that for a score between 0–3 for a quantitative article is too weak to 

be included, a score between 4–7 is moderate, and a score of 8–11 is considered strong and inclusion 

is recommended. For this systematic review, the upper limit for further inclusion in this study was set 

at 75% for all papers (see Tables 4.2 to 4.4 for the results of the CASP quality assessment; p. 32-34). 

3.3.6 Extracting Data (Step 6) 

I first extracted descriptive data (study characteristics), including year of publication, research design, 

sample size, geographical location, age range, data collection instruments and theoretical framework 

employed. Secondly, I extracted analytical data (outcome data); this process was directed by my 

systematic review research questions (Laher & Hassem, 2020). Data were then captured and 

structured electronically in an excel spreadsheet which aided in data management and synthesis. 

Extracted data (texts) were then analysed. 

3.3.7 Analysis (Step 7) 

Typically, statistical analysis is used in the review of quantitative research (Moher et al., 2016); 

however, I used a qualitative method in the analysis of the included data. The benefit of a qualitative 

systematic review is to aid our understanding of why and how a phenomenon is taking place (Moher 

et al., 2016). This qualitative systematic review intends to describe LGBTQ+ individuals’ experiences 

of IPV, thus a qualitative method was appropriate. 



 

27 
 

I analysed the data using thematic synthesis as outlined by Thomas and Harden (2008), which is a 

modified version of thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) utilised to analyse secondary data by 

supporting the process of identifying patterns in the data. Thematic synthesis has been used in 

previous systematic reviews focusing on public health (Thomas & Harden, 2008). Thematic synthesis 

consists of three stages: (1) ‘line-by-line’ text coding; (2) descriptive theme development; and (3) 

‘analytical theme’ generation. While generating descriptive themes, I remained ‘close’ to the primary 

research, summarising and describing the original findings. However, my interpretations went beyond 

the primary research when generating analytical themes resulting in new explanations, hypotheses, 

or concepts (Thomas & Harden, 2008). Based on the analytical themes identified through the thematic 

synthesis process, recommendations for improving research and intervention efforts in SA were 

made.  

3.3.8 Disseminate Findings (Step 8) 

This systematic review was conducted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for my master’s degree 

in Clinical Psychology at WITS University. Findings will be published in my final dissertation and a 

synthesised, refined version will be submitted to an academic journal for publication. 

3.4 Reflexivity 

This systematic review was conducted as part of the research component of my professional master’s 

degree; therefore, I personally collected the data by selecting pertinent research to synthesise and 

produce findings that answered my specific research question. According to Anney (2014), this active 

role makes research/investigator biases inevitable, as my personal experiences and background as the 

researcher inevitably influenced the systematic review findings. Consequently, reviewer reflexivity 

was essential; I consistently and actively examined my own perspectives, and their potential 

influence, on the research process throughout the process (Rees, 2017).  

As a researcher in the social sciences, I must be aware of my cultural, political, and social position, 

including my biases, decisions, and values, as well as the methods I use, and how these may impact 

on the knowledge that I produce about the social world (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Consequently, 

introducing myself to you, the reader, is imperative. I am a 34-year-old, White, self-identified queer, 

cisgender man. Growing up I lived in an Afrikaans-speaking, middle-income family. I am now 

agnostic, however I was raised in a Christian household with Christian ideals. In consonance with 

queer theory, my position relative to my social research is neither rooted as an outsider nor as an 

insider, instead, I am poised in the space between these dualities (Dwyer & Buckle, 2009). Reflecting 

on my insider/outsider position, I endeavoured to ethically traverse the tightrope between these 

extremes. 



 

28 
 

As a queer-identifying person, I assumed an insider position. My queer self-identification allowed for 

a sense of ease when thinking about queerness intrapersonally and speaking about my topic 

interpersonally with my supervisor. Being queer myself has helped to sensitise me to queer concerns 

such as QIPV. Conversely, insider pitfalls had to be held in mind. For example, the data inexorably 

prompted my emotions. Subsequently, my social position potentially had an impact on my 

interpretation of the data. 

Despite parallels, as a White cisgender male, I was also an outsider. In the systematic review process, 

I had to interpret data related to populations with socio-cultural backgrounds different from mine, 

backgrounds with specific political ramifications. Thus, with no personal experience of diverse 

intersections (other than my own), I had to determine how the synthesised data would be analysed 

and interpreted. Misinterpretations of the data would be neglectful but omitting data would erase 

aspects of people’s lives. It was imperative to remain cautious around my interpretations because this 

review concomitantly speaks to the consequences of epistemic injustice.  

Due to the above, I implemented strategies to mitigate outsider-insider bias. I endeavoured to use the 

“bracket” technique; a qualitative technique employed to diminish potentially detrimental 

consequences of presumptions that may distort the study procedure. This involved the active 

compartmentalisation of my preconceived notions, biases and experiences during the article selection 

and thematic synthesising phase (Tufford & Newman, 2012). Other bracketing strategies utilised 

included; (1) making use of a reflexive journal to document my reflections regarding the study 

procedure, this supported me in remaining aware of how the research process and findings may be 

tainted by my preconceptions and biases. Thus, I remained cognizant of my needs and emotional 

responses whilst positioning the data at the fore of the review (Rees, 2017); (2) my study procedure 

and reflections were discussed with my supervisor. My results and interpretations were verified by 

my supervisor, this allowed for investigator triangulation as results and interpretations were compared 

and verified; (3) I consulted an academic librarian at WITS, who has expertise in executing systematic 

reviews, this ensured a thorough literature search, minimising bias throughout the data retrieval stage, 

and; (4) a comprehensive audit trail was kept, and a thick account of the contextual characteristics of 

each study. This ensured the study’s validity.  

3.5 Ethical Considerations 

Ethical clearance for this study was provided by the WITS Psychology Departmental Ethics 

Screening Committee. As no participants were recruited for the data collection process, no special 

ethical clearance was required. Instead, data was extracted from published articles in the public 



 

29 
 

sphere; consequently, no special access or permissions was necessary. Hence, this study received a 

waiver from the ethics committee, who presented me with a clearance certificate protocol number: 

MCLIN/22/06W (see Appendix H), this allowed me to proceed with the systematic review (ref: 

https://www.wits.ac.za/research/researcher-support/research-ethics/ethics-committees/). 

  

https://www.wits.ac.za/research/researcher-support/research-ethics/ethics-committees/


 

30 
 

Chapter 4: Results 

4.1 Introduction 

The results of a systematic review of QIPV in SA are presented in this chapter. It is subdivided into 

three sections: (1) procedure results; (2) characteristics of the sample or data set, and; (3) thematic 

analysis. The procedure results present the systematic review process, i.e., the steps followed to 

include or exclude studies, and an analysis and discussion of the quality evaluation of the studies 

included. Under characteristics of the sample or data set, I present tables that summarise the essential 

information from each included quantitative, qualitative and theoretical article. Finally, the themes 

and subthemes identified in the data are presented. 

4.2 Procedure Results 

4.2.1 Study Selection 

A flow diagram representing the systematic review process is illustrated in Figure 4.1 (an adaptation 

of the PRISMA flow chart; Moher et al., 2009). Across all databases, the search yielded 699 literature 

studies. Article identification in this screening phase relied on the presence of keywords in the title, 

abstract or full text of the literature. Following this, duplicates were removed, resulting in 585 studies 

remaining eligible. Titles and abstracts were then reviewed. The most common reasons for exclusion 

during this phase were that the studies were not based in SA (e.g., Arscott et al., 2020; Donovan & 

Barnes, 2020a; Edwards & Sylaska, 2013; Goldenberg et al., 2016; Li et al., 2022; Ronzón-Tirado et 

al., 2022; Walsh et al., 2022), they focused on heterosexual intimate partner violence (e.g., Bennett, 

2010; Huschke, 2019; Kheswa et al., 2018; Stern et al., 2015), they were identified as grey literature 

(e.g., Collison, 2018; Gallagher, 2021; Geneva, 2016; Ncobela S, 2021; Sioga, 2018; Wicks, 2017) 

or the studies represented hate crime against the queer community (e.g., Müller, 2019; Wells & 

Polders, 2006). It should be noted that if the abstract of an article did not accurately reflect its content, 

then relevant articles may not have been included. 

After screening titles and abstracts,33 articles remained. These were assessed further by reading and 

evaluating the full-text for eligibility. In reading the articles, I determined that the inclusion criteria 

was not met by some articles; consequently, I excluded a further 14 articles. These articles were 

deemed ineligible because their focus was on same-sex violence rather than IPV specifically (e.g., 

prison violence) (e.g., Jina et al., 2020; Muntingh, 2011; Nkosi et al., 2021; Reid & Walker, 2005) or 

they were focused on QIPV, but located in parts of Africa other than South Africa (e.g., Kunzweiler 

et al., 2018; Ogunbajo et al., 2020; Stephenson et al., 2014). After this extensive screening process, 



 

31 
 

19 articles remained and were critically appraised using the CASP tool for inclusion. All articles were 

deemed eligible for inclusion and were incorporated into this systematic review. Of these articles, 

nine were qualitative, six quantitative, and four theoretical.  

Figure 4.1. 

PRISMA four-phase flow diagram  

Studies included in 

quantitative synthesis  

(n = 6) 

Records excluded 

(n = 552) , not African or 

South African or related to 

Queer IPV 

Records screened 

(n = 585) 

Records after duplicates removed 

(n = 585) 

Id
en

ti
fi

ca
ti

o
n

 
E

li
g
ib

il
it

y
 

In
cl

u
d

ed
 

S
cr

ee
n

in
g

 

Studies included in 

qualitative synthesis 

(n = 9) 

Full-text articles excluded,  

(n = 14), limited discussion 

of this topic, related to 

same-sex violence but not 

IPV 

Full-text articles assessed 

for eligibility 

(n = 33) 

Additional records identified 

through other sources 

(n = 31) 

Records identified through 

database searching 

(n = 649) 

Studies included in 

theoretical synthesis 

(n = 4) 



 

32 
 

4.2.2 Assessment of Study Sample Quality 

The quality of the included articles was assessed by me using the CASP tool (Critical Appraisal Skills 

Programme, 2017, see Appendices D, E and F). The quality assessment outcomes are captured in 

Tables 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4, depending on whether they were qualitative, quantitative, or theoretical, 

respectively. The tables also capture how these studies performed on each CASP item.  

In terms of quality, I assessed 18 articles as high quality and one article as moderate. Qualitative 

articles were assessed using 10 items, quantitative articles were assessed using 12 items, and 

theoretical articles were assessed using six items. The lowest score obtained for a qualitative study 

was 9/10, while the rest of the articles scored 10/10. The lowest score obtained for a quantitative 

study was 9/12, whilst the highest was 12/12. Finally, all theoretical articles scored 6/6. The items 

that rendered the lowest scores for most qualitative articles were: ‘consideration of the relationship 

between the researcher and participant’ and ‘the rigour of the data analysis.’ The items that rendered 

the lowest scores for most quantitative articles were: ‘was the data analysis rigorous?’, ‘were the 

correct statistical techniques used?’ and ‘were psychometric properties discussed?’ The requirements 

were set at 75% due to the dearth of South African literature addressing QIPV. Thus, despite these 

omissions, all studies met the quality criteria and scored 75% or higher on their respective scales. 

Therefore, all 19 articles were incorporated into the systematic review.  

  



 

33 
 

Table 4.2 

Summary of CASP Qualitative Checklist  

 

n.val = not valuable   val = valuable   v.val = very valuable 

  

 
Summary of CASP Qualitative Checklist 

(Laher & Hassem, 2020) 

S
cr

ee
n

in
g

 Q
u

es
ti

o
n

s 
p

er
 A

rt
ic

le
: 

1
. 

W
as

 t
h

er
e 

a 
cl

ea
r 

st
at

em
en

t 
o

f 
th

e 
ai

m
s 

o
f 

th
e 

re
se

ar
ch

?
 

 2
. 

Is
 a

 q
u

al
it

at
iv

e 
m

et
h

o
d
o

lo
g
y

 a
p

p
ro

p
ri

at
e?

 

3
. 

W
as

 t
h

e 
re

se
ar

ch
 d

es
ig

n
 a

p
p

ro
p

ri
at

e 
to

 a
d

d
re

ss
 t

h
e 

ai
m

s 
o

f 
th

e 
re

se
ar

ch
?
 

 4
. 

W
as

 t
h

e 
re

cr
u

it
m

en
t 

st
ra

te
g
y

 a
p

p
ro

p
ri

at
e 

to
 t

h
e 

ai
m

s 
o

f 
th

e 
re

se
ar

ch
? 

 5
. 

W
as

 t
h

e 
d

at
a 

co
ll

ec
te

d
 i

n
 a

 w
ay

 t
h

at
 a

d
d

re
ss

ed
 t

h
e 

re
se

ar
ch

 i
ss

u
e?

 

 6
. 

H
as

 t
h

e 
re

la
ti

o
n

sh
ip

 b
et

w
ee

n
 t

h
e 

re
se

ar
ch

er
 a

n
d
 p

ar
ti

ci
p

an
ts

 b
ee

n
 a

d
eq

u
at

el
y
 

co
n

si
d

er
ed

? 

 7
. 

H
av

e 
et

h
ic

al
 i

ss
u

es
 b

ee
n

 t
ak

en
 i

n
to

 c
o
n

si
d

er
at

io
n

? 
 

 

 8
. 

W
as

 t
h

e 
d

at
a 

an
al

y
si

s 
su

ff
ic

ie
n

tl
y

 r
ig

o
ro

u
s?

 

9
. 

Is
 t

h
er

e 
a 

cl
ea

r 
st

at
em

en
t 

o
f 

fi
n

d
in

g
s?

 
 

1
0

. 
H

o
w

 v
al

u
ab

le
 i

s 
th

e 
re

se
ar

ch
?
 

 T
o

ta
l 

Henderson (2012) yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no yes val 9 

Henderson & Shefer (2008) yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes val 10 

Kaighobadi et al. (2019) yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes v-val 10 

Lynch & Sanger (2016) yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes v-val 10 

Mayeza (2022) yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes v-val 10 

Moodley & Bowman (2021) yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes v-val 10 

Moothoo-Padayachie (2004) yes yes yes yes yes no yes yes yes val 9 

Sanger & Lynch (2017) yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes val 10 

Tallis et al. (2019) yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no yes v-val 9 

            



 

34 
 

Table 4.3 

Summary of CASP Quantitative Checklist  

 

n.val = not valuable   val = valuable   v.val = very valuable 

 

 

 
Summary of Adapted CASP for Quantitative research   

(Laher & Hassem, 2020) 

S
cr

ee
n

in
g

 Q
u

es
ti

o
n

s 
p

er
 A

rt
ic

le
: 

 

1
. 

W
as

 t
h

er
e 

a 
cl

ea
r 

st
at

em
en

t 
o

f 
th

e 
ai

m
s 

o
f 

th
e 

re
se

ar
ch

? 
 

 2
. 

Is
 a

 q
u

an
ti

ta
ti

v
e 

m
et

h
o
d

o
lo

g
y

 a
p

p
ro

p
ri

at
e?

  

 3
. 

W
er

e 
al

l 
th

e 
p

ar
ti

ci
p

an
ts

 a
cc

o
u

n
te

d
 f

o
r 

in
 t

h
e 

re
su

lt
s 

an
d

 t
h

e 
co

n
cl

u
si

o
n

?
 

 4
. 

W
as

 t
h

e 
re

se
ar

ch
 d

es
ig

n
 a

p
p

ro
p

ri
at

e 
to

 a
d

d
re

ss
 t

h
e 

ai
m

s 
o

f 
th

e 
re

se
ar

ch
? 

 5
. 

W
as

 t
h

e 
re

cr
u

it
m

en
t 

st
ra

te
g
y

 a
p

p
ro

p
ri

at
e 

to
 t

h
e 

ai
m

s 
o

f 
th

e 
re

se
ar

ch
? 

 

 6
. 

W
as

 t
h

e 
d

at
a 

co
ll

ec
te

d
 i

n
 a

 w
ay

 t
h

at
 a

d
d

re
ss

ed
 t

h
e 

re
se

ar
ch

 i
ss

u
e?

 

 7
. 

H
av

e 
et

h
ic

al
 i

ss
u

es
 b

ee
n

 t
ak

en
 i

n
to

 c
o
n

si
d

er
at

io
n

? 
  

 8
. 

W
as

 t
h

e 
co

rr
ec

t 
st

at
is

ti
ca

l 
te

ch
n

iq
u

e 
u

se
d

 t
o

 a
n

al
y

se
 t

h
e 

d
at

a 

 9
. 

W
as

 t
h

e 
d

at
a 

an
al

y
si

s 
su

ff
ic

ie
n

tl
y

 r
ig

o
ro

u
s?

  

 1
0

. 
W

er
e 

p
sy

ch
o

m
et

ri
c 

p
ro

p
er

ti
es

 d
is

cu
ss

ed
? 

 

 1
1

. 
Is

 t
h

er
e 

a 
cl

ea
r 

st
at

em
en

t 
o
f 

fi
n

d
in

g
s?

 

1
2

. 
H

o
w

 v
al

u
ab

le
 i

s 
th

e 
re

se
ar

ch
?
 

T
o

ta
l 

Dunkle et al. (2013) yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no yes yes val 11 

Eaton et al. (2013) yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes v.val 12 

Finneran (2012) yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes v.val 12 

Muthien (2004) yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no no no yes val 9 

Stephenson et al. (2011) yes yes yes yes yes yes no yes yes yes yes val 11 

Stephenson et al. (2020) yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes v.val 12 

 
             



 

35 
 

Table 4.4 

Summary of CASP Theoretical Checklist  

 

 

Summary of Adapted CASP for Theoretical Papers  

(Laher & Hassem, 2020) 

S
cr

ee
n

in
g

 Q
u

es
ti

o
n

s 
p

er
 A

rt
ic

le
: 

 1
. 

W
as

 i
t 

a 
th

eo
re

ti
ca

l 
p

ap
er

? 

2
. 

W
as

 t
h

er
e 

a 
cl

ea
r 

st
at

em
en

t 
o

f 
ai

m
s 

fo
r 

th
e 

p
ap

er
?
 

3
. 

D
id

 t
h

e 
p
ap

er
 a

p
p

ro
p

ri
at

el
y

 a
d

d
re

ss
 t

h
e 

re
se

ar
ch

 a
im

s?
 

4
. 

W
as

 a
p

p
ro

p
ri

at
e 

li
te

ra
tu

re
 c

it
ed

, 
o

r 
d
ra

w
n

-o
n

, 
to

 a
n

sw
er

 t
h

e 
re

se
ar

ch
 a

im
s?

 

5
. 

W
er

e 
ex

p
er

ts
 i

n
 t

h
e 

fi
el

d
 c

o
n

su
lt

ed
, 

o
r 

in
te

rn
at

io
n

al
ly

 r
ec

o
g

n
is

ed
 b

o
d

ie
s 

ci
te

d
?
 

6
. 

Is
 t

h
er

e 
a 

cl
ea

r 
st

at
em

en
t 

o
f 

fi
n

d
in

g
s?

 

T
o

ta
l 

Chicovore & Naidoo (2016) yes yes yes yes yes yes 6 

Mailula & Mokgoroane (2020) yes yes yes yes yes yes 6 

Naidu & Mkhize (2005) yes yes yes yes yes yes 6 

Ximba (2021) yes yes yes yes yes yes 6 

        

n.val = not valuable   val = valuable   v.val = very valuable 



 

36 
 

4.3 Included Articles: Characteristics 

4.3.1 General Description of Sample or Data Source, Including Methodology 

Table 4.5 captures the general description of the selected studies to provide a concise description of the sample or data source, as well as the 

methodological approach that was applied.  

Table 4.5 

Studies included in the systematic review of QIPV in SA 

  Aims Sample or Data Source Recruitment Methodology Methods Perspective 

Chicovore & 

Naidoo (2016) 

QIPV in the context of HIV risk 

among young men who have sex 

with men (MSM) in SA. 

South African History and Law 

- 

Theoretical  Theoretical 

discussion of 

topic 

None 

specified 

Dunkle et al. 

(2013) 

To describe the lifetime 

prevalence of male-on-male 

sexual violence (victimisation and 

perpetration) in two South 

African provinces. To determine 

the socio-demographic factors 

associated with these experiences 

and associations with HIV status. 

n = 1737 men 

Self-identified race: 16% Black 

African MSM, 84% non-Black 

MSM 

Age: Range 18-49 years old 

Middle class 

Recruitment from a 

random sample of 

households in the 

Eastern Cape and 

KwaZulu-Natal 

provinces 

Quantitative Survey data and 

dried blood spots 

for HIV status 

assessment. 

None 

specified 

Eaton et al. 

(2013) 

Exploring the behaviours of men 

who have sex with women and 

men (behaviourally bisexual). 

n = 1203 

12% reported having sex with both 

men and women 

Sex: Male 

Mean Age: 28  

Self-identified Race: 26% Coloured 

and 74% Black African individuals 

Recruited from 10 

drinking establishments 

in a peri-urban 

township in Cape 

Town, Western Cape 

Province 

Quantitative Self-administered 

survey  

None 

specified 

    

 

   



 

37 
 

Table 4.5 

Studies included in the systematic review of QIPV in SA 

  Aims Sample or Data Source Recruitment Methodology Methods Perspective 

Finneran 

(2012) 

Heterosexist social pressures as a 

risk factor for IPV among MSM 

in six countries. 

n = 2368 MSM 

South African: n = 451 

Of the SA sample: 

Age Range: 18 - 35 years old 

Self-identified Race: 8% Black 

African’, 8% Coloured, 84% White 

Middle class 

Recruitment through 

selective banner 

advertisements on 

Facebook  

Quantitative Self-administered 

survey 

None 

specified 

Henderson 

(2012) 

To examine to what extent 

unequal power relations and 

forms of abuse are reported in 

male-male relationships. 

n = 15 gay men 

Self-identified Race:   

Six Coloured, 

Three Indian, 

Three White. 

Age: Range 20 – 46 years old 

Non-probability 

sampling: Snowball 

sampling 

Qualitative  Semi-structured 

in-depth 

interviews 

Content 

analysis. 

Queer 

theory. Post-

structuralism 

Henderson & 

Shefer (2008) 

Explores the challenges faced in 

constructing equitable same-sex 

intimate relationships within a 

heterogendered society. 

n = one gay isiXhosa-speaking man 

Self-identified race: Black African 

Age: 21 years old 

Non-probability 

sampling: Convenience 

sampling 

Qualitative Case-study Inductive 

analysis 

Kaighobadi et 

al. (2019) 

Examination of sexual violence 

among Black African men who 

are gay, bisexual or MSM. 

n = 81 MSM 

Sex: Males 

Age: range 20 – 38 years old 

Recruited from 

‘townships’ 

surrounding Pretoria, 

Gauteng Province. 

Convenience and 

snowball sampling 

 

Qualitative In-depth 

interviews 

Grounded 

theory  



 

38 
 

Table 4.5 

Studies included in the systematic review of QIPV in SA 

  Aims Sample or Data Source Recruitment Methodology Methods Perspective 

Lynch & 

Sanger (2016) 

To explore IPV as it occurs in 

queer women’s same-sex 

relationships; considers power 

inequalities and abuse. 

n = 42 queer women 

Age: range 18-35 years old 

Self-identified race: 30 ‘Black 

African’ and 12 ‘Coloured’ 

79% were employed 

43% had not finished grade 12 

Convenience and 

snowball sampling. 

Recruitment was from 

rural and semi-rural 

areas, as well as from 

townships around Cape 

Town, Western Cape 

Province 

Qualitative Focus group 

discussions 

conducted in 

participants’ 

home-language 

(English // 

Afrikaans // 

isiXhosa) 

Feminist 

analysis 

Mailula & 

Mokgoroane 

(2020) 

Exploration of how third parties 

respond to violence that occurs in 

same-sex relationships. 

Domestic Violence Act (DVA) and 

the South African Constitution 

Relevant case law was 

extracted 

Theoretical Theoretical 

discussion 

Legal 

Mayeza 

(2022) 

South African rape culture 

explored within same-sex 

relationships. 

n = 17 

Age: 19 – 32 years old 

Race: Black African 

Self-identified as LGBTQ+ 

Convenience and 

snowball sampling 

Qualitative Semi-structured 

interviews 

Thematic 

analysis 

Moodley & 

Bowman 

(2021) 

Exploring the way same-sex 

partners account for violence in 

their relationships. 

n = six gay men  

Self-identified Race: Four ‘White’ 

and two ‘Black.’ 

Age range: 25–52 years old 

One self-identified as a perpetrator 

of IPV 

Convenience sampling: 

Participants were 

recruited from 

LGBTQ+ organisations 

in the urban centres of 

Cape Town, Western 

Cape Province and 

Johannesburg, Gauteng 

Province 

 

Qualitative Discourse 

analysis 

Masculinities 

studies 

Moothoo-

Padayachie 

(2004) 

Examines lesbian violence in SA. 

Unpacks the relationship between 

the police and survivors of QIPV. 

Data collected from interviews with 

two representatives of LGBTQ+ 

organisations 

Convenience sampling Qualitative Semi-structured 

interviews 

Thematic 

analysis 



 

39 
 

Table 4.5 

Studies included in the systematic review of QIPV in SA 

  Aims Sample or Data Source Recruitment Methodology Methods Perspective 

Muthien 

(2004) 

Examination of gender-based 

violence and HIV among queer 

and heterosexual individuals. 

n = 30 representatives  

 

Participants recruited 

from 28 different GBV 

organisations 

Context: 35% were 

rural based 

Qualitative Formal interviews 

based on a 

structured 

questionnaire that 

included 

questions on 

same-sex violence 

None 

specified 

Metheny et al. 

(2022) 

Study assessed the dyadic and 

individual risk factors associated 

with HIV transmission among 

MSM   

n = 300 South Africans 

Sex: Male 

Age: Range 18-55 years old 

Self-identified Race: 68% Black 

African, 32% Coloured  

Middle class 

 

Venue-based sampling 

was used to complete 

the sampling 

Quantitative Self-administered 

Survey 

None 

specified 

Naidu & 

Mkhize (2005) 

Same-sex domestic violence in 

the context of the DVA and SA 

Constitution. 

DVA SA and 

SA Constitution 

Case law Theoretical 

- 

Legal 

Sanger & 

Lynch (2017) 

Exploring IPV in female same-

sex relationships. The impact of 

heterogendered relationship 

norms and social inequalities in 

creating and sustaining power 

differentials between partners. 

n = 42 

Sex: Female 

Self-identified Race:  

30 Black African, 

12 Coloured 

Age: Range 18 – 35 years old 

 

Convenience sampling: 

Recruited through the 

Triangle Project 

network in Cape Town, 

Western Cape Province 

Qualitative Focus-group Feminist 

poststructural

ist lens 



 

40 
 

Table 4.5 

Studies included in the systematic review of QIPV in SA 

  Aims Sample or Data Source Recruitment Methodology Methods Perspective 

Stephenson et 

al. (2011) 

IPV among a sample of South 

African MSM. An examination of 

the link between sexual risk-

taking and IPV. 

n = 521 

Sex: Male 

Self-identified Race: 90% White 

Age: 18 years or older 

Sexual orientation: 

96% self-identified as gay 

Middle class 

Internet-recruitment:  

Facebook 

advertisements  

Quantitative Self-administered 

survey 

None 

specified 

Stephenson et 

al. (2020) 

To measure the experiences of 

IPV and sexuality-related 

stressors among partnered MSM 

in South Africa and Namibia. 

n = 440 (220 couples) 

South African sample = 300 

participants; thus, 150 couples 

Sex: Male 

Age: Over 18 years old 

Self-identified Race: 68% Black 

and 32% Coloured. 

Middle class 

Convenience and 

snowball sampling in 

KwaZulu-Natal 

Quantitative One-time cross-

sectional survey 

(self-

administered) in 

isiZulu, English 

and Afrikaans 

None 

specified 

Tallis et al. 

(2019) 

Exploring the reasons for the 

silence around QIPV among 

women. 

n = 21 

Sex: Female 

Race: not specified 

Age: not specified 

Class: not specified 

Convenience sampling Quantitative Self-administered 

online-survey 

Feminist 

power 

analysis 

Ximba (2021) Explores the role of society and 

its construction of gender, and 

gender roles, in IPV and the 

silencing of IPV. 

Analysis of narrative constructions 

by Tumelo Thamaga (2019) in 

“Dear Friend” and Uvile Ximba 

(2019) in “The Suit” 

- 

Theoretical Narrative 

construction 

Feminist 



 

41 
 

4.3.2 Overall Sample Characteristics 

From the data summarised in Table 4.5, the main sample characteristics from qualitative and 

quantitative studies can be extracted. No transgender participants were included in any of these 

studies. Therefore, a gender bias was evident in the research. Furthermore, ten studies focused on 

HIV among queer men, predominantly framing participants as men who have sex with men (MSM). 

These studies identified MSM as a high-risk group for HIV infection and transmission as well as high 

risk in its association with QIPV. Racially, there was one study with Indian participants, eight studies 

had a predominantly Black African and Coloured sample, and four had a predominantly White 

sample. Regarding age, all but one study focused on a sample with participants above the age of 18 

years old. In terms of class, five out of six qualitative studies had a predominantly middle-class 

sample. Geographically, only four of the 16 studies focused on either township, peri-urban or rural 

contexts, the remainder all appear to have recruited from urban areas. Possible sample bias occurred 

due to researchers use internet-based surveys and convenience sampling. 

Only five of the 16 studies had an intersectional focus, although most studies did indirectly highlight 

the importance of such a focus. Theoretical papers primarily focused on the laws protecting queer 

individuals from IPV while simultaneously considering the reality of a heteronormative and racially 

biased society on secondary victimisation. 

4.4  Thematic Analysis 

In this systematic review, I generated six main themes and 25 subthemes from the data. The main 

themes are: (1) Silence of QIPV: The normative context of QIPV in South Africa; (2) Characteristics 

of QIPV in South Africa; (3) Detrimental outcomes of QIPV; (4) Barriers to seeking help; (5) 

Strengths, weaknesses and ways forward for QIPV interventions and; (6) Proposed strategies to 

decrease QIPV. A thematic map of the themes and subthemes to be discussed is provided in Table 

4.5. 

  



 

42 
 

Table 4.6 

Thematic Map 

Themes      Subthemes 

Silence of QIPV: The 

normative context of 

QIPV in SA 

- The normative context in South Africa 

- Effects on queer-identifying individuals and their relationships 

(interpersonal power dynamics) 

QIPV and 

intersectionality in SA 
- Intersectional shaping of QIPV 

- Prevalence 

- Factors that increase vulnerability to QIPV 

- Detrimental outcomes of QIPV 

Barriers to seeking 

help 

- Preserving the image of the queer community 

- Resisting victimhood 

- Secondary victimisation: From family and heterosexual community 

- Secondary victimisation: Lack of queer community awareness and 

support 

- Secondary victimisation: QIPV is stigmatised and not prioritised 

- Effects of secondary victimisation  

Successes and failures 

of protective factors 

against QIPV in SA 

- South African Constitution and Domestic Violence Act (DVA) 

- Advocacy organisations 

- Pro-queer media: normalisation 

- Relationship characteristics 

Lack of research and 

accurate knowledge 

- Silence, invisibility and erasure of QIPV 

- Intersectionalities 

- Research into the nuances of QIPV 

- Research for increased queer support 

Strengths and 

weaknesses of QIPV 

interventions 

- Interventions at the macro-level 

- Interventions at the meso-level 

- Interventions at the micro-level 

 

  



 

43 
 

Table 4.7 

Thematic Table of Grouped Subthemes 

 

  

 

T
h

e 
n

o
rm

a
ti

v
e 

co
n

te
x

t 
o

f 
Q

IP
V

 i
n

 S
A

 

E
ff

ec
ts

 o
f 

d
o

m
in

a
n

t 
n

o
rm

s 
o

n
 q

u
ee

r 
in

d
iv

id
u

a
ls

 

E
ff

ec
ts

 o
f 

d
o

m
in

a
n

t 
n

o
rm

s 
o

n
 q

u
ee

r 
re

la
ti

o
n

sh
ip

s 

P
re

v
a

le
n

ce
 

T
y

p
es

 o
f 

Q
IP

V
 

 In
te

rs
ec

ti
o

n
a

li
ty

 

C
o

n
te

x
tu

a
l 

fa
ct

o
rs

 t
h

a
t 

in
cr

ea
se

 v
u

ln
er

a
b

il
it

y
 t

o
 I

P
V

 

D
et

ri
m

en
ta

l 
o

u
tc

o
m

es
 o

f 
Q

IP
V

 

R
es

is
ti

n
g

 v
ic

ti
m

h
o

o
d

 

P
re

se
r
v

in
g

 t
h

e 
im

a
g

e 
o

f 
th

e 
q

u
ee

r 
co

m
m

u
n

it
y

 

F
ea

r 
o

f 
b

ei
n

g
 o

u
te

d
 

R
el

a
ti

o
n

sh
ip

 p
o

w
er

 d
y

n
a

m
ic

s 

S
ec

o
n

d
a

ry
 v

ic
ti

m
is

a
ti

o
n

 

E
ff

ec
ts

 o
f 

se
c
o

n
d

a
ry

 v
ic

ti
m

is
a

ti
o

n
 

C
o

n
st

it
u

ti
o

n
a

l 
r
ig

h
ts

 o
f 

q
u

ee
r 

in
d

iv
id

u
a

ls
 

D
o

m
es

ti
c 

V
io

le
n

ce
 A

ct
 

E
x

is
ti

n
g

 i
n

te
rv

en
ti

o
n

s 
/ 

P
ro

te
c
ti

v
e 

fa
ct

o
rs

 

L
a

ck
 o

f 
re

se
a

rc
h

 a
n

d
 k

n
o

w
le

d
g

e
 

Q
u

ee
r
 I

P
V

 i
n

 t
h

e 
co

n
te

x
t 

o
f 

H
IV

 r
is

k
 

L
a

ck
 o

f 
in

te
rv

en
ti

o
n

s 
a

n
d

 g
u

id
el

in
e
s 

Im
p

li
ca

ti
o

n
s 

fo
r 

p
o

li
cy

 o
r
 p

ra
ct

ic
e
 

Chikovore & Naidoo (2016) ✓ ✓ ✓  ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓         ✓   
✓ ✓ 

Dunkle et al. (2013)    ✓ ✓  ✓ ✓          ✓ ✓ ✓  

Eaton et al. (2013) ✓   ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓          ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓  

Finneran (2012) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓  ✓     ✓  
✓ ✓ 

Henderson (2012) ✓ ✓ ✓  ✓ ✓    ✓   ✓  
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓  

✓ 

Henderson & Shefer (2008) ✓ ✓ ✓  ✓ ✓  
✓          ✓  

✓ ✓ 

Kaighobadi et al. (2019) ✓ ✓ ✓  ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓           ✓   

Lynch & Sanger (2016) ✓ ✓ ✓  ✓ ✓  
✓ ✓  ✓  ✓    ✓ ✓  

✓ ✓ 

Mailula & Mokgoroane (2020) ✓    ✓ ✓    ✓ ✓  ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓  ✓    

Mayeza (2022) ✓ ✓ ✓   ✓   ✓  ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓   ✓ ✓  ✓  

Moodley & Bowman (2021) ✓ ✓   ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓   ✓ ✓    ✓  
✓  

Moothoo-Padayachie (2004) ✓    ✓  ✓ ✓     ✓ ✓   ✓   
✓ ✓ 

Muthien (2004) ✓ ✓   ✓  ✓  
✓   ✓ ✓    ✓   

✓ ✓ 

Metheny et al. (2022) ✓ ✓   ✓  ✓ ✓         ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 

Naidu & Mkhize (2005) ✓    ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓  ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓  
✓  

Sanger & Lynch (2017) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓          ✓ ✓  
✓ 

Stepenson et al. (2020) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓  ✓ ✓ ✓         ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 

Tallis et al. (2019) ✓  ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓  ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓  ✓  
✓ ✓ 

Ximba (2021) ✓    ✓ ✓ ✓      ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓  
✓ ✓ 

                      



 

44 
 

4.1.1 Theme 1: Silence of Queer IPV: The Normative Context of QIPV in SA 

4.4.1.1.  The Normative Context in SA  

Several researchers contend that QIPV in SA needs to be considered within the context of the 

acceptance of violence and power inequality within the wider context (Mailula & Mokgoroane, 2020; 

Moothoo-Padayachie, 2004; Ximba, 2021). 

“The apartheid system legalised and entrenched a socio-political and economic use of 

violence to enforce racist, segregationist policies. To achieve this, various 

masculinities were constructed, which continue to pervade South African society and 

how it understands and uses violence. … The construction of norms relating to 

masculinity and femininity, including the gender roles and expectations, become 

important factors underlying IPV as they reflect how violence is used in greater 

society. … Gender-inequitable social norms (especially those that link notions of 

manhood to dominance and aggression) are one of the community and societal factors 

that affect IPV. … The causes, repercussions, and forms of IPV are multidimensional, 

making it difficult to isolate any singular narrative of IPV. This is continuously 

disregarded by representations and definitions of the issue, which tend to limit IPV 

definitions to heterosexual relationships; enacted by ‘men’ on ‘women’. LGBTQ+ 

victims do not fit the stereotypes of domestic abuse” (Ximba, 2021, pp. 3–4). 

This indicates that gender-inequitable social norms have seemingly had a major impact on the 

prevalence of IPV. All the included studies emphasised the impact of heteronormativity, and the 

associated gender roles, on QIPV in SA (Chicovore & Naidoo, 2016; Eaton et al., 2013; Henderson, 

2012; Henderson & Shefer, 2008; Kaighobadi et al., 2019; Lane Tim et al., 2014; Lynch, 2018; Lynch 

& Sanger, 2016; Mailula & Mokgoroane, 2020; Mayeza et al., 2022; Metheny et al., 2021; Moodley 

& Bowman, 2021; Moothoo-Padayachie, 2004; Muthien, 2004; Naidu & Mkhize, 2011; Sanger & 

Lynch, 2018; Stephenson et al., 2020; Tallis et al., 2020; Ximba, 2021). The effect of dominant 

heteronormativity is that of queer individuals being marginalised and exposed to the violence of not 

belonging to the envisioned freedom of post-apartheid SA (Mailula & Mokgoroane, 2020). Naidu 

and Mkhize’s (2011) findings emphasised how the post-apartheid context of heteronormativity, and 

norms of dominance and aggression, have had a greater impact on queer individuals than the wider 

heterosexual community. 



 

45 
 

“Respondents noted that high levels of societal violence led to the internalisation of 

violence, which is expressed in the high incidence of [queer] domestic violence” 

(Muthien, 2004, p. 95). 

“In a country [South Africa] where IPV is endemic, queer victims of IPV are 

susceptible to further abuse because of their sexual orientations” (Mailula & 

Mokgoroane, 2020, p. 286). 

A violent society normalises violence, making QIPV invisible. Additionally, societal queerphobia, 

rooted in heteronormativity, violently repudiates the reality of queer lives, including queer 

relationships. Consequently, the reality of IPV within these relationships is also denied (Kaighobadi 

et al., 2019; Naidu & Mkhize, 2011). Thus, within the context of post-apartheid SA, these participants 

were not yet full