Relationship Abuse and Victims’ Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms: Associations with Child Behavior Problems

This study examined associations among male-to-female physical and psychological relationship aggression, female partners’ PTSD symptoms, and behavior problems among the children (n = 62) of men enrolled in a treatment program for relationship abuse perpetration. Psychological aggression was a stronger predictor of child behavior problems than physical assault. Restrictive engulfment and hostile withdrawal behaviors evidenced the strongest bivariate associations with child behavior problems, and were the strongest predictors of this outcome when considering four distinct forms of psychological aggression together. Victim PTSD symptoms largely mediated the effects of psychological aggression on child behavior. Findings suggest that male-to-female psychological aggression and victim PTSD symptoms play an important role in understanding behavior problems among children living with male relationship abuse perpetrators. Portions of this work were presented at the annual convention of the Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy, New Orleans, Louisiana, November, 2004.     

Regulatory Conversations

The article proposes a new site of analysis for the study of regulation: regulatory conversations, and a new theoretical approach: discourse analysis. Regulatory conversations, the communicative interactions that occur between all involved in the regulatory 'space', are an important part of most regulatory systems. Discourse analysis, the study of the use of language and communication, suggests that such interactions are constitutive of the regulatory process, that they serve important functions, that they can be the basis of co-ordinated action, and that they are important sites of conflict and contestation. The article explores five key contentions of discourse analysis, considering how each may shed light on aspects of regulatory processes. These are, first as to the meaning of language and co-ordination of social practices; second, as to the construction of identities; third, the relationship of language, thought, and knowledge; fourth, the relationship of language and power, and finally, that meaning, thought, knowledge, and power are open to contestation and change.     

University-industry consortium agreements Center for Process Analytical Chemistry: A case study

There is a surfeit of articles, books, and conferences on the subject of university-industry collaboration, but few of them address specific, pragmatic issues related to the development of an operable sponsorship agreement. This article focuses on the terms of the agreement negotiated with industry sponsors of the National Science Foundation (NSF) Industry-University Collaborative Research Center (IUCRC), established at the University of Washington in 1984 as the Center for Process Analytical Chemistry (CPAC). Over the past 11 years, CPAC has grown dramatically and achieved important successes, but some of the terms in the initial agreement have proven to be problematic, particularly those dealing with intellectual property rights. This article reviews the nature of the problems and explains the solutions negotiated by participants as part of a revised agreement implemented in 1992.     

Removing excuses in money laundering

Criminals can use financial facilitators to invest their ill-gotten gains without drawing attention to themselves. These facilitators are experts at getting round anti-money laundering procedures. Because of their expertise and unique capabilities they play an important role in criminal networks. It therefore stands to reason that law enforcement focuses on them. That focus often translates in prosecution when laws are broken. However, what can we do to prevent financial experts in breaking the law? In this article the focus lies on the method of removing excuses. This technique is employed in every day crimes but has not been put to the test in the context of organized crime. Interviews with police officers show that the technique of removing excuses could work under certain conditions. However, it turns out that an important differentiation lies in the sort of activities financial facilitators undertake. Not all financial activities take place in the legal financial-economic system. Instead of distinguishing between the three classical phases of money laundering (placement, layering, integration), a two-pronged focus on those who are involved in cash based transactions and those who construct smokescreens on paper is proposed.