Marion Uhle is a researcher from Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, Germany, and Université de Strasbourg, France

• From the ContentsINTRODUCTIONI. Europe and the context of this research: when the gender issue intimate partner violence meets migration II. Presentation of the research topic and its scientific interest III. The state of research – An overview IV. Definition and contextualization of ambiguous terms 1. Third-country marriage migrants and binational couples 2. A typology of violence 3. Intimate partner violence (IPV) 4. The private and the public sphere V. Research question and hypotheses VI. Empirical study and methodology VII. Structure of the thesis FIRST PART – The issue, theoretic concepts and the context of the present work Chapter 1 The research question and its context 1.1. Starting with a story 1.2. The construction of the research question 1.3. Contextualization of the research topicChapter 2 Mobilized theories and concepts 2.1. Marriage migration 2.1.1. On migration 2.1.2. Female migration 2.1.3. The consideration of marriage migration 2.2. Intersectionality and postcolonial studies 2.3. Who is the Other? What is a victim? 2.4. A blind spot: male victims and female perpetrators 2.5. Gender, power relations and violence 2.6. Intimate partner violence (IPV) 2.7. From the private to the public sphere – Theories of space and their limits with regards to this work 2.8. The lack of a complementary theory focusing on the problem of IPV against third-country marriage migrants whose status depends on their marriageChapter 3 Reconnecting the research question and its context3.1. The International and European context: IPV and marriage migrants 3.2. Object of analysis: the concerned foreign person’s way out of IPV and the tense relationship between the private and the public sphere 3.3. National laws and traditions in three European countries as a variable: France, Germany and Italy as a field of research 3.3.1. The choice for France, Germany and Italy 3.3.2. On nationality and citizenship 3.3.3. Migration laws with regards to family reunification 3.3.4. Counteracting IPV: a national norm in line with European and international norms 3.3.5. Facing IPV and migration rules: the hardship case and its limits 3.4. At the interweavement of the private and the public sphereChapter 4 Methodology 4.1. Considering available numerical data 4.1.1. European Union: Violence against women, an EU-wide survey (2014) 4.1.2. France: ENVEFF (2000), TeO (2010) and VIRAGE (2017) 4.1.3. Germany: Lebenssituation, Sicherheit und Gesundheit von Frauen in Deutschland. Studie (2004) and its secondary analysis Gesundheit – Gewalt –Migration (2008) 4.1.4. Italy: Indagine multiscopo sulla Sicurezza delle donne (2007/08) and La violenza contro le donne dentro e fuori la famiglia (2015) 4.1.5. A comparative look into numerical data in France, Germany and Italy 4.2. The choice to use a qualitative method 4.3. Interviews 4.3.1. Semi-structured expert interviews 4.3.2. Interviews with concerned persons based on biographical narration 4.4. Ethnographical investigation, observation 4.5. A comparative perspective 4.6. The course of the study 4.6.1. A long-breathed and stony access to the field 4.6.2. Development of the research question, findings and hypothesis generation 4.7. Conditions and handling of the material 4.7.1. The researcher’s role 4.7.2. Recording, notes, transcriptions and illustrative material 4.7.3. The question of anonymization 4.7.4. Language 4.7.5. Analysis SECOND PART – Concerned marriage migrants’ experience and its impactChapter 1 The types of situations and their effects 1.1. A general overview 1.2. When the residence status does not depend on the marriage 1.3. The way out of IPV with children and the question of the residence status after family reunification 1.4. The way out of IPV and the importance of the residence status in binational couples without children 1.5. Three other trajectories and strategies around the question of the residence status, IPV and the way out of it 1.5.1. Separation migration as a strategy – the case of Dina in France 1.5.2. Two strategies at different stages – the case of Lenka in Germany 1.5.3. Later way out of the relationship with children – the case of Maya 1.6. Transitional remarksChapter 2 Samira – her way out of violence in France 2.1. Her background as an Afghan refugee in Iran 2.2. A college graduate 2.3. Her marriage and her arrival in France 2.4. Precariousness and violence within the couple 2.5. A triple burden: violence, a status as a marriage migrant and a lost refugee status2.6. A hard and fearful way out of violence and into an autonomous life 2.7. The shelter life 2.8. Language 2.9. Between professional devaluation and reconstructionChapter 3 Hasna – her way out of violence in Germany 3.1. Her background as a Moroccan working woman 3.2. Her two-year long-distance relationship via skype 3.3. Her marriage and her arrival in Germany 3.4. Violence and exploitation: facing IPV and domestic violence 3.5. Her way out of violence 3.6. Two shelters, two experiences: between support and pressure 3.7. Language 3.8. The expulsion letter: facing administrative violence 3.9. ‘Shall I get married again?’ – Own strategies which illustrate the tense relationship between the private and the public sphere and the precariousness as a concerned marriage migrantChapter 4 Parallels and differences in the narration of the experience 4.1. Types of violence present in those constellations 4.2. Obstacles and perspectives when choosing the way out that violence 4.2.1. Facing fear 4.2.2. Perceptions on the role of help services: friend or superior? 4.2.3. Getting out of precariousness and into an autonomous life 4.3. A discussion around ‘the victim’ 4.3.1. Twice a victim: the victim on the path of intersection 4.3.2. The strong victim, and not only a victim 4.3.4. The role of help structures on the way out of victimhood THIRD PART – The interweavement of the private and the public sphere Chapter 1 Help structures as the place in between 1.1. European context and help structures 1.2. Help structures and the financial question 1.3. Organizational landscapes in France, Germany and Italy – inner structure, scope, limits and offers 1.3.1. The inner life of help structures – an example of a women’s shelter 1.3.2. Shelters between accessibility and anonymity, between distance, proximity and protection 1.3.3. Language, origins and identification: community-based and other specialized help structures 1.3.4. Language and leisure activities 1.3.5. Space for concerned men?1.3.6. Accompaniment, psychological help and legal advice in shelters and information centers 1.3.7. Limited number of intake capacity in women’s shelters 1.4. Their link between help structures and the public sphere: cooperation or administrative violence? 1.4.1. Their interaction with the police, the Court and administration in a situation of IPV against marriage migrants 1.4.2. A trained police 1.4.3. Facing administrative violence? 1.4.4 The question of the proof and health issues 1.4.5. The long process towards Court decisions 1.4.6. An example of good practice? 1.5. Political activism Chapter 2 Limits at the scope of action, and: concerned migrant women build their own bridges2.1. Getting married again or becoming pregnant as a strategy2.2. Getting a stable residence permit through work2.3. Solidarity between concerned women within and outside of help structures2.4. The way out of IPV outside of a shelter – the example of DinaCONCLUSIONI. A multi-levelled contextII. The value of the mobilized approaches and methodsIII. Outcomes IV. Perspectives Bibliography AbbreviationsAppendixI. Interviews with concerned persons – The sampleII. Expert interviews – The sampleIII. Thematic guideline for biographical interviews with concerned persons IV. Interview guideline for semi-structured expert interviews (example of expert interviews in help structures and women’s shelters)V. Example of a document in a help service to get information about the concerned woman who arrives there, and her needs