Why Escalation Is Missed in Intimate Partner Violence (IPV): Methodological Blind Spots in Research

Escalation is commonly regarded as a defining characteristic of intimate partner violence (IPV), yet it remains inconsistently defined, operationalized, and empirically identified across the research literature. Although many studies acknowledge escalation at a conceptual level, prevailing methodological approaches often struggle to capture behavioral change over time. This limitation contributes to ambiguity, disagreement, and skepticism regarding escalation claims. This paper examines why escalation is frequently overlooked, misinterpreted, or dismissed in IPV research, arguing that methodological rather than ideological factors are primarily responsible. Drawing on interdisciplinary scholarship in criminology, psychology, and violence research, the paper identifies several recurring methodological blind spots, including incident-focused measurement, reliance on cross-sectional severity indicators, administrative data filtering, and evidentiary standards that privilege visible harm over temporal progression. It also explores tensions between survivor narratives, which commonly describe escalation as a process, and institutional records that fragment or obscure behavioral trajectories. The paper further analyzes why escalation claims often generate friction during peer review, highlighting misalignment between trajectory-based reasoning and data structures optimized for event detection. Trajectory-oriented approaches are briefly considered as one potential response to these limitations, positioned as complementary to, rather than replacements for, existing risk frameworks. By clarifying the methodological origins of escalation disputes, this paper aims to support more precise research, facilitate constructive review processes, and strengthen conceptual alignment within IPV scholarship. Keywords: intimate partner violence, escalation, methodological blind spots, trajectory-based analysis, risk assessment, threat assessment, lethality assessment, incident-centric measurement, survivor narratives