Skip navigation
  • Home
  • Browse
    • Communities
      & Collections
    • Browse Items by:
    • Publication Date
    • Author
    • Title
    • Subject
    • Department
  • Sign on to:
    • My MacSphere
    • Receive email
      updates
    • Edit Profile


McMaster University Home Page
  1. MacSphere
  2. Open Access Dissertations and Theses Community
  3. Open Access Dissertations and Theses
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11375/28354
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.advisorGillett, James-
dc.contributor.authorLindsay, Sarah May-
dc.date.accessioned2023-03-13T13:44:33Z-
dc.date.available2023-03-13T13:44:33Z-
dc.date.issued2023-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11375/28354-
dc.description.abstractThis study sought answers to the question: How do companion animals (CAs) fit in intimate partner violence (IPV) shelters in Ontario, Canada? Through semi-structured interviews with provincial shelter staff, we learn that CAs are not priorities for most shelters and are consequently infrequently co-sheltered. However, all of the shelters in the study accommodate “service” animals (SAs), following the requirements of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA). The social position and role of nonhuman animals in the lives of both the IPV survivors and shelter workers are foregrounded in the results. We find that some clients and workers consider CAs family. Some workers lobby for and facilitate temporary or full inclusion of CAs in their shelter, and sometimes in their work, as co-caregivers. Some clients know of the SA-only conditions in these shelters, and consequently attempt to “pass off” their companion or emotional support animal (ESA) as SAs. The nonhuman animals’ lives and wellbeing in this study are precariously and variably determined by the humans they live with, and by those that help them. The human victims and helpers are found to be almost exclusively women, and the abusers, men. Clients in IPV shelters are essentially homeless, and examples of the persistent social problem of gender/sex-based violence, a consequence of the patriarchy. We find a meshing of gender/sex, class, species, and ability in these spaces, with multispecies families and ESAs most negatively affected by these social constructions. Upholding, for the most part, the SA-only requirement, the IPV shelters exemplify speciesist and ableist ideologies, where only certain disabilities warrant co-shelter away from violent environments. This study adds to what is known about nonhuman animal inclusion in IPV shelters, the views of workers and clients about their uses and social roles, and the impacts of these understandings. en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subjectIPV sheltersen_US
dc.subjectcompanion animalsen_US
dc.subjectco-shelteringen_US
dc.subjectableismen_US
dc.subjectspeciesismen_US
dc.subjectnonhuman carersen_US
dc.subjectservice animalsen_US
dc.subjectemotional support animalsen_US
dc.subjecttherapy animalsen_US
dc.subjectsocial sectoren_US
dc.subjectaction researchen_US
dc.subjectactivist-scholarshipen_US
dc.subjectsocial housing policyen_US
dc.subjectnon-profit organization policyen_US
dc.subjectCritical Animal Studiesen_US
dc.subjectCritical Disability Studiesen_US
dc.titleCO-SHELTERING COMPANION, “SERVICE”, AND “SUPPORT” ANIMALS IN ONTARIO, CANADA'S INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE SHELTERSen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.contributor.departmentSociologyen_US
dc.description.degreetypeDissertationen_US
dc.description.degreeDoctor of Philosophy (PhD)en_US
dc.description.layabstractMany people in Ontario, Canada live with nonhuman animals, often cats and dogs. Some consider these animals companions or family and/or rely on them for emotional or physical support. What happens to these pairings when there is violence in their home? What if the nonhuman animals are also victims? This study finds that companion and “emotional support” animals are rarely accommodated in emergency intimate partner violence shelters, whereas “service” animals are welcome. These differences in access are guided significantly by the requirements of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), which the shelters must follow. We also find a few shelter workers that prioritize the co-sheltering of clients’ companion and “emotional support” animals, that some clients attempt to position their companion or “emotional support” animal as “service” animals to circumvent the restrictions, and that both the clients (survivors) and the caregivers (workers) in these facilities are women.en_US
Appears in Collections:Open Access Dissertations and Theses

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
PhD Disssertation SML FINAL REVISED Feb23.docx
Open Access
316.4 kBMicrosoft Word XMLView/Open
Show simple item record Statistics


Items in MacSphere are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Sherman Centre for Digital Scholarship     McMaster University Libraries
©2022 McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4L8 | 905-525-9140 | Contact Us | Terms of Use & Privacy Policy | Feedback

Report Accessibility Issue