Scholars have long posited that intimate partner violence (IPV) - physical violence, sexual violence, verbal abuse, and controlling behaviors between intimate partners - is impacted by masculinity norms of aggression and dominance (for example, see Haraway and O'Neil 1999; Moore and Stuart 2005). Despite this topic's immense potential for prevention and treatment policies, quantitative IPV research tends to eschew empirically informed measures of masculinities and femininities in favor of a simplistically binary male-female variable, likely in part because of methodological concerns over how to adequately measure the complexities of gender. This is unfortunate given that the representative nature of large-scale, quantitatively-analyzed research is of great value to policymakers. The present dissertation provides a thorough background on the gender and IPV literatures with a particular focus on the history and benefits of quantifying gender. Additionally, the Bem Sex-Role Inventory, the most widely used measure of gendered psychological traits in the literature, is used to predict IPV in an analysis of 4,027 nationally-representative adolescents in a relationship, data drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. This represents the first study using a gender trait measure to predict IPV utilizing a nationally-representative sample. Findings from negative binomial regression and multinomial logistic regression analyses reveal that a lack of femininity - rather than simply the presence of masculinity - predicts an increased risk of IPV perpetration and victimization for both men and women. Methodological and policy implications as well as future directions are discussed.

Community-led urban agriculture (UA) can potentially address health inequities, increase access to green space, and increase food security for socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods. Guided by the social determinants of health and community cultural wealth model, I analyzed field observations and interviews with leaders of Long Beach community gardens, school gardens, and urban farms. This dissertation presents a socio-ecological model of UA and recommendations for community, research, and policy. One major finding was the importance of collaboration between community members, local organizations, and city officials to build UA. Beyond growing food, UA participants formed bonds, exchanged knowledge, coped with stress, and engaged in outdoor physical activity. Interviewees stressed that funding and long-term land rights are necessary for UA sites and communities to thrive.

A 2017 report from the University of California (UC) found that nearly half of UC undergraduate students were food insecure, lacking consistent access to food. Research has shown that food insecurity has detrimental effects on student health and academic performance. However, literature on university efforts to address food insecurity is limited. University of California Irvine’s FRESH Basic Needs Hub serves food-insecure students by offering a food pantry, food stamp application assistance, and other services. This study analyzed qualitative data from nearly 300 FRESH users to understand what students perceive as program benefits and areas of improvement. Respondents expressed that FRESH supported their health and ability to focus on school. However, students requested a more accessible location, and increased quantity and selection of food. These findings can assist FRESH in enhancing services, while offering suggestions for basic needs initiatives and policies.

Women began entering the legal profession in large numbers in the 1970s, and in the 50 years since, quantitative evidence shows progress in metrics such as percentage of women in the profession and salaries. Qualitative evidence, on the other hand, demonstrates the persistent presence of gendered stigma. In this project, “gendered stigma” refers to circumstances resulting from one’s gender as a salient feature of their work, serving to discredit one’s abilities and accomplishments. The gender-driven experiences of women new to the profession belies the assumption that simply increasing the number of women would solve the disparities between men and women who practice law. This project aims to uncover differences in the lived experiences of women and men in the modern legal profession. Presumably, institutionalized gendered stigma is still prevalent in the profession and likely negatively affects women attorneys at work and at home more so than their male colleagues. An in-depth exploration into the day-to-day experiences of attorneys illuminates how gendered stigma is recognized, perceived, and internalized by attorneys. This study uses identity theory and stigma analyses to explore the cycle of gendered stigma still prevalent in the legal profession. This theoretical foundation then informs practical solutions for mitigating the negative effects of gendered stigma on the profession and the individuals practicing within it.