Interagency collaboration in domestic and family violence (DFV) work is generally assumed to be good practice. This article questions this assumption, suggesting caution in adopting an uncritical pro-collaboration stance, arguing the need to trace the effects of working together on victims/survivors. Employing an innovative sociomaterial approach, this ethnographic study of interagency practice unravels its complexity, showing that not all ways of working together serve the interests of victims/survivors equally. Conceptualizing interagency DFV work as two distinctive, yet entangled, modes of collaboration, the findings have important implications for interagency DFV practice and policy.
AtkinsonM., & High and Complex Needs Unit. (2007). Better at working together: Interagency collaboration: Part 1, Literature review. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Social Development, Child, Youth and Family.
2.
Australian Institute of Criminology. (2015). Homicide in Australia: 2010–11 to 2011–12: National homicide monitoring program report. Canberra: Author.
3.
BagshawD.ChungD.CouchM.LilburnS.WadhamB. (2000). Reshaping responses to domestic violence. Adelaide: University of South Australia.
4.
BanksD.DutchN.WangK. (2008). Collaborative efforts to improve system response to families who are experiencing child maltreatment and domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 876-902.
5.
BeemanS. K.HagemeisterA. K.EdlesonJ. (1999). Child protection and battered women’s services: From conflict to collaboration. Child Maltreatment, 4, 116-126. doi:10.1177/1077559599004002004
6.
CallonM. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen in Saint Brieuc Bay. In LawJ. (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge? (pp. 196-233). London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
7.
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act NSW, (1998).
8.
CokerA. L.SandersonM.DongB. (2004). Partner violence during pregnancy and risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 18, 260-269. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3016.2004.00569.x
9.
FenwickT. (2010). (un)Doing standards in education with actor-network theory. Journal of Education Policy, 25, 117-133. doi:10.1080/02680930903314277
10.
FenwickT.EdwardsR. (2010). Actor-network theory in education. New York: Routledge.
11.
FenwickT.EdwardsR.SawchukP. (2011). Emerging approaches to educational research: Tracing the sociomaterial. London, England: Routledge.
12.
FenwickT.NerlandM.JensenK. (2012). Sociomaterial approaches to conceptualising learning and practice. Journal of Education and Work, 25(1), 1-13.
13.
Fleck-HendersonA. (2000). Domestic violence in the child protection system: Seeing double. Children and Youth Services Review, 22(5), 333-354.
14.
GherardiS. (2000). Practice-based theorizing on learning and knowing in organizations. Organization, 7, 211-223. doi:10.1177/135050840072001
15.
GherardiS. (2008). Situated knowledge and situated action: What do practice-based studies promise? In BarryD.HansenH. (Eds.), Sage handbook of new approaches in management and organisation (pp. 516-527). London, England: Sage.
16.
GherardiS. (2009). Knowing and learning in practice-based studies: an introduction. The Learning Organisation, 16(5), 352-359.
17.
GherardiS. (2012). How to conduct a practice-based study. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
18.
GherardiS.PerrottaM. (2014), Between the hand and the head - How things get done, and how in doing the ways of doing are discovered. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 9(2), 134-150.
19.
GillinghamP. (2011). Decision-making tools and the development of expertise in child protection practitioners: Are we “just breeding workers who are good at ticking boxes?”Child & Family Social Work, 16, 412-421. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2011.00756.x
20.
HagueG.MalosE. (1998). Inter-agency approaches to domestic violence and the role of social services. British Journal of Social Work, 28, 369-386.
21.
HagueG.BridgeS. (2008). Inching forward on domestic violence: The “co-ordinated community response” and putting it in practice in Cheshire. Journal of Gender Studies, 17, 185-199. doi:10.1080/09589230802204134
22.
HagueG.M.MullenderA. (2006). Who listens? The voices of domestic violence survivors in service provision in the United Kingdom. Violence Against Women, 12(6), 568-587.
23.
HagueG.MullenderA.ArisR. (2003). Is anyone listening? Accountability and women survivors of domestic violence. London, England: Routledge.
24.
HarvieP.ManziT. (2011). Interpreting multi-agency partnerships: Ideology, discourse and domestic violence. Social & Legal Studies, 20, 79-95. doi:10.1177/0964663910384907
25.
HealeyL.FrereM.RossS.HumphreysC. (2009). A summary of the literature on initiatives to build integrated family violence service systems. Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare.
26.
HealeyL.HumphreysC.WilcoxK. (2013). Governance and interagency responses: Improving practice for regional governance—A continuum matrix (Topic Paper 21). Sydney, New South Wales: Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse.
27.
HesterM. (2008). Mothering through domestic violence. Paper presented at the Belfast Women’s Aid Conference, Belfast, Northern Ireland.
28.
HesterM. (2009). The contradictory legal worlds faced by domestic violence victims. In StarkE.BuzawaE. (Eds.), Violence against women in families and relationships: Making and breaking connections Volume II: Family pieces (pp. 127-146). New York: Praeger.
29.
HesterM.WestmarlandN. (2005). Tackling domestic violence: Effective interventions and approaches. London: UK Home Office.
30.
HoodR. (2014). Complexity and integrated working in children’s services. British Journal of Social Work, 44, 27-43. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcs091
31.
HumphreysC. (2008). Problems in the system of mandatory reporting of children living with domestic violence. Journal of Family Studies, 14(2/3), 228-239.
32.
HumphreysC.MullenderA.LoweP.HagueG. M.AbrahamsH.HesterM. (2001). Domestic violence and child abuse: Developing sensitive policies and guidance. Child Abuse Review, 10, 183-197. doi:10.1002/car.686
33.
JasinskiJ. L. (2004). Pregnancy and domestic violence: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 5, 47-64. doi:10.1177/1524838003259322
34.
KearnsN.CoenL. (2014). Charting the trajectory of domestic violence policy change in the Republic of Ireland since the mid-1990s—A path towards integration?International Journal of Integrated Care, 14(3), e025. doi:10.5334/ijic.980
35.
LatourB. (1986). The powers of association. In LawJ. (Ed.), Power, action, and belief: A new sociology of knowledge? (pp. 264-280). London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
36.
LatourB. (1992). Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In BijkerW. E.LawJ. (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 225-258). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37.
LatourB. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
38.
LatourB. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
39.
LatourB. (2011). Networks, societies, spheres: Reflections of an actor-network theorist. International Journal of Communication, 5, 796-810.
40.
LawJ. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy and heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5, 370-393.
41.
LawJ.SingletonV. (2013, July3-5). ANT, multiplicity and policy. Paper presented at the 8th International Conference in Interpretive Policy Analysis, Societies in Conflict: Experts, Publics and Democracy, University of Vienna, Austria.
42.
MolA. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
43.
MurphyC.FanslowJ. (2012). Building collaborations to eliminate family violence: Facilitators, barriers and good practice. New Zealand: New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse, The University of Auckland.
44.
MurrayS.PowellA. (2011). Domestic violence: Australian public policy. Melbourne, Victoria: Australian Scholarly Publishing.
45.
NicoliniD. (2011). Practice as the site of knowing: Insights from the field of telemedicine. Organization Science, 22, 602-620. doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0556
46.
NicoliniD.MengisJ.SwanJ. (2012), Understanding the role of objects in cross-disciplinary collaboration. Organization Science, 23(3), 612-629.
47.
OrlikowskiW.ScottS. (2010). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. Annals of the Academy of Management, 2(1), 433-474.
48.
PostmusJ.Ah HahnS. (2007). The collaboration between welfare and advocacy organizations: Learning from the experiences of domestic violence survivors. Families in Society, 88, 475-484.
49.
RadermacherH.KarunarathnaY.GraceN.FeldmanS. (2011). Partner or perish? Exploring inter-organisational partnerships in the multicultural community aged care sector. Health and Social Care in the Community, 19, 550-560. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2524.2011.01007.x
50.
ReevesC. (2013). How multi-agency are multi-agency risk assessment committees?Probation Journal, 60, 40-55. doi:10.1177/0264550512470187
51.
San Martin-RodriquezL.BeaulieuM.-D.D’AmourD.Ferrada-VidelaM. (2005). The determinants of successful collaboration: A review of theoretical and empirical studies. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 19(Suppl. 1), 132-147. doi:10.1080/13561820500082677
52.
SchatzkiT. R.Knorr-CetinaK.Von SavignyE. (2001). Introduction to practice theory. London, England: Routledge.
53.
StanleyN.HumphreysC. (2014). Multi-agency risk assessment and management for children and families experiencing domestic violence. Children and Youth Services Review, 47, 78-85. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.06.003
54.
StathamJ., & Department of Children and Youth Affairs. (2011). A review of international evidence on interagency working, to inform the development of children’s services committees in Ireland. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10147/315237
55.
TaguchiH. L. (2012). A diffractive and Deleuzian approach to analysing interview data. Feminist Theory, 13, 265-281. doi:10.1177/1464700112456001
56.
ThiaraR. K.HumphreysC. (2017). Absent presence: The ongoing impact of men’s violence on the mother-child relationship. Child & Family Social Work, 22, 137-145. doi:10.1111/cfs.12210
57.
ValentineK.HilfertyF. (2011). Why don’t multi-agency child welfare initiatives deliver? A counterpoint to best practice literature: Prepared for NSW Ombudsman. Sydney, New South Wales, Australia: Social Policy Research Centre.
58.
VisherC.HarrellA.NewmarkL.YahnerJ. (2008). Reducing intimate partner violence: An evaluation of a comprehensive justice system-community collaboration. Criminology & Public Policy, 7, 495-523.
59.
World Health Organization. (2013). Responding to intimate partner violence and sexual violence against women: WHO clinical and policy guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
60.
ZukasM.KilminsterS. (2012). Learning to practise, practising to learn: Doctors’ transitions to new levels of responsibility. In HagerP.LeeA.ReichA. (Eds.), Practice, learning and change: Practice-theory perspectives on professional learning (pp. 199-213). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
