Suchergebnisse

In England and Wales, domestic homicide reviews (DHRs) seek to build a picture of the circumstances preceding a domestic abuse-related death, identify any learning and make recommendations for change. Drawing on data from document analysis of 60 DHR reports, this article explores how a victim's real name is routinely taken out of use when a DHR report is published and, to disguise their identity, is usually replaced with a pseudonym or some other nomenclature like initials/letters. I report on the name forms used in place of a victim's real name and the limited explication of both how (pseudo)names were chosen and the role of the family. By exploring how names are used, I argue for a recognition of the assumptions and complexity at the heart of DHRs concerning the place of the victim, family and state, and identify implications for practice, policy and research.

Purpose
This paper is a commentary on COVID-19's impact on Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs), the system in England and Wales that enables learning from domestic abuse-related deaths.


Design/methodology/approach
Drawing on a practitioner–researcher perspective, this paper reflects on how COVID-19 affected the delivery and experience of DHRs, the place of victims at the heart of this process and what the pandemic's impact might mean moving forward.


Findings
This paper explicates some of the challenges of undertaking DHRs in a pandemic. Critically, however, it argues that these challenges illuminate broader questions about the practice of DHR.


Originality/value
This paper's originality comes from the author's practitioner–researcher perspective and its use of COVID-19 as a lens to consider DHRs.

Abstract
Purpose
In England and Wales, Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs) are conducted into domestic abuse-related killings. In 2016, deaths by suicide were brought into the scope of this review system and, to distinguish them from reviews into domestic homicides, we describe these as 'Suicide Domestic Abuse-Related Death Reviews' (S-DARDR). To date, S-DARDRs have been little considered and, in response, this empirical paper seeks to unpack this process.

Method
In a larger study, 40 DHR participants were interviewed, and a reflexive thematic analysis was undertaken. 18 participants discussed S-DARDRs. These interviews were re-read, with relevant extracts identified and re-analysed thematically. Through a shared critical reflection, we drew on our practice experience to interrogate the themes generated from the interviews and offer insight into the underlying challenges.

Results
From the interviews, we generated four themes relating to commissioning and delivery; the involvement of stakeholders; intersections with other statutory processes; and purpose. Based on our shared critical reflection, we identified the underlying challenges as an under conceptualisation of S-DARDRs, alongside their de-mooring from the criminal justice system. Taken together, these challenges have implications for the conduct of S-DARDRs. We identify recommendations for policy and practice to address these challenges.

Conclusion
The development of S-DARDRs has been little considered and challenges arise around when and how they should be undertaken. A shared understanding of key concepts and expectations around delivery is necessary if S-DARDRs are to enable robust learning and be a driver for systems change while also being accessible and understood by all stakeholders.

Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs) are a statutory review process to better understand domestic homicide in England and Wales. As a policy intervention, DHRs are intended to build a picture of the circumstances before such deaths and identify gaps in practice, policy and system response. The rationale is that this learning can improve response to domestic violence and abuse and reduce the likelihood of future homicides. However, little is known about how the DHR process operates, including how knowledge is produced or its subsequent use, including any outcomes. In effect, for the most part, DHRs are a 'black box'. Yet, researchers are increasingly using DHR reports as a source of data. By locating ourselves within these processes, this article explores the implications of limited engagement with DHRs as a process of knowledge generation to date. It focuses on the implications for researchers, in particular the epistemological and methodological issues that arise, before considering what this might mean for policy and practice. It identifies recommendations to address key gaps in the understanding and use of DHRs for research purposes.

Abstract
Purpose
Family involvement is a key element of Domestic Homicide Review (DHR), the form of Domestic Violence Fatality Review (DVFR) found in England and Wales. Family involvement is framed as having dual purposes: first, as a benefit to DHRs, enabling a fuller picture of victims' experiences; second, as a benefit to families themselves, notably as a therapeutic or cathartic opportunity. However, these dual purposes have been little considered. This conceptual article responds to this absence by interrogating the purpose, process and outcomes of family involvement within DHRs.

Method
To explicate purpose, process and outcomes, we synthesise policy, practice and the extant empirical and theoretical literature relating to family involvement in DHRs. We supplement this by engaging with a broader body of emerging research on family involvement in other review systems, analysing this through a lens of citizenship and participation.

Results
Family involvement in DHRs is little explicated and there is a need to better engage with how family are involved in DHRs, as a way of increasing transparency for family rights. By way of response, a tentative conceptual framework is proposed which situates family involvement as demonstrative of systems- and relational-repair.

Conclusions
The article concludes by arguing for greater attention to the Theory(s) of Change underpinning both the place of the family and their testimony, as well as the DHR system as a whole. Such clarity would benefit family, both as the subject of professional interactions but, critically, as agents in the DHR process in their own right.

Abstract

Purpose
Within the context of the big data society, new systems of data collection on domestic violence and abuse (DVA) have emerged. One such system is Domestic Violence Fatality Review (DVFR) which captures the various dimensions of gender, violence, and abuse required to form an evidence base for prevention. However, to date, there has been limited dialogue between practitioners and researchers about the 'doing' of DVFRs.

Method
As DVFR systems vary by jurisdiction, we conducted a case study of Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs) in England and Wales. Applying the Research Integrity Framework (RIF) developed by the four Women's Aid Federations in the United Kingdom (UK), this article examines both the practice of DHR and how it is utilised as data in research.

Results
Informed by our situated perspectives as researchers and/or practitioners working in the field, our analysis demonstrates how undertaking DHR as a practitioner parallels collecting, accessing, and analysing data from DHRs as a researcher. Guiding principles are identified to help practitioners and researchers navigate the parallel challenges they confront and, critically, inform dialogue between practice and research.

Conclusions
Implications for both professional practice and research are presented. To increase transparency and confidence, we argue that more attention should be afforded to the methodological and ethical issues inherent in both the practice of DHRs, and their utilisation as a source of data in research. While DHRs have differences to DVFRs in other jurisdictions, these findings also have implications for these other systems which will also be discussed.