Inside the black box
Domestic homicide reviews as a source of data
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 15748827 |
|---|---|
| Authors | James Rowlands (0000-0001-8361-7505, University of Sussex, corresponding author), Kelly Bracewell (0000-0003-4635-7489, University of Lancashire) |
| Year | 2022 |
| Volume | 6 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 518-534 |
| Publication date | 2022-03-15 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Gender-Based Violence (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2398-6808 • E-ISSN: 2398-6816 |
| Publisher | Policy Press (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1332/239868021x16439025360589 |
| OpenAlex | W4225857310 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 11 |
| References cited | 15 |
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
Black box · Criminology · Domestic violence · Homicide · Intervention (counseling · Medical emergency · Poison control · Political science · Process (computing · Statutory law · Computer Science · Homicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse · Human Factors and Ergonomics · Intimate Partner and Family Violence · Law · Medicine · Nursing · Psychology · Sex work and related issues · Artificial Intelligence
Femicide in the United States
“I’d rather kill myself than him kill me”
Commentary on the (In)Visibility of LGBTQ+ Victims in Domestic Violence Fatality Reviews
Naming practices in domestic homicide reviews in England and Wales
Parallels in Practice
The Challenges and Opportunities of Reviewing Domestic Abuse-Related Deaths by Suicide in England and Wales
How to Prevent Domestic Homicides
Exploring the Intersection of Cancer, Domestic Homicide, and Domestic Abuse-Related Suicides Using Domestic Homicide Reviews
Addressing Data Gaps
Strangulation, domestic abuse and suicide
Learning legacies
Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice
Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern‐based qualitative analytic approaches
Beyond intimate partner relationships
Older adults and violence
Making connections
Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method
Intimate Partner Femicide
Technology, cyberstalking and domestic homicide
Learning from domestic homicide reviews in England and Wales
Navigating Family Involvement in Domestic Violence Fatality Review
Intersectionality and Invisible Victims
Opening the Black Box
Children and Domestic Homicide
Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis
Sociological autopsy
| Unique citing works | 11 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 3,67 |
| Citation span | 2023 - 2026 (4) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 11 |