Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Practicing co-produced research: tackling domestic abuse through innovative multi-agency partnership working

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Crime Prevention and Community Safety Aims and scope

Abstract

Increased momentum for co-production in policing research undoubtedly requires collaborative research efforts which include methodologies, philosophies, ethos and indeed partnerships of co-production. This paper explores collaborative research efforts to apply co-production in policing research. It does so through a focus on research and evaluation of the policing of domestic abuse and with emphasis on innovations through multi-agency partnerships. It discusses the challenges of practicing co-produced research in these contexts drawing on two research projects. One experience of research was a contracted evaluation of an innovative approach to tackling domestic abuse. This is used to reflect retrospectively through the prism of doing co-produced research. The second experience of research is used to reflect on having engaged in co-produced research from outset. The paper offers particular insight in to practicing co-produced research in the context of tackling domestic abuse through innovative multi-agency partnership working and more broadly for those engaged in academic–police collaborations in other areas of policing. Furthermore, the reflections may be useful in terms of academic colleagues framing their societal impact in line with the ethos, philosophy and praxis of co-produced research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. HEFCE distributed public money for teaching and research to universities and colleges. It was abolished, as of 1 April 2018, by the Higher Education Research Act 2017, and its functions divided between the Office for Students and Research England (operating within UKRI).

  2. The MATAC evaluation was undertaken by Pamela Davies and Paul Biddle, Northumbria University.

  3. The N8 Project was led by Professor Mike Rowe, Northumbria University.

  4. For the sake of transparency, this was completed by Davies and Biddle of this project team. Due to their prior knowledge, the work on this element of the N8 project was done by the other members of the team.

References

  • Bannister, J., and I. Hardill. 2013. Knowledge Mobilisation and the Social Sciences. Contemporary Social Sciences 8(3): 167–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barton, H., and N. Valero-Silva. 2012. Policing in Partnership: A Case Study in Crime Prevention. International Journal of Public Sector Management 26(7): 543–553.

  • Bessant, C. 2015. Protecting victims of domestic violence – Have we got the balance right? The Journal of Criminal Law, 79(2): 102–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cismaru, M., and A.M. Lavack. 2011. Campaigns Targeting Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence. Trauma, Violence and Abuse 12(4): 183–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, A. 2017. Research Co-Production and Knowledge Mobilisation in Policing. In Advances in Evidence-Based Policing, ed. J. Knutsson and L. Thompson, 195–213. Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, A. 2019. Societal Impacts as ‘Rituals of Verification’ and the co-production of knowledge. British Journal of Criminology. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azz076.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, A. 2020. Effecting Change in Policing Through Police/Academic Partnerships: The Challenges of (and for) Co-production. In Critical Reflections on Evidence-Based Policing, ed. N. Fielding, K. Bullock, and S. Holdaway, 175–197. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, A., and M. Jones. 1995. Inter-Agency Cooperation and Community-Based Crime Prevention. British Journal of Criminology 35(1): 17–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, P. 2008. Looking out a Broken old Window: Community Safety, Gendered Crimes and Victimisations. Crime Prevention and Community Safety: an International Journal 10(4): 207–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, P. 2018. Tackling Domestic Abuse Locally: Paradigms, Ideologies and the Political Tensions of Multi-agency Working. Journal of Gender-Based Violence 2(3): 429–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, P., and Biddle, P. 2017. Multi Agency Tasking and Co-ordination (MATAC): Tackling perpetrators of domestic abuse. Evaluation Report. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Northumbria University.

  • Davies, P., and P. Biddle. 2018. Implementing a Perpetrator Focused Partnership Approach to Tackling Domestic Abuse: The Opportunities and Challenges of Criminal Justice Localism. Criminology & Criminal Justice 18(4): 468–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, P., M. Rowe, D.-M. Brown, and P. Biddle. 2020. Understanding the Status of Evidence in Policing Research: Reflections from a Study of Policing Domestic Abuse. Policing & Society. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2020.1762598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durose, C., Y. Beebeejaun, J. Rees, J. Richardson, and L. Richardson. 2012. Towards Co-Production in Research with Communities (Connected Communities). Arts and Humanities Research Council.

  • Farrell, G., and K. Pease. 1993a. Once Bitten, Twice Bitten: Repeat Victimization and Its Implications for Crime Prevention. In Home Office Crime Prevention Unit Paper 46. London: Home Office.

  • Farrell, G., W. Buck, and K. Pease. 1993b. The Merseyside Domestic Violence Prevention Project. In Studies in Crime and Crime Prevention, vol. 2. Stockholm: Scandinavian University Press.

  • Finney, A. 2002. Improving Multi-agency Coordination: Overcoming the Barriers to Communication—A Case Study. Crime Prevention and Community Safety 4: 33–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, J., and Rhodes, R.A.W. 2018. Can Experience be Evidence? Craft Knowledge and Evidence-Based Policing. Policy and Politics, 46(1): 3–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Game, A., and A. Metcalfe. 1996. Passionate Sociology. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelsthorpe, L., and A. Morris. 1994. Feminist Perspectives in Criminology. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilligan, C. 1982. In A Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goode, J., and K. Lumsden. 2018. The McDonaldisation of Police–Academic Partnerships: Organisational and Cultural Barriers Encountered in Moving from Research on Police to Research with Police. Policing & Society: an International Journal of Research & Policy 28(1): 75–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. 1993. Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: ‘What is Strong Objectivity?’ In Feminist Epistemologies, ed. L. Alcoff and E. Potter. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, N. 2020. Co-constructing Feminist Research: Ensuring Meaningful Participation While Researching the Experiences of Criminalised Women. Methodological Innovations. https://doi.org/10.1177/2059799120925262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HMIC. 2014. Everyone’s Business. London: HMIC.

    Google Scholar 

  • HMIC. 2015. Increasingly Everyone’s business. London: HMIC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Innes, M. 2014. Signal Crimes: Social Reactions to Crime, Disorder and Control. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Innes, M., B. Davies, and M. McDermott. 2019. How Co-Production Regulates. Social & Legal Studies 28(3): 370–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S., ed. 2004. States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and the Social Order. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Letherby, G. 2003. Feminist Research in Theory and Practice. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H.E. 1993. Subjects, Power and Knowledge: Description and Prescription in Feminist Philosophies of Science. In Feminist Epistemologies, ed. L. Alcoff and E. Potter. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard, M., and J. Purvis, eds. 1994. Researching Women’s Lives from a Feminist Perspective. London: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naffine, N. 1997. Feminism & Criminology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny, H., P. Scott, and M. Gibbons. 2003. “Mode 2” Revisited. Minerva 41: 179–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Office, Home. 2012. Statutory Guidance on Police Collaboration. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office, Home. 2019. Ending Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy: 2016–2026. London: HM Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office for National Statistics. 2020a. Domestic Abuse in England and Wales Overview: November Published online: ONS. Accessed 14 Jan 2021.

  • Office for National Statistics. 2020b. Homicide in England and Wales: Year Ending March 2019 Published online: ONS. Accessed 14 Jan 2021.

  • Ostrom, E. 1996. Crossing the Great Divide: Coproduction, Synergy, and Development. World Development 24(6): 1073–1087.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, A.L. 2006. Reducing Repeat Victimisation among High-Risk Victims of Domestic Violence: The Benefits of a Coordinated Community Response in Cardiff, Wales. Violence against Women 12(8): 761–788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, A., and A. Clancy. 2020. Systematically Identifying and Prioritising Domestic Abuse Perpetrators for Targeted Intervention. Criminology & Criminal Justice. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895820914380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, A.L., and J. Tregidga. 2007. The Perceptions of High-Risk Victims of Domestic Violence to a Coordinated Community Response in Cardiff, Wales. Violence against Women 13(11): 1130–1148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanley, E. 2016. The Road to Hell: State Violence against Children in Postwar New Zealand. Auckland: Auckland University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanley, L., and S. Wise. 1993. Breaking out Again: Feminist Ontology and Epistemology. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westmarland, N. 2012. Co-ordinating Responses to Domestic Violence. In Handbook on Sexual Violence, ed. J.M. Brown and S.L. Walklate, 287–307. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, NE1 8ST, UK

    Pamela Davies

Authors
  1. Pamela Davies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pamela Davies.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Davies, P. Practicing co-produced research: tackling domestic abuse through innovative multi-agency partnership working. Crime Prev Community Saf 23, 233–251 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41300-021-00117-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41300-021-00117-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation