Learning from ‘experts by experience’: family involvement in Rethinking Domestic Abuse in Child Protection

Funded by the Nuffield Foundation, Rethinking Domestic Abuse in child protection: responding differently (RDAC) brings together researchers from the Universities of Sheffield, Huddersfield, and Kingston, with Research in Practice, SafeLives and FutureMen.

The research aims to better understand and improve responses to Domestic Violence and Abuse (DVA) and Child Protection.

Step One: Intentions and best-laid plans

RDAC was, in part, built upon the knowledge drawn from our years of seeking to involve families in child protection service design, practice and research. From our previous work, we were aware of the challenges of drawing voices together that reflected very different life experiences and value positions (for example The Adoption Enquiry Featherstone and Gupta). And, under the generic label of Domestic Violence and Abuse (DVA), we knew that there was a myriad of family experiences, collective and individual positions, and highly contested values and perspectives.

Our original proposal intended to develop and support a Family Forum that could work with the research team throughout the life of the project. Our aim was that such a forum would reflect a range of family experiences (and we used the term family very loosely – in essence, all those who are impacted by DVA and Child Protection). By bringing together these different perspectives our previous experience suggested that new understandings and fresh approaches could emerge. We recognised that a study which embraced a co-working approach with families who have experienced DVA had not been adopted in this field, and so understood that careful negotiation was required.

In summary, the following plans were made for the Forum:

• The primary role of the Family Forum would be to act as a critical friend for the project; comment on the design, reflect on themes emerging from the data, review the frameworks for policy and practice that RDAC is committed to producing, and support dissemination.
• The Forum would be fully funded, including reimbursing members for their time. Recruitment would be through the wide range of networks each RDAC team member was connected with, and training and support would be provided throughout.
• Participants would receive bespoke relevant training and support and meet periodically throughout the life of RDAC
• The Forum would reflect core RDAC values. We, as a team, have experienced too many tokenistic and performative approaches to participation and had a collective commitment to our practice being rooted in a principle of respectful, responsive engagement.

Step Two: Getting it wrong and rethinking

Given the principles of respect and responsivity underpinning our work, the translation of the plans into reality needed to rest upon early conversations with representatives of the different family groups and panels connected to the team. These initial conversations were focused on RDAC plans for family involvement and sought to ‘test out’ our intentions and proposals. These discussions produced useful insights, and more importantly, caused a significant rethinking of our approach. There is a ripple effect to adopting this type of responsive method – it requires researcher confidence, humility and flexibility, large team (re)negotiations about design, reviewing of ethics and data arrangements (where relevant) and transparency.

The family representatives (this included women and men) we consulted offered a range of responses, but with some common themes:

1. The intention to draw together a forum reflecting diverse experiences was not tenable. The level of support needed, the risk of unintended consequences, individual fears of consequences and confidentiality were all flagged as insurmountable. In this area (DVA/CP) it was viewed as impossible to bring together different experiences, instead closed groups were seen as providing spaces for affirming and validating experiences.
2. ‘Parachuting’ into panels/groups to gather feedback was deeply resented, past experience of researchers returning to share findings and discuss implications was rare but welcome and considered essential.
3. Forming a new Forum was seen as unhelpful and unnecessary. There was a strong steer to explore working respectfully with established groups and networks, it was felt this approach best ensured support and care for participants and would enable family members to feel confident in the process.
4. Negotiating how the project would consult and work with the groups required a ‘set up’ phase, commenting on the purpose and design of the research before jumping into any emerging themes was important, alongside being clear that this was about families advising RDAC rather than families contributing data to the study.
5. Family members need space to determine whether their involvement requires them to share personal experiences. Personal accounts may be shared, but equally, no one should feel their stories must be disclosed for their expertise to be acknowledged.
6. Funding matters a great deal. Some groups waived any reimbursement but the fact it was available sends an important message about legitimacy and partnerships.

Step three: Trying to get it right

We have now adopted a dispersed model of family engagement, with several different organisations and family groups working with RDAC. We have a team working with the different groups in different ways alongside family involvement in the formal RDAC Advisory Group. This leaves us with unresolved questions, we won’t be able to explore whether family groups have any shared views of their experiences, or whether there may be unanticipated common ground. We have also given a great deal of thought to how we might hear some challenging and uncomfortable perspectives from single-sex groups, and we continue to explore how we might connect with those groups often missing from mainstream DAV CP research.

The discussions with family groups will not form part of our data set. The conversations with families are about enhancing the quality of our fieldwork and analysis. This removes pressure from families that are often associated with their lives being the subject of research and enables their expertise to be recognised and built upon. However, by working with existing networks and groups we face the challenge of ensuring voices that are often absent are heard. We will also need to give considerable thought to how we facilitate the sharing of views from a diverse range of positions in a manner that can expand existing understandings.

It’s a debatable issue as to whether current frameworks for funded research and requirements can routinely accommodate this degree of flexibility, there is an undeniable tension between funders’ requirements for explicit plans, and building a responsive participatory approach.

This tension is compounded by the requirements to arrive at a range of institutional agreements about data and ethics before families have been able to work with the researchers to build the design.

In the context of DVA and Child Protection, these tensions are particularly strong given the nature of the topic and the experiences of those engaged. We are proud to be working actively with our funder and with families to build an approach that challenges extractive practices and instead champions a participative approach in this complex area of research.