Linking research and practice to address domestic and sexual violence: lessons learned from a statewide conference with researchers and practitioners

Abstract

Purpose-There is a growing emphasis on the need to integrate research and practice in the fields of domestic and sexual violence. However, additional research is needed to identify strategies for key stakeholders to use to bridge research and practice in these areas. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach-The current study analyzed qualitative data collected during a statewide conference for researchers and practitioners whose work addresses domestic and/or sexual violence. Findings-The findings provide information about building effective researcher-practitioner collaborations, developing methodologically sound studies that address practice-relevant research questions, and identifying steps that funders, state coalitions, researchers, and practitioners can take to advance the integration of research and practice. Research limitations/implications-Additional research is needed to evaluate specific approaches to better integrating research and practice related to domestic and sexual violence. Practical implications-Researcher-practitioner collaborations offer numerous benefits to advancing research and practice related to domestic and sexual violence. Additional guidance and tangible support is needed to foster these collaborations. Originality/value-This study used data collected during an innovative conference that brought together researchers and practitioners. The data have implications for furthering the integration of research and practice related to domestic and sexual violence.

Exploring the knowledge translation of domestic violence research: A literature review

“…Studies suggest knowledge translation goals be developed early, in conjunction with, and appropriate for, each target audience group (Beckett et al., 2016; Jack & Tonmyr, 2008; Larrivée, Hamelin‐Brabant, & Lessard, 2012; Murray et al., 2015; Wathen et al, 2010). The goals identified need to be adapted for each target audience, using consistent language to provide the authority required for sustainable outcomes (Jack & Tonmyr, 2008).…”

“…Key messages are routinely developed by researchers to share the outcomes of their research, and it is an area well developed in the knowledge translation literature more generally. Much of the literature provides generic examples such as the dissemination of brief evidence‐based, critical, tailored key messages, creating feedback loops, presenting accessible information at formal/informal meetings, education sessions, presenting at national/international conferences and publishing scientific papers (Albers, Mildon, Lyon, & Shlonsky, 2017; Beckett et al., 2016; Boyko, Wathen, & Kothari, 2017; Burke et al., 2013; Connolly et al, 2017; Kothari et al., 2014; Murray, Chow, Chow, Pow, Croxton, & Poteat, 2015; Murray et al., 2015; Nancarrow, 2015; Sibbald, MacGregor, MacMillan, & Wathen, 2017; Tarzia, Humphreys, & Hegarty, 2016; Wathen et al, 2010). Of note is that Murray, Smith, and Avent (2010) found that practitioners read industry publications and attend practice‐based rather than research‐based conferences.…”

“…Men as perpetrators, fathers and victims are also emerging populations which do not necessarily 'fit' with mainstream messaging and evidence (Connolly et al, 2017; Guruge, 2016; Nancarrow, 2015; Stanley & Devaney, 2017; Stith, Lechtenberg, & Cafferky, 2013; Tabibi et al., 2017). The value of conducting research that is empowering to survivors is clear (Isobell et al., 2016; Murray et al., 2015; Tarzia et al., 2016; Zahradnik et al., 2009) as is the value of including practitioners in all aspects of the research process (Isobell et al., 2016; Murray et al., 2015; Zahradnik et al., 2009). Communities of practice have emerged as one approach for engaging domestic violence practitioners working with diverse populations (Claussen et al., 2017).…”

“…Practitioner knowledge provides an essential context for successful knowledge translation. Several studies exploring practitioner knowledge have identified the value of experiential and clinical expertise that practitioners bring to the research process (Breckenridge & Hamer, 2014; Claussen et al., 2017; Hanson, Wathen, & MacMillan, 2016; Murray et al., 2015; Murray & Smith, 2009; Sibbald et al., 2017; Wells et al, 2015) (Figure 5). Practitioners who conduct research concurrently with practice‐based work provide a significant contribution in regard to good practice outcomes (Campbell et al, 2011; Claussen et al., 2017; Murray & Smith, 2009); however, in return practitioners require time to embed change into their practice (Wells et al, 2015).…”

“…Barriers to engaging practitioners in the research included a perceived lack of relevance, firmly entrenched practice beliefs, which contradict professional experience. Other barriers include lack of time, resources, management support with low rewards for engagement with knowledge translation (Larrivée et al., 2012; Murray et al., 2015; Sibbald et al., 2017; Spalding et al, 2015b; Wathen & MacMillan, 2015; Wathen et al., 2011). Another issue is the continued use of didactic approaches, despite the suggested evidence that this is unlikely to change practice behaviour (Saul et al., 2008).…”