Negotiating organisational blame to foster learning: Professionals' perspectives about Domestic Homicide Reviews.
Negotiating organisational blame to foster learning: Professionals' perspectives about Domestic Homicide Reviews.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/hsc.13725
复制
发表时间：
2022-09
影响因子：
2.4
通讯作者：
Chantler, Khatidja
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Haines-Delmont, Alina;Bracewell, Kelly;Chantler, Khatidja
关键词：
家庭凶杀案审查（DHR）是英格兰和威尔士的一项法定要求，当16岁及以上的人死于亲戚，亲密伴侣或同一家庭成员的暴力，虐待或忽视时进行。虽然人力资源报告的主要目的是确定建议和吸取的经验教训，以最终防止更多的家庭凶杀案，但在全球范围内，关于这些建议和经验教训在多大程度上得到落实或发挥作用的证据有限。本文探讨了人力资源报告的进行和影响的障碍和促进因素，以提高他们的学习潜力。它是基于对参与DHR过程的专业人员进行的19次定性访谈，这些专业人员来自威尔士的5个保护委员会和英国英格兰西北部的14个社区安全合作伙伴关系。调查结果按主题提出四个部分标题：提高技能和民主化的审查过程;家人和朋友的参与;谈判组织的责任，以促进学习;和行动和审计建议。有人建议，组织学习不能实现不接受组织的责任，这可能被解释为责备。主席的作用和技能被认为是确保安全、循证、透明和注重学习的人力资源开发过程的关键。制定和执行建议可能会挑战长期存在的偏见。促进家庭/幸存者网络和专业人员在平等基础上的作用将有助于更民主的进程。可以通过将建议主题化和积极利用一个领域的经验教训为另一个领域提供信息来加强学习。与会者呼吁适当的中央监管和问责制，以支持各项建议的行动。
Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs) are a statutory requirement in England and Wales, conducted when somebody aged 16 and over dies from violence, abuse or neglect by a relative, intimate partner or member of the same household. While key aims of DHRs are to identify recommendations and lessons learned to eventually prevent further domestic homicides, there is limited evidence globally regarding the extent to which these are followed up or make a difference. This paper explores the barriers and facilitators to the conduct and impact of DHRs to enhance their learning potential. It is based on nineteen qualitative interviews with professionals involved in the DHR process across five Safeguarding Boards in Wales and fourteen Community Safety Partnerships in the North‐West of England, UK. Findings are presented thematically under four section headings: upskilling and democratising the review process; family and friends’ involvement; negotiating organisational blame to foster learning; and actioning and auditing recommendations. It is suggested that organisational learning cannot be achieved without accepting organisational responsibility, which could be interpreted as blame. The role and skills of the Chair are perceived as key to ensure a safe, evidence‐based, transparent and learning‐focused DHR process. Developing and actioning recommendations may challenge longstanding prejudices. Promoting the role of families/survivor networks and professionals on an equal footing would support a more democratic process. Learning could be enhanced by thematising recommendations and proactively using lessons from one area to inform another. Participants called for appropriate central regulation and accountability to support the action of recommendations.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
1.5
作者：
Bent-Goodley, Tricia B.
通讯作者：
Bent-Goodley, Tricia B.
影响因子：
0.4
作者：
Websdale, N;Town, M;Johnson, B
通讯作者：
Johnson, B
DOI：
10.1080/14999013.2015.1075627
发表时间：
2015-01-01
影响因子：
1.4
作者：
Holliday, Elisabeth;Taylor, Pamela J.
通讯作者：
Taylor, Pamela J.
影响因子：
1.8
作者：
Stanley, Nicky;Chantler, Khatidja;Robbins, Rachel
通讯作者：
Robbins, Rachel
影响因子：
6.4
作者：
Bugeja, Lyndal;Dawson, Myrna;Walsh, Carolyn
通讯作者：
Walsh, Carolyn