Exploring Domestic Homicide Reviews as a mechanism for change

英格兰和威尔士于2011年引入了国内杀人案审查(DHR)。DHR讲述了一起凶杀案，描述了某人死亡前的情况。通过识别学习，他们的目标是改进预防和干预策略，并降低未来发生凶杀案的可能性。截至2018年，已建成500多个人力资源管理处。到目前为止，学术界的兴趣主要集中在DHR调查结果的汇总和二次分析上。关于人力资源管理机构的运作和知识生产的研究有限。这引发了一些问题。首先，受害者是DHR讲述的故事的核心，但必须保持沉默。DHR是如何建立这个人的形象的，包括他们作为凶杀案受害者的“新”身份？如何讲述受害者的故事，特别是如果对所发生的事情有有争议的描述，以及在讲述中听到了谁的声音？其次，尽管国家将《人权宣言》作为一种程序引入，但它在处理家庭暴力和虐待方面的记录好坏参半。当活动家和学者努力将家庭暴力和虐待从“私人”领域转移到“公共”领域时，许多人也认识到国家也可能构成风险。例如，一些人认为国家本身就是虐待行为，受害者被应该支持他们的机构再次受害，而另一些人则将国家反应框定为管理犯罪风险或将管理技术应用于人民治理的方法的范例。总而言之，这些问题可以归结为DHR背景下的两个悖论。DHR讲述了受害者的故事，但受害者可能被边缘化。与此同时，人权保护局是国家寻求“吸取教训”的一种工具，但其做到这一点的能力受到其对家庭暴力和虐待的复杂且往往存在问题的反应的影响。这项研究考虑的是DHR的“内部视角”。首先，我将考察已出版的DHR作为文本，追踪其中关于家庭暴力和虐待的话语，包括关于受害者和国家角色的叙述。其次，我将使用基于网络的调查和半结构化访谈来探索DHR参与者的经验和理解。使用描述性分析技术和话语分析，我的混合方法论将能够检查杀人案是如何被理解、解释的，以及什么学习被识别为结果。我将把我的分析放在社会生活的不同层面，确保它反映出受害者可以占据的个人、关系、社区和更广泛的系统地位。这项研究将产生重大影响。从概念上讲，它将解决一个理论不足的领域，并批判性地参与知识生成的问题。在工具方面，调查结果将为人力资源部门的“行动”提供信息，帮助政策制定者在决策过程中使用和应用人力资源部门的建议。调查结果还将直接惠及从业者，提高他们进行人力资源评估的培训和技能。总体而言，这项研究将解决DHR是否是政策、实践和社会变革的有效机制的问题。因此，其调查结果将对应对家庭暴力和虐待产生直接影响。

Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs) were introduced in England and Wales in 2011. DHRs tell the story of a homicide, describing the circumstances prior to someone's death. By identifying learning, they aim to improve prevention and intervention strategies and reduce the likelihood of future homicides. By 2018, over 500 DHRs had been completed. To date, scholarly interest has focused on the aggregation and secondary analysis of DHR findings. There has been limited research into the operation of, and knowledge production by, DHRs. This raises a number of questions. First and foremost, the victim is at the heart of the story told in a DHR but is necessarily silent. How do DHRs build a picture of that person, including their 'new' identity as the victim of homicide? How is a victim's story told, particularly if there are contested accounts of what happened, and whose voice is heard in the telling? Secondly, although the state introduced DHRs as a process, it has a mixed record towards domestic violence and abuse. While activists and scholars fought to move domestic violence and abuse from the 'private' to 'public' sphere, many have also recognised that the state could also pose a risk. For example, some have argued that the state itself is abusive, with victims being revictimized by the institutions that should support them, while others have framed state response as examples of ways to manage the risk of crime or to apply management techniques to the governance of people. Taken together, these issues can be reduced to two paradoxes in the context of a DHR. A DHR tells a victim's story, but the victim may be marginalised. Meanwhile DHRs are a vehicle by which the state seeks to 'learn lessons', yet its ability to do so is mediated by its complex and often problematic response to domestic violence and abuse. This study considers the 'view from the inside' of a DHR. Firstly, I will examine published DHRs as texts, tracing the discourse about domestic violence and abuse within them, including narratives about victims and the role of the state. Secondly, I will use a web-based survey and semi-structured interviews to explore the experience and understanding of DHR participants. Using descriptive analytical techniques and discourse analysis, my mixed methodology will enable an examination of how homicides are understood, explained, and what learning is identified as a result. I will situate my analysis at different levels of social life, ensuring it reflects the individual, relational, community and wider systemic positions that victims can occupy. This study will have a significant impact. Conceptually, it will address an under-theorised area and critically engage with issues of knowledge generation. Instrumentally, the findings will inform the 'doing' of DHRs, assisting policymakers in their use and application of DHR recommendations in decision making. Findings will also directly benefit practitioners, enhancing their training and skills to undertake DHRs. As a whole, this study will tackle the question of whether DHRs are an effective mechanism for policy, practice and social change. Its findings will consequently have a direct impact on the response to domestic violence and abuse.