Invisible Practices: Interventions With Men Who Use Violence and Control
Open accessAbstract
Data from this article are derived from responses to questionnaires provided by 232 frontline workers and team leaders from a range of organizations across four Australian states who participated in The Invisible Practices Project: Engaging With Fathers Who Use Violence. This project was designed to explore the practices of workers who see perpetrators of domestic violence outside the relative safety of group-work programs. Thematic analysis was employed to examine the research question: What is the organizational context that contributes to, or constrains, the practices of frontline workers intervening with fathers who use violence? This article reports the ways that agencies increase the visibility of, and practices with, fathers who use violence. Increasing the visibility of fathers who use violence is posited as a crucial driver of policy and practice reform aligned with feminist goals of eliminating sexist institutional practices. It is argued that such practices render fathers who use violence invisible, reinforce patriarchal views of family roles and responsibilities, intensify the scrutiny on the mothering of women survivors, and compound the impact of domestic violence. This article documents emerging practices that seek to redress practices that support patriarchal views of family roles and responsibilities and has implications for understanding the capacity of social workers and other professionals to intervene with fathers who use violence.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews
Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-45 · Cited by 9,312 · see citing works
Child witnesses to domestic violence: A meta-analytic review
Kitzmann, K. M., Gaylord, N. K., Holt, A. R., & Kenny, E. D. (2003) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.71.2.339 · Cited by 1,524 · see citing works
Children's witnessing of adult domestic violence
EDLESON, J. L. (1999) · Journal of Interpersonal Violence · doi:10.1177/088626099014008004 · Cited by 876 · see citing works
Hester, M. (2011) · British Journal of Social Work · doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcr095 · Cited by 295 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Heward-Belle, S., Humphreys, C., Healey, L., Toivonen, C., & Tsantefski, M.
- Affiliations
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- Griffith University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Heward-Belle, Susan
- Venue
- Affilia
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2019-06-11
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 369-382
- ISSN
- 0886-1099 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3020
- OpenAlex
- W2952461423
- Cited by
- 37
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 5.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Locations
- Affilia (publishedVersion)
- Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- ANROWS Australia’s National Research Organisation on Women’s Safety (PI.17.06)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Social Work Education and Practice
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Feminist Studies
- Keywords
- domestic violence, frontline workers, organizational context, social work intervention, women survivors
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review