Isabelle Bartkowiak-Théron

The methodological identity of shadowing in social science research

Purpose – The research technique of shadowing is the most in‐depth type of systematic, direct observation in situ of behaviours within a particular organisational or social setting, and yet, it crucially lacks documentation and critical analysis. The origins of the under‐documenting, coupled with the mutation of the scientific method of shadowing through its adoption by many industries as a means of on‐the‐job training, have led to a misunderstanding of shadowing as a scientific technique. This is problematic at several levels for academics deeply involved in qualitative methodology. The purpose of this paper is to address, in part, this gap in the literature.Design/methodology/approach – By defining shadowing, considering the reasons why shadowing has had little critique from social science scholars and then exploring the problems of it as a research technique, particularly within the current context of ethics regimes, the authors wish to proactively help to avoid unintentional yet delicate fieldwork sit...

Conceptual divides and practice synergies in law enforcement and public health: some lessons from policing vulnerability in Australia

ABSTRACT The debates about how and whether law enforcement and public health share a policy and practice mandate are perplexing. Frontline practice indicates that this intersection is de rigueur, and that practitioners from both fields see no reason why they cannot work together beneficially. Indeed, police are as much public health interventionists as health practitioners are public safety facilitators. In this article, we identify the conceptual dissonance that continues to frame the debate about law enforcement and public health, and document the practical synergies that exist (and have always existed) in both fields. We suggest that the divide between law enforcement and public health is futile, and that the shared concept of vulnerability in policing, health and law can do much to foster better collaborative practices, policies and shared understandings.

Vulnerability as a Contemporary Challenge for Policing

Vulnerability is becoming an increasing concern in policy and legislation and as a focus for action in policing and criminal justice practice. Yet, concerns about the over-representation of vulnerable people in the criminal justice system are not new, with literature on the topic spanning more than five decades. What has come to the fore more recently, though, is a renewed conceptualisation and understanding of what vulnerability is when applied across disciplinary practices. Greater efforts at the operationalisation of vulnerability by practitioners in policing, justice and other areas of government have also expanded the reach of this organising concept.

A Federation of Clutter: The Bourgeoning Language of Vulnerability in Australian Policing Policies

The policing of vulnerable people has long been a topic of operational uncertainty and political sensitivity. On the one hand, governments have accepted that police officers require special mechanisms to cater for disadvantaged social groups and should interact with members of these groups in such a way that vulnerability attributes are acknowledged (Bartkowiak-Theron and Asquith 2012a). On the other hand, agencies disagree on a variety of technical issues relating to the policing of vulnerable people, such as collaborative logistics, leadership, ownership and resource sharing. The policing of vulnerability has been under close scrutiny for over 30 years, with an increasing array of government and non-government services contributing their own areas of expertise to assist in solving these ‘wicked’ issues (Fleming and Wood 2006: 2). Yet, the burgeoning lists of who constitutes a vulnerable person, and the haphazard and localised development of strategies, have left little room for policy and practice transfer across vulnerability attributes, let alone jurisdictions. In this chapter, we reverse the policy transfer lens from the UK and US to consider the valuable policy and practice innovations developed in one Australian jurisdiction that may resolve some of the operational barriers to policing vulnerability in other jurisdictions.

Police as Public Health Interventionists

Practice collaboration between policing and health practitioners is now commonplace, including the growth of mental health intervention teams in policing organisations. In this chapter, we extend the work already developed by scholars aligned with the Law Enforcement and Public Health conference, and consider the practice implications of moving upstream and away from a reliance upon downstream crisis intervention. In this shift, we suggest that the concept of vulnerability may assist policing organisations to reconceptualise some of their work as public health intervention.

Divides and Synergies in Australian Law Enforcement and Public Health

Citation: Bartkowiak-Théron I, Asquith NL (2017) Divides and Synergies in Australian Law Enforcement and Public Health. J Drug Abuse Vol.3 No.3:20 The current divide between law enforcement and public health is baffling in light of the long history of engagement between practitioners in the field. In this paper, we argue that this divide is futile, and we suggest an alternative lens through which to view the ground shared by these disciplines. In light of an empirical and conceptual analysis of policy and practice in Australia, we suggest that an understanding of vulnerability based on universal precautions can offer new opportunities for policing, and reinforce existing inter-agency relationships between law enforcement and public health [1].

Exploring law enforcement and public health as a collective impact initiative: lessons learned from Tasmania as a case study

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the potential benefits as well as some of the practical barriers to the implementation of a collective impact initiative in law enforcement and public health (LEPH) in Tasmania, Australia. Design/methodology/approach The paper is based on a review of programs, agencies and initiatives that are at the intersection of LEPH in Tasmania, through an analysis of the findings in evaluation reports, and the views of practitioners identified at a workshop on LEPH held at a national AOD conference and facilitated by the authors. Findings The strengths of collective impact initiatives, particularly in LEPH, are presented and some weaknesses identified. Some major obstacles to the consolidation of LEPH initiatives include siloed ways of working and budgets, lack of leadership and political will. Some progress has been made in addressing these weaknesses, although addressing complex social problems by moving beyond inter-agency collaboration toward an integrated model of service provision remains challenging. Practical implications The authors argue that there are practical benefits to the adoption of a collective impact model to address problems in Tasmania that lie at the nexus between LEPH. In reviewing existing collaborations, the authors demonstrate the value of a structural mapping process to identify ways forward for government and non-government agencies that are inclined to go further in merging the two disciplinary areas. The authors offer some suggestions with respect to identifying the preconditions for a collective impact model and how to build on these to initiate action. Originality/value A significant proportion of the literature on LEPH remains at a conceptual and theoretical level. This contribution highlights some practical issues while looking at existing examples of collaboration across LEPH at a state level in Australia, and starts mapping a way forward for constructing more integrative LEPH initiatives.