The Australian National Research Agenda to End Violence against Women and Children (ANRA) 2023–2028

ANROWS acknowledgement

ANRA 2023–2028 was produced with funding from the Australian Government and theAustralian state and territory governments. Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’sSafety (ANROWS) gratefully acknowledges the financial and other support it has received from thesegovernments, without which this work would not have been possible. The findings and views reported inthis document are those of the authors and cannot be attributed to the Australian Government, or anyAustralian state or territory government.

Suggested citation

Lloyd, J., Dembele, L., Dawes, C., Jane, S., & Macmillan, L. (2023). TheAustralian National Research Agenda to End Violence against Women and Children (ANRA)2023–2028. ANROWS.

Acknowledgement of Country

ANROWS acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the land across Australia on which wework and live. We pay our respects to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elders past and present, andwe value Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories, cultures and knowledge. We are committed tostanding and working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, honouring the truths set out inthe Warawarni-gu Guma Statement.

Acknowledgement of lived experiences of violence

Much of the research and evidence base of what we know about domestic, family andsexual violence has come from the courageous efforts of victim-survivors to speak up, to share theirexperiences and insights. This is done in the face of denial, victim blaming, and backlash againstrecognising the reality of men’s violence in women’s lives. ANROWS acknowledges and values the lives andexperiences of the women and children affected by domestic, family and sexual violence who arerepresented in this report. It is important to recognise these individual’s strengths and the hope andresilience with which they continue and contribute to the knowledge that forms the basis of ANROWSresearch.

© ANROWS 2023

With the exception of the ANROWS branding, content provided by third parties, and anymaterial protected by a trademark, all material presented in this publication is licensed under aCreative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Australia (CC BY-NC 3.0 AU) licence.

The full licence terms are available at creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/au/legalcode

Published by

Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety Limited (ANROWS)
PO Box Q389, Queen Victoria Building, NSW 1230 | www.anrows.org.au
ABN 67 162 349 171

29 November 2023

Please note that there is the potential for minor revisions of thisdocument..
Please check the online version at www.anrows.org.au for any amendments.

Executive summary

Our work

The Australian National Research Agenda (ANRA) is Australia’s guide to promote andsupport the creation of research that is needed to end violence against women and children.

The development of the ANRA was led by ANROWS. An independent national researchorganisation, established in 2013, whose vision is to build the evidence base that supports endingviolence against women and children in Australia.

This is the third ANRA that ANROWS has developed (with previous ANRAs released in 2014and 2020).

The ANRA identifies what knowledge needs to be created if we are toend violence against women and children AND provides guidance on how knowledge oughtto be created if we are to be inclusive, person centred and action oriented.

Through a targeted approach to generating evidence, the ANRA supports the National Plan to End Violence against Women andChildren 2022–2032 (the National Plan) and its ambition to reach this goal in onegeneration.^[1] The ANRA is a national framework,produced by ANROWS, that can be used by the community of committed people and organisations who areworking to grow the evidence base: researchers, funders, policymakers, services, survivor advocates andsocial impact organisations.

Implementation

The ANRA can be used by anyone developing, funding or working alongside research toend domestic, family and sexual violence (DFSV).

To develop a national approach to DFSV research, ANROWS is taking a phased approachfor consistent investment and impact.

The first phase of implementation will be for ANROWS to embed the ANRA across theorganisation. The ANRA will be used by ANROWS to select and fund research projects.

One ANRA priority will be selected as the theme for each of ANROWS’s future grantsrounds. Applicants will be strongly encouraged to:

• involve people with lived experience of DFSV and affected communitiesthroughout the research process, starting with research design
• make use of existing data where possible
• form partnerships with service organisations
• use community-led research and participatory approaches to research
• appropriately remunerate people with lived experience, community-basedresearchers and DFSV service organisations for their time in project budgets and offer in-kindsupport or capacity building.

ANROWS’s commissioned grants are determined by an open competitive process assessed bypanels of experts. Assessors must account for the above factors when scoring applications. A livedexperience advocate and a DFSV practitioner will sit on each of the panels.

The ANRA will only be effective if we all use it.

Once ANROWS has embedded the ANRA across the organisation we will work on the nextphase – working with stakeholders to encourage them to use the ANRA to guide research in ending DFSV.This will include targeted resources to assist researchers, funders (universities and philanthropicorganisations), policymakers, survivor advocates, and frontline practitioners in using the ANRA and inapplying ways of working and knowing.

How can you
use the ANRA?

Researchers and research organisations

• Apply for an ANROWS grants rounds, the first being announced in late2023.
• Align your ongoing projects with ANRA priorities.
• Register your project on the ANROWS Register of Active Research (RAR), anational database for research on gender-based violence research in Australia.
• Create new research projects in line with ANRA priorities.
• Ensure your research projects are implementing the recommended ways ofworking.
• Share the ANRA 2023–2028 within your networks.

Policymakers and governments

• Integrate the ANRA 2023–2028 into your funding and research work.
• Speak with colleagues about aligning their research needs to the ANRA.
• Connect with research partners, including ANROWS, to initiatecollaborations.
• Inquire about creating a state and territory-specific research agendawith ANROWS’s support.
• Prepare existing datasets for research access and analysis.
• As service deliverers and funders, encourage services and practitionersto contribute to ANRA-aligned research.

Research funders (including philanthropic organisations)

• Use the ANRA 2023–2028 to guide funding choices, including to informpriorities, grant development and approvals.
• Promote the ways of working with marginalised communities and peoplewith lived experience through your funding criteria.

Community organisations and service providers

• Assess your capacity and readiness for research leadership andparticipation, including connecting with relevant research organisations and governments to boostcapability.
• Identify your most pressing research needs that align with the ANRA2023–­2028 and partner with research organisations to shape projects.
• Employ the ANRA 2023–2028 to advocate for research focus and resourcesupport.

DFSV survivor advocates

• Use the ANRA 2023–2028 to support your advocacy work, including the needto work with victim-survivors as co-researchers and participants.
• Contact ANROWS for understanding ways of participating in research ifyou have a research need that aligns with the ANRA.
• Use the guidance around ways of working to negotiate your role inresearch leadership.

Methodology

An understanding of power was fundamental to the ANRA process and the researchpriorities it developed. ANROWS wanted not only to share power, but also to cede it, and give greatervoice and influence to people with lived experience and frontline practitioners (not that any of thesecategories are mutually exclusive).

The team who developed the ANRA included a co-investigator with lived experience. Thisexpertise in the research team ensured the research questions matter for real-life consequences and thatthe language and framing recognises and respects lived experience.

In accordance with best practice, the ANRA strives to account for and minimisethe power imbalances between funders and researchers, and between researchers and participants.

The ANRA’s research priorities and ways of working were determined through a co-designprocess with victim-survivors, DFSV researchers and DFSV service providers and practitioners.

Co-design discussions were informed by:

• a review of the ANROWS funded research
• a scoping review of Australian impact evaluation to identify researchgaps
• findings from five focus groups with people with
  lived experience.

ANROWS undertook two rounds of testing the priorities with different groups ofco-design participants (researchers, practitioners and victim-survivors). An online forum withgovernment policymakers and agencies to obtain their feedback on the research priorities and understandhow they might use the ANRA was the final step before consultation on the draft.

ANROWS asked a larger group of 120 key stakeholders to rate the ANRA’s accessibility,the usefulness of the content, and to make comments on their overall impressions of the ANRA.

The ANRA – research priorities

The ANRA identifies nine priority areas of research to reduce DFSV. We have arrangedthese research areas under three topics: Systems and Society; Populations in Focus; and Types andPatterns of Violence.

Systems and society

There is a need for more research to identify the structural inequalities that supportand enable violence (primary prevention),^[2] and to show how systems can reduce theonset and recurrence of violence (tertiary prevention – which can also be understood as earlyintervention and response). As the National Plan notes, “Effective prevention requires integrated andcohesive work that builds mutually reinforcing action at all levels” (Department of Social Services[DSS],
2022, p. 79).

Structural inequities

Australian society is not a level playing field. Disadvantage and discrimination areperpetuated through our social norms, values and institutions (McLachlan et al., 2013). It is criticalto address these disparities systematically in our policies and structures.

Specifically, the ANRA calls for more research that:

• identifies specific government policies that can prevent people at riskof marginalisation from experiencing DFSV, by delivering improved health, social and economicbenefits; and
• addresses structural inequities within mainstream services.

Mainstream services are rarely developed with diverse populations in mind (McLachlanet al., 2013), instead, changes and improvements are retrofitted, if made at all. The result is thatcertain populations continue to be marginalised from accessing core services. These populations –including culturally and racially marginalised (CARM) groups (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanderpeoples and migrants and refugees), LGBTQI+ people, children and young people, people with disabilityand older people – commonly find that these services do not provide the support they need (KPMG, 2022).Future DFSV research needs to focus on identifying and addressing structural inequities within servicesand systems.

Employers and industry leaders are fundamental to creating work cultures free ofstructural inequities and harassment. Research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of employmentpolicies and processes that aim to prevent violence and harassment and create cultures of inclusion andsafety.

Gender relations, gender norms and attitudes

Research has found gender inequality to be both a driver and a consequence of violenceagainst women (Our Watch, 2021; Summers, 2022). Harmful gender norms legitimise men’s use of violence,dominance and control, and mandate heteronormativity and emotional repression. This is of particularconcern now as increasing numbers of boys and young men are drawn into online “manosphere” communitiesthat popularise misogyny and promote harmful masculine norms (Horta Ribiero et al., 2021; The Men’sProject & Flood, 2018).

More research is needed on what works: for example, how best to address and counteractthe needs of some boys and men from a variety of demographic and socio-economic backgrounds to usecontrolling behaviours, and also on the best ways to increase understanding about healthy and respectfulrelationships. Research should evaluate existing programs, as well as establish new methods ofengagement. More local research is also needed on the factors driving and sustaining backlash to genderequality in Australia and how to counteract it.

Trauma- and DFSV-informed, victim-centred systems

The services and systems that engage with victim-survivors and people who use DFSVneed to become:

• trauma informed: victim-survivors need a safe, collaborative andempowering environment that reduces feelings of shame
• DFSV informed: victim-survivors need services to understand the dynamicsand impacts of DFSV, especially coercive controlling behaviours, while holding people who use DFSVaccountable
• victim centred: victim-survivors needs and choices are prioritisedthrough respectful, holistic, tailored and sustained engagement.

Research should identify the specific changes to policies, processes and competenciesrequired to reform DFSV services. These services include police, courts, child protection, housing, aswell as frontline DFSV agencies. All too commonly, victim-survivors are being misidentified as thepredominant aggressor of DFV (Nancarrow et al., 2020). There is a need for better data on the extent ofmisidentification, including the characteristics of those most affected. The data will help to identifypotential biases and other factors that are influencing this practice.

Populations in focus

Addressing structural inequities under the topic of Systems and Society amplifies thefocus on meeting the needs of people at risk of marginalisation. When it comes to research on specificpopulation groups, this ANRA recognises the need to focus on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanderpeoples, children and young people and people who use DFSV.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples experience high rates of DFSV(Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [AIHW], 2022; Our Watch, 2018). ANROWS supports thedevelopment of a separate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander-led research agenda; the perspectives ofAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are also prioritised in
the ANRA.

During the ANRA co-design process, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participantssaid they wanted more research on:

• effective, respectful and culturally sensitive policing of DFSV and theproblem of victim-survivors being misidentified as predominant aggressors
• more robust data and research on DFV as a key driver of child removal
• Indigenous healing and recovery models, for both victims and people whouse DFSV, while including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men as partners in the conversation.

They expressed frustration that while it is generally accepted that Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander research should be community led, this is rarely achieved in practice.

Children and young people

The effects of violence on children are lifelong and profound. It is critical to trialand evaluate more therapeutic and psychosocial interventions for children who have experienced DFV tohelp them recover and heal from violence and prevent future cycles of victimisation and perpetration.Trial programs should be tailored to children from a variety of demographic and socio-economicbackgrounds. Investing in longitudinal studies will provide the evidence base to determine how effectiverecovery interventions are in preventing further DFSV across the life course.

Nationwide education is key to prevention. It is critical to build evidence around thetools which most effectively encourage young people towards non-violent behaviour, respectful attitudesand to appropriately negotiate consent.

People who use DFSV

Pathways into, and out of, perpetration are critically under-researched. To reduce thelevel of DFSV, we need to address the determinants of perpetration. As advocated by victim-survivor andco-investigator, Lula Dembele, “Violence is a problem for victims, but it is not a victim’sproblem.”

More research on the role of systems, institutions and norms in enabling DFSV isneeded, as well as the influence of factors such as mental illness, childhood trauma, pornography,substance abuse and problem gambling.

Throughout a person’s life, there are critical intervention points when theopportunity for prevention and behaviour change is greatest (Centre for Innovative Justice, 2015). It isimportant to establish what they are, when they occur, how they are experienced by diverse cohorts, andwhat is effective to divert people away from using abusive behaviours. Identifying these criticalintervention points will alert families, communities, services and systems to mobilise support peoplewhen people need it most.

Research is also needed to better identify pathways out of perpetration. Specifically,there is a need to develop and evaluate behaviour-change programs that have a dual focus onaccountability and healing: recognising, where applicable, the life trajectories of people who use DFSVto heal and address the effects of pre-existing trauma as part of the process to reduce abusivebehaviours.

We need to update and better use the data about the extent of perpetration againstAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and children and the characteristics of people who use DFSV.Further national prevalence data for DFSV towards LGBTQI+ people is also needed. Research shouldinvestigate how and why DFSV is used against migrant and refugee women (including forced marriage anddowry abuse), women with disability and older women, to better identify methods for screening andopportunities for early intervention.

Types and patterns of violence

Sexual violence

The current adversarial system for prosecuting sexual violence (SV) is not victimcentred or trauma informed and would require extensive changes to become so (AIHW, 2022). More researchis required into police competency on sexual violence and the reasons why rates of charging andconviction are so low, as well as why sentences – even for serial and serious offending – are often notcustodial (AIHW, 2022). Understanding the influence of community attitudes on jury trials is needed(Minter et al., 2021), as well as what education might be required for juries and the judiciary insexual violence matters. More research is needed into the deterrent effects of sentencing outcomes.

The criminal justice system alone cannot be relied on to address the high levels ofsexual violence in Australia. As such, ANROWS encourages researchers to trial and evaluate alternativejustice mechanisms, co-designed with victim-survivors, that may better support victim-survivor safety,recovery and sense of justice.

Consent education for school-aged children has been mandated nationally, but it isimportant to evaluate practical education programs and resources that help people of all ages tonegotiate sexual consent and power in their intimate encounters and relationships (Cahill et al., 2023).

The Respect@Work: National Inquiry into Sexual Harassment in AustralianWorkplaces produced important evidence about the prevalence and targets of sexualharassment; however, researchers should investigate the motives for sexualharassment, as they are still not well understood. More research is also needed on the factors andsystems that enable people to sexually harass others.

Coercive control

Since the last ANRA, coercive control has emerged as a critical framework forunderstanding DFV, especially in our legal system responses (Attorney-General’s Department, 2023a;McMahon & McGorrery, 2020). Coercive control has recently been criminalised in some jurisdictions.As these laws become operational in 2024 and 2025, we must evaluate impacts on victim misidentification,prevalence of DFV, and victim-survivor safety and recovery.

It is also critical to identify and test effective models for responding to people whouse coercive controlling behaviours, including whether this behaviour is adequately dealt with in men’sbehaviour-change programs.

Economic abuse

Financial and economic abuse is complex. It can include victim-survivors having theirspending controlled, their child support payments restricted, and their employment sabotaged by partnersor family members (Gendered Violence Research Network, 2020).

Evidence is needed on how public and private systems can better identify and respondto economic abuse, how to support victim-survivors and develop safeguards to prevent economic abuse.Governments and the private sector should develop partnerships to build evidence for how to effectivelyprevent economic abuse.

A substantial minority of older women experience abuse from adult children (AustralianInstitute of Family Studies, 2022). Research needs to target how this occurs and how it overlaps withother forms of abuse, as well as the influence traditional gender roles have on risk of victimisationand the effects that this abuse can have on an older person’s economic security.

While research is also needed on prevalence, characteristics and motivations for dowryabuse in Australia, it is important to first consult with migrant and refugee communities on how tocollect data safely and appropriately.

Ways of working

It is not just the research that we do, but how we do it, that matters. The ANRA focusgroups and co-design process highlighted the need for researchers to consider the ways in which theyundertake DFSV research and who they engage with (ways of working), as well as the need for research todraw on diverse sources of knowledge (ways of knowing).

The focus groups and co-design process highlighted the tendency of traditional westernresearch methodologies to reinforce power imbalances. By understanding and drawing on non-westernapproaches to research – such as Indigenous methods – we can enrich data collection, encourage moreconnection, and mitigate power imbalances (Smith, 1999).

Approaches to research

The ANRA advocates for more community-led interventions, in which populations directlyimpacted by research do the research.

The ANRA also encourages researchers to access existing data collected by variousagencies on victim-survivors and people who use DFSV. Researchers should develop research projects withthese agencies to enable access to data, where it is permissible by law, while keeping in mindconsideration of ethics, human rights and data sovereignty.

Ways of knowing

We need to acknowledge experts by experience and listen to children and young people,who bring unique perspectives and insights. We need to work more closely with DFSV practitioners’ andtheir expertise without creating a burden for them. This expertise needs to sit alongside empiricalevidence – not just form a part of empirical evidence.

Engaging practitioners who work with victim-survivors and people who use DFSV canimprove the quality of research. However, resourcing constraints can prohibit or limit practitioners’involvement in research. Service providers should be appropriately remunerated for their participationin research, including through additional funding and/or in-kind support for interested practitioners tobuild their research and evaluation skills.

Introduction and background

The ANRA 2023–2028 is ANROWS’s third research agenda; the first was developedin 2014,the second in 2020.All of the research projects funded under ANROWS’s competitive grants rounds align with at least one ofthe priority areas of research of the active ANRA.

This document summarises the process of developing the ANRA and describes the researchpriorities and approaches to research and ways of knowing needed to generate the evidence required toend violence against women and children.

While child sexual abuse can co-occur in the context of domestic and family violence,the ANRA does not include child sexual abuse as the research priorities in this area are addressed inthe NationalStrategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse 2021–2030. TheNational Office for Child Safety is currently developing the Child Safety Research Agenda under FirstNational Action Plan Measure 23.^[3]

It is recommended that researchers and others using the ANRA consider other relevantAustralian and state and territory research agendas and frameworks in conjunction with the ANRA. Forexample, Safeand Supported: The National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children2021–2031 identifies national priorities for reducing child abuse and neglect.The VictorianFamily Violence Research Agenda 2021–2024 and Western Australia’s soon to bereleased SexualViolence Prevention and Response Strategy identify government prioritiesfor the states.

Methodology

ANROWS followed Tan and colleagues’ (2022) framework for evidence-informed prioritysetting. This framework extends beyond the development of priorities to focus on their implementationwhile monitoring their impact.

ANRA’s research priorities and ways of working were determined through a co-designprocess with victim-survivors, DFSV researchers, and DFSV service providers and practitioners. Twoworkshops were held with victim-survivors of DFSV, DFSV researchers and service practitioners. The areasof critical research identified in the co-design workshops were synthesised by the research team andthese formed the basis of the research priorities. The methods for co-design are detailed in Appendix A.

Co-design discussions were informed by:

• a review of the ANROWS-funded research and a systematic review ofAustralian impact evaluation to identify research gaps
• findings from focus groups with people with lived experience tounderstand victim-survivors’ views about what evidence is needed to end DFSV.

Understanding the currentAustralian evidence base

Two types of literature review informed the focus group and co-design discussions.

• We reviewed 110 ANROWS reports, published from 2014 to December 2022, toidentify which research areas have received the greatest investment from ANROWS and where researchgaps persist.

The review highlighted a focus on intimate partner violence (IPV; 70%) overSV (30%), as well as a dominant aim to understand DFSV in its multiple forms, communityattitudes to violence against women and/or gender equality, systems that respond to DFSV and theirimpact on victim-survivors and/or people who use DFSV.

System responses, particularly legal, DFSV and whole-of-system responses weremore of a focus than multicultural settlements, technology, housing, disability, corrections, media, andsystems that work with CALD communities, LGBTQI+ communities, rural and regional communities, and peopleincarcerated.

The focus of 21 per cent of the reports was on children and young people,while 51 per cent focused on the general population. There were almost no research reports focusing onrural and regional communities, people with disability, LGBTQI+ people, pregnant women, single mothers,older women, people with mental illness, and sex workers.

• A preliminary scoping search of Australian impact evaluation studiesbetween January 2010 to May 2021 identified 64 quantitative impact evaluations of interventionsdesigned to address and respond to DFSV. Grey literature, such as publicly available serviceevaluations and student theses were included. The studies needed to measure the impact of anintervention on victims and survivors, children who experienced parental intimate partner violence,people who use DFSV or the broader community.

Focus groups with victim-survivors of DFSV

ANROWS conducted five focus groups with 18 victim-survivors across Australia. Thesesought victim-survivors’ views about what evidence is needed to end DFSV. Among those participatingwere Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, LGBTQI+ people, people with disability, migrant women,young people, older women and rural/regional women.

The methods used in the focus groups and the themes of these discussions will bepublished separately. Participants’ voices are embedded throughout the research priorities and ways ofworking.

Testing and refining research priorities with co-design participants and key stakeholders

ANROWS undertook two rounds of testing the ANRA with different groups. In the firstround of testing in July and August 2023, co-design participants and a small group of experts(researchers, practitioners and victim-survivors) were asked for open comment on the research prioritiesand approaches to research and ways of knowing.

In July 2023, ANROWS also held an online forum with government representatives andagencies to obtain their feedback of the research priorities and understand how they might use the ANRA.

After integrating feedback from this stage, ANROWS asked a larger group of 120 keystakeholders to rate the ANRA’s accessibility, the usefulness of the content, and to make comments ontheir overall impressions of the ANRA.

The ANRA

The ANRA includes both the priority areas for research (Section1) and approaches to research and ways of knowing (Section 2). The roleof power emerged as a critical consideration underpinning all ANRA research priorities and approaches toresearch and ways of knowing.

Co-design participants discussed the role of power in family and sexual violence andrectifying power imbalances in the ways that research is undertaken. Power is therefore a cross-cuttingtheme in the ANRA, described in Box 1.

Section 1: Priority areas of research

The nine research priorities in the ANRA are captured under three main topics:

Systems and Society

• Structural inequities
• Gender relations, gender norms and attitudes
• Trauma- and DFSV-informed, victim-centred systems

Priority Populations

• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples
• Children and young people
• People who use DFSV

Types and Patterns of Violence

• Sexual violence
• Coercive control
• Economic abuse

The categories in each topic include a brief overview of the evidence and evidencegaps and where more targeted research is required. ANROWs recognises that while there are many researchgaps, there is also a large body of research in DFSV. This research agenda is about continuing andfocusing this research effort on areas of greatest need.

Systems and society

There is a need for more research that focuses on addressing violence at the societaland system levels. Research that encourages societal-level change can help to address the structuralinequalities that can enable violence to flourish (primary prevention).^[4] Research at thesystem level helps create systems that more effectively stop the recurrence of violence (tertiaryprevention – which can also be understood as early intervention and response). As the National Plannotes, “Effective prevention requires integrated and cohesive work that builds mutually reinforcingaction at all levels” (DSS, 2022, p. 79).

Structural inequity

Systems and policies and procedures and legislation and things are purposelycreated in a way that abandons some cohorts over others. (Focus group participant 8)

… who’s going to buck the system when you’re a women’s health service or awomen’s legal service or whoever, and you’re begging for funding? You’re not going to buck the system orrock the boat because you’re not going to bite the hands that feed you. And that, unfortunately, is theproblem with the system. It’s working exactly the way it needs to work. (Focus group participant 10)

Systems and structures in Australia are set up in ways that can inequitably distributeresources to certain groups and restrict them from others. Consequently, some people in Australia aremore likely to experience greater rates of DFSV because of the cumulative marginalisation and itsassociated disadvantage (The National Council to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, 2009;McLachlan et al., 2013). Rectifying these inequities will not be easy or quick but should be core to ourfocus.

To address structural inequities, services and systems need to respond to, and createspace for, the voices of people most at risk of marginalisation, especially those at higher risk ofexperiencing DFSV.

Research should address the inequitable distribution of power within systemsfor Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, migrants and refugees, LGBTQI+ people, childrenand young people, people with disability and older people. People who have been affected byviolence, such as those with complex trauma, those who are in poverty and/or homeless, and sex workers,can be at higher risk of criminalisation and therefore increasingly vulnerable to social, economic andservice exclusion (Salter et al., 2020; Russell et al., 2022).

The role of governments and DFSV services in prevention

Changing structural inequities relies on genuine partnerships with communities (Syme,2004). In practice this might include organisations examining whether their workforce and governanceproperly reflects the people they serve. It could involve organisational development and capacitybuilding in DFSV services to encourage diversity in leadership and create spaces for community voices toinfluence practice, policy and service delivery.

Identifying and building on government policies that effectively deliver improvedhealth, social and economic benefits to those who are systematically marginalised can help to preventthem from experiencing DFSV. For example, policies that improve the economic wellbeing of mothers whohave experienced violence can help to stop the recurrence of violence (Summers, 2022). Australian datashows that many mothers who are faced with the choice of continued violence or poverty “choose” toremain with their partner (Summers, 2022).

The role of employers and industry in prevention

Employers can create cultures that reject any form of discrimination and harassment inthe workplace, while implementing polices that promote structural equity, such as equal pay for women.The Respect@Work national inquiry found that a complaints-based system of sexualharassment places heavy burdens on the targeted individuals and stood in place of more powerfulworkplaces taking a proactive, preventative approach (Australian Human Rights Commission [AHRC], 2020).We need more evaluations on what works to prevent workplace violence, discrimination and harassment andhow to best foster cultures where all employees feel valued, safe and supported.

It is also important to engage commercial industries, including the alcohol,pornography and gambling industries in conversations about their role in perpetuating structuralinequities that contribute to DFSV. Previous Australian research has indicated that alcohol andgambling are significant factors in DFSV (Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education [FARE], 2015;Hing et al., 2020). Problem gambling places stress on individuals and relationships, particularly thosewith limited economic resources, and can increase the risk of DFSV (particularly economic abuse). Thepolicies and processes of the gambling industry in Australia have done little to address this issue(Hing et al., 2020). Similarly, prevention of alcohol-related DFSV has largely been undertaken byindividuals, communities and governments rather than the alcohol industry (FARE, 2015). Research in thisarea can contribute to reducing structural inequities and preventing DFSV.

Gender relations, gender norms and attitudes

I am extremely concerned at the growth of misogyny especially amongst youngmen. And I think that’s an area that we really seriously need to investigate, the bullying that goes onbetween young men, the attitudes towards young girls of young men … (Focus group participant 1)

But it is that bro code, the boys club. I see it in the schools in theprivate schools too, in the education sector, the principals are mostly male, the heads ofdepartment … every system I’ve touched, I see that same pattern of entitlement and bullying basically.(Focus group participant 5)

Gender norms and attitudes about respect, gender and violence play a crucial role inthe primary prevention of DFSV. Research has found gender inequality to be both a driver and consequenceof violence against women (Centre for Innovative Justice, 2015; Our Watch, 2021; Summers, 2022). Yet theNational Community Attitudes towards Violence against Women Survey (NCAS) shows that some harmfulattitudes about gender equality and DFSV are slow to shift (Coumerelos et al., 2023) despite concertedefforts to educate the Australian community. Complicating these efforts our understanding about genderand how it is expressed is shifting, particularly among young people (Edwards et al., 2022; Politoff etal., 2019). This shift may influence how people understand the gendered dynamics of DFSV. For example, arecent study has indicated that young people in Australia view domestic violence through agender-ignoring lens and see men as unfairly represented as the main perpetrators of domestic violence(Carlisle et al., 2022).

Understanding and changing harmful male gender norms

Challenging harmful forms of masculinity is the responsibility of institutions,communities, families and friends and individuals. Hegemonic masculinities legitimise men’s dominantposition in society, perpetuating, in men, a hierarchy of masculine norms and favouring stereotypicalbehaviours – physical strength, denial of emotions, heterosexuality, being in control and an acceptanceof violence (The Men’s Project & Flood, 2018; Robinson, 2005). It is important to better understandthe social, cultural, emotional and physical dimensions to masculinity and their relationship to violentbehaviour (Flood, 2020; Krivoshchekov et al., 2023). Men and boys are central to that conversation. Theyinfluence other boys’ and men’s views about violence and are therefore critical in primary and secondaryprevention efforts (Flood, 2019).^[5] Research should reflect themultifaceted and dynamic nature of masculinities and how to build on healthy and respectful ways ofbeing a man (Connell, 2020). For example, research could consider whether teaching boys and men to bemore comfortable with uncertainty reduces controlling behaviours.

The evidence for what works in preventing DFSV is still limited (Flood & Burrell,2023). In Australia, there has been an increase in programs that address harmful gender stereotypes andengage with boys and men to take up non-violent versions of masculinity (The Men’s Project & Flood,2018), partly with the aim to socialise less violent men and help them build more healthy and respectfulrelationships with people of all genders. Research has indicated that such programs – rite-of-passageprograms, sports programs and activist programs – have potential to create more gender-equitablerelationships (Keddie et al., 2023). However, we need to evaluate whether such programs are actuallychanging violence-supporting attitudes and reducing men’s use of control over, and violence against,women and children.

Masculinity can intersect with discrimination, oppression, power and privilege toeither prevent or exacerbate violence (Jewkes et al., 2015). For example, violence by Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander men has been partly attributed to loss of traditional male roles throughcolonisation and community displacement (Healing Foundation et al., 2017). Therefore, primary preventionprograms should be adapted and piloted with boys and men from a variety of demographic andsocio-economic backgrounds to maximise their effectiveness and reach. Ideally, such programs wouldconsider and concurrently address other forms of discrimination, such as racism and homophobia, thatpromote disrespect and hierarchies of power. Evaluating prevention programs that target privilegedgroups of boys and men (i.e. white, heterosexual, able-bodied, from mid to high socio-economicbackgrounds) may be particularly valuable, since they are often found in positions of power and hold thegreatest influence in changing inequitable systems.

Attitudes to gender equality and backlash

The growth of the #MeToo movement has been accompanied by more visible misogynisticrhetoric and resistance to calls for gender equality (Hill, 2021; Lisnek et al., 2022). There is someevidence to suggest that online forums, social networking sites and websites that promote misogynyand hegemonic masculinities (also known as the “manosphere”) are becoming more extreme (Basu, 2020;Botto & Gottzén, 2023; Horta Ribiero et al., 2021; Rothermel, 2023). However, research is lacking onthe popularity of these sites in Australia, the local drivers and impacts of backlash, and how toaddress these issues.

Gender diversity

Gender identities and norms are evolving, especially among children and young people(Edwards et al., 2022). It would be beneficial to explore what is driving this change for young people,to help inform education programs and appropriate responses to abuse and violence in relationshipsbetween young people.

This evolving approach to gender can present challenges for educators in getting theAustralian community to recognise the higher risks of violence and disproportionate impacts on womenwhile being inclusive of the experiences of gender diverse people. More research should investigatepeople’s perceptions of gender identity and how this impacts their understanding of DFSV, gender normsand gender inequality. Research should explore how to convey information effectively and inclusivelyaround the relationship between gender and violence, particularly to young people.

Trauma- and DFSV-informed, victim- centred systems

… this whole trauma being caused by systems is a really huge one. We cannothave a system to bring an end to family violence that is actually perpetuating family violence. (Focusgroup participant 6)

… the police liaison officer with DV … I said to her, “I’ve got complexPTSD”, because I was trying to explain my reactions to what had happened and she said, “don’t thinkthat’ll get you any special privileges”. (Focus group participant 3)

But I think the question that’s really missing is “what does it mean for youand what do you really need?” (Focus group participant 13)

While victim-survivors can show incredible resilience and bravery in navigatingcomplex systems and repeating their stories to multiple services, this should not be required of them.Victim-survivors need systems and policies that are responsive to their needs and do not cause themfurther harm. Their pathways to help seeking need to be effective in order to prevent the continuationof DFSV or increased levels of violence.

Unpacking trauma- and DFSV-informed, victim-centred systems

There is a growing body of evidence on the value of trauma-informed responses,particularly in health settings (Primary Health Network, 2023). This approach recognises people’s traumaand creates a safe, empowering and collaborative environment, reducing feelings of shame associated withbeing a victim of violence (Salter et al., 2020). A victim-centred approach^[6] elevates thevoices of victim-survivors beyond standard “clients” of a service to people with unique circumstanceswho get help navigating systems. Systems need to be DFSV informed to understand the dynamics and impactsof DFSV and to focus on holding people who use DFSV accountable.

In addition to improving individual service responses, a victim-centred approach meanstaking a coordinated and integrated approach to responding to victim-survivors of DFSV across their caretrajectory. Coordinated service approaches for people who use DFSV are also needed, as they can relievesome of the burden on victim-survivors to manage behaviour and help to ensure victim-survivor safety.Victim-survivors and people who use DFSV access multiple services across many sectors including banking,housing and health services (McLachlan et al., 2013). These sectors do not always have clearpolicies/processes on issues such as information sharing about victim-survivors or people who use DFSV.Therefore, more research should evaluate the effectiveness of intersectoral and victim-centred policiesand practices across systems.

While efforts to embed these principles into DFSV services are increasing, theseapproaches should be adopted universally by all services (DSS, 2023b). Evidencesuggests that a substantial number of victim-survivors who seek help from formal services in Australiadid not find the response helpful (Hegarty et al., 2022). More evaluations are needed to understand howto improve service responses that effectively increase the wellbeing and safety of victim-survivors. Wealso need more research on victim-survivors from diverse ages, ethnicities, ability levels, sexualitiesand genders to better understand whether pathways to help seeking, obtaining justice and healing fromviolence are appropriate.

While reviewing and evaluating the practices of individual services is essential,research needs to consider more foundational changes to the way these systems operate. When systems arenot designed for people with complex and intersecting needs, the service responses are not likely to beeffective (Interim Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, 2023). For systems where researchrecommendations have identified the need for deep structural change, future research should consider thedevelopment of new policies that redesign the way that systems work with people at riskof marginalisation.

The role of shame

Recent studies have suggested that shame creates an additional layer of harm forvictim-survivors, and reducing it is critical in healing from violence (Salter & Hall, 2020). Theconcept of shame is contested but has been described as “strong negative emotions characterised byperceptions of the global devaluation of oneself” (Budiarto & Helmi, 2021, p. 132). Shame can alsobe a barrier to seeking help. A survey commissioned by ANROWS of 1,122 victim-survivors found that 63per cent identified feeling shame as the reason that they did not seek help following violence (Hegartyet al., 2022). This shows that systems and DFSV services need to be shame sensitive (Dolezal &Gibson, 2022).

A DFSV- and trauma-informed workforce

A workforce that competently responds to DFSV is critical not only for the safety andwellbeing of victim-survivors and interventions for people who use DFSV, but for ending the perpetrationof DFSV. There have been repeated calls for improved service-provider understanding of DFSV,particularly police and the courts system (Attorney-General’s Department, 2023b; Law Enforcement ConductCommission, 2023; Commission of Inquiry into Queensland Police Service responses to domestic and familyviolence, 2022; Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence in Queensland,2015; Women’s Safety and Justice Taskforce, 2022a). More research is needed to evaluatethe effectiveness and impact of workplace training and development for services responding to DFSV,including on victim-survivor outcomes and reducing people’s use of DFSV.

The criminal justice system

Improving the justice system responses to DFSV is critical. When the justice systemdoes not hold people who use DFSV accountable for their actions, we miss an opportunity to prevent therecurrence of DFSV. It may also reinforce or increase the power and control that people who use DFSVexert over victim-survivors (DSS, 2023b). Research on policing and court settings should focus on whatworks in reducing re-traumatisation of victim-survivors and increasing the accountability of people whouse DFSV.

Being misidentified as the predominant aggressor of DV significantly and negativelyimpacts the lives of many victim-survivors (Nancarrow et al., 2020). The limited evidence on thefrequency of misidentification indicates that it can particularly affect Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander women, migrant women, and women with disability. Women’s Legal Service Victoria reviewed theircase files over a 5-month period in 2018 and determined that over half (n = 32) of the 55 women named asrespondents to police violence order applications were misidentified as the predominant aggressor(Women’s Legal Service Victoria, 2018). Seventeen (53%) of the misidentified women were born innon-English speaking countries. There is very limited evidence in Australia to understand if policemisidentification may also be an issue for LGBTQI+ victim-survivors. Further research is needed tounderstand the extent of misidentification across Australia. This should address the impacts ofmisidentification on women, including effects on employment, visa eligibility, and involvement withchild protection (Newton, 2023). Evidence suggests that police face a number of systemic challenges indetermining the predominant aggressor (Nancarrow et al. 2020). There is a need to build evidence-basedmodels to help police identify the predominant aggressor, rather than context-based policing to identifythe primary aggressor.

Populations in focus

Addressing structural inequities in the topic of Systems and Society is intended toamplify the focus on meeting the needs of people at risk of marginalisation, including migrants andrefugees, the LGBTQI+ community, people with a disability, young people and older people. While the ANRAencourages research with each of these populations, there is a need to focus in particular on Aboriginaland Torres Strait Islander peoples, children and young people, and people who use DFSV.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples

The preservation of strong and healthy Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islandercommunities is essential to Australia’s future. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities havelong recognised the challenges they face in addressing high levels of DFSV in their communities and haverepeatedly called for resources to develop community-led solutions (Langton et al., 2020; SNAICC et al.,2017).

In response to the high rates of family and sexual violence the CommonwealthDepartment of Social Services (DSS) helped develop an Aboriginaland Torres Strait Islander Action Plan 2023–2025 in partnership with an Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander Advisory Council on family, domestic and sexual violence (DSS, 2023a). The ActionPlan describes the aspects of identity, structural forces and types of discrimination that overlap with,and contribute to, the over-representation of family and sexual violence experienced by Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander women and children. Structural forces include: colonisation, patriarchy,marginalisation, media and stereotyping, institutions that harm rather than heal, and a lack ofrecognition and representation.

The role of colonisation in providing the underlying context for violence is alsoexplained in Changing the Picture (Our Watch, 2018), which provides a framework forunderstanding the drivers of violence against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanderwomen. Changing the Picture emphasises that colonisation impacts both Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous Australians.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander focus group participants emphasised a need forcommunity-led research priorities and methods that would allow communities to have their say on whatresearch they want and how they want it conducted. This kind of self-determination can help mitigatesome negative impacts of colonisation. They were frustrated that, despite it being accepted thatAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research ought to be community led, rarely is this achieved inpractice:

… “nothing about us without us” [has] been around for years… We still don’tdo it! It’s everybody’s favourite tagline and it’s never done well. (Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander focus group participant)

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander focus group participants also identifiedresearch priorities for what research is needed. These are organised into threeareas: police and criminal justice responses, reimagining justice and healing, and working withAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men.

This section of the ANRA draws on quotes from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanderparticipants in the focus groups to describe the research priorities. Direct quotes privilege Aboriginaland Torres Strait Islander voices and stay true to their voice.

Police and the criminal justice responses

Research is needed on:

• ways to increase the accountability of police and agencies who engagewith victim-survivors and people who use DFSV to ensure they are effective
• methods to produce more robust data and research on DFV as a key driverof child removal – which is occurring at rates higher than ever before, with rates of children inout-of-home care continually increasing (Productivity Commission, 2023b)
• ways to implement more effective, respectful and culturally sensitivepolicing of DFSV in First Nations communities to improve criminal justice responses to people whouse DFSV so they are appropriately identified and prosecuted, and to promptly implement anynon-custodial interventions in line with the views of the victim-survivor

… We’re sick of people asking, “How do we stop the violence?” And what wewant to be asked is “What role do you need us to play in stopping the violence?” (Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander focus group participant)

• ways to address police misidentification of Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander women as perpetrators for using violent resistance or self defense

And so this all of a sudden becomes “Aboriginal women are perpetrators” … andwhen it’s thrown out later on, she’s still got that tag and her kids have seen her with that tag.(Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander focus group participant)

• ways to address over and inappropriate policing in Aboriginalcommunities, particularly among young people and women

When we look at young, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, what Ihave found is that the responses to intimate partner violence in youth relationships is treated in asimilar way to adult relationships. So there’s not even assessment of capacity, working with communitiesup in, you know, Mt Isa, there’s DVOs [Domestic Violence Orders] between 11-year-olds who ordinarilywouldn’t even be given capacity, you think at what point is this 10- or 11-year-old able to fullyunderstand and abide by a domestic and family violence order where it’s three breaches and you’reincarcerated? (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander focus group participant).

• ways to implement recommendations from inquiries, coronial inquiries,parliamentary investigations and research. There is a perception that the inquiries “lead to nooutcomes whatsoever. And nothing is ever implemented …” (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander focusgroup participant).

Reimagining justice and healing

Research is needed to:

• explore victim-survivors’ understandings of safety and justice and howservices can support them to achieve this

… there’s this idea around what does justice mean for you and reimaginingjustice. And I think that kind of comes out, in my experience, for, particularly for First Nations womenwho potentially, you know, don’t get the charges that they deserved … because she’s not a crediblewitness. But this idea of reimagining justice … So I think there’s opportunity for processes to look atwhat justice means for people that will kind of help to counterbalance the failing that comes for womenand children in the justice system because it’s never gonna work the way it is, and they’re never gonnatear it down and rebuild it. (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander focus group participant)

• understand the long-term impacts of DFSV disclosure that non-Indigenouscommunities would not experience, such as impacting an individual’s eligibility to be a kinshipcarer

One of the things that I’ve been thinking about recently was the impact onkinship, if there’s ever been any kind of disclosure around domestic and family violence and thedifficulties with getting a blue card, which means that you’re then ineligible to be a kin carer. So, Ithink there’s so many systems here that interplay and none of them really look at the long-termconsequences of these things, like the fact that people who can’t get a blue card can’t work or care forchildren. (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander focus group participant)

• develop the evidence for effective models for Indigenous healing andrecovery from trauma for both victims and people who use DFSV.

Engaging with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men as partners in the conversation, notas perpetrators

Research is needed to:

• address misunderstandings about what it means to be a strong FirstNations man. There are ways to be culturally safe, while also holding people accountable for theiruse of violence
• understand DFSV perpetrated by non-Indigenous people on Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander women and children. Violence in First Nations communities is too oftenconstructed as perpetrated by First Nations men within the community, obscuring discussion orresearch of the violence perpetrated by non-Indigenous people.

Children and young people

… we’re just desperate for some research around the effects of thisintergenerational trauma and trauma on children and young people who are both victims and silent victimsof family violence and how they need their own specific responses. (Focus group participant 11)

… there is no focus specifically or primarily on children’s ability torehabilitate … I think that there is a massive, massive, massive oversight … if we’re to end theviolence against children, we actually need to know how to not only remove the children out of thatviolent situation but protect them and rehabilitate them as their own people. (Focus group participant14)

As victim-survivors in their own right

Children and young people are increasingly being recognised not just as witnesses toDFSV, but as victims in their own right.

There is increasing focus on how to enliven the rights of victim-survivor childrenthrough DFSV service responses, including in schools, police, courts, therapists and specialist DFSVservices. There has also been an increasing interest in programs designed to assist children and youngpeople in their recovery (DSS, 2023b). However, trials of such programs have been limited in Australia(Hooker et al., 2022). Further evaluations are needed on effective therapeutic interventions forchildren, especially those who are neurodiverse and from a diverse range of demographic andsocio-economic backgrounds. Programs should include options for therapists to work only with children,as well as the whole family.

Children and young people from diverse demographic and socio-economic backgroundsshould be consulted to better understand their experiences of DFV (including coercive control) and howDFV programs and services could be better designed to assist, protect and/or benefit them. To ensurethis engagement is safe and respectful, there is the need for an evidence-based framework co-designedwith young people.^[7] This couldbuild on the guidance by the Australian Institute of Family Studies (Goldsworthy, 2023), as well as DFSVpractice frameworks for working with children from diverse backgrounds (see, for example, Foley et al.,2023; Morgan et al., 2023).

More evidence-based interventions for children traumatised by violence can helpprevent some children from growing up to use violent and abusive behaviours in adulthood and/orexperience re-victimisation.

Education

It is critical to improve children and young people’s education about healthyrelationships, consent, and coercive behaviour using real world scenarios to help prevent furtherviolence. Ideally, programs that engage children across their education from early childhood should bedeveloped and evaluated with longitudinal research (Cahill et al., 2023).

It is important to understand what tools most effectively encourage non-violentbehaviour, respectful attitudes, and teach young people how to negotiate consent in their early romanticrelationships. Education programs should be tested that include nuanced framing to encourage childrenand young people to think beyond binaries around gender, being violent or not violent or respectful ornot respectful.

People who use DFSV

We don’t know anything about rehabilitating people. We don’t know how to doit. And punishing people doesn’t work … nobody knows how to do that, and it’d be really, reallyinteresting if we could actually start doing that, stopping people from perpetrating again. (Focus groupparticipant 4)

We need to focus on perpetrators. But we also need to have a degree ofcompassion in focusing on the perpetrators … And I think we need to look at that nuance of it too … alot of them are nasty, damaged people. And we need to, if we fix the damage or face into the damage, youcan actually cut a bit of family violence as well. You’re not going to eliminate it but you’re certainlygoing to cut it. (Focus group participant 12)

Improved evidence is needed on the prevalence and characteristics of those that useDFSV, on what leads people to use DFSV and the interventions that work best with particular cohorts,including the factors that encourage them to do so. Research with people who use DFSV can be verydifficult: in obtaining ethics approvals, ensuring safety and recruiting participants. However,interventions will more likely succeed when we understand the perspectives of people who use DFSVbetter.

Pathways into violence

People who use DFSV are not homogenous. We need to understand the specific pathwaysthat lead people to use different forms of DFSV, including which systems, institutions, and social normsenable perpetration. Research into the role of factors such as mental illness, childhood trauma, alcoholand drugs, and gambling in influencing pathways into violence would provide a more nuanced picture ofthe most effective points in people’s lives and relationships to prevent abusive behaviour and violence.

Behaviour-change programs that address trauma

Evidence suggests that childhood experiences of violence or abuse are a risk factorfor adult perpetration of DFSV (Campo, 2015; Clare et al., 2021; Costa et al., 2015; Fitz-Gibbon et al.,2022; Holt et al., 2008). To date, research in Australia has tended to be on perpetration programs thatpredominantly focus on recognising and changing problem behaviours. More evaluations are needed ofprograms that focus on accountability to recognise, where appropriate, the traumatic life trajectoriesof people who use DFSV as victim-survivors and to provide opportunities to address their trauma.

Pathways out of violence

More research is also needed on the factors that encourage people to stop using DFSVand the points in their lives that this occurs. The factors vary depending on a person’s individualhistory and background, so research should engage with diverse cohorts.

Shame is a potential risk factor for violence that deserves further exploration. Shamecan manifest as a chronic condition, especially in post-trauma states, and is included in the diagnosticcriteria for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD; Dolezal & Gibson, 2022). Feelings of shame canresult in negative behaviours such as withdrawal, avoidance or aggression (Dolezal & Gibson, 2022).However, shame also has social utility in inspiring adherence to communal values and cultural norms(Dolezal & Gibson, 2022). Therefore, shame is multidimensional with positive and negativepossibilities. It has the potential to act as a motivation to stop using violent behaviour, oralternatively to contribute to the choice to use violence and/or prevent people from seeking help forviolent behaviour.

A more nuanced understanding of the prevalence and dynamics of DFSV

While some data exists on prevalence, causes and characteristics of DFSV, ourknowledge is limited about the use of DFSV towards Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, migrantand refugee women, LGBTQI+ people, women with disability and older women. Increasing the evidence baseabout the use of DFSV towards victim-survivors from these groups will lead to more reliable guidance onwho is at higher risk of being a victim or using DFSV in early intervention and screening. For example,more knowledge about the relationship between trauma and violence would assist in the development oftailored responses to perpetration. Research would also help us understand how overlapping forms ofdiscrimination such as racism, homophobia, transphobia and ableism influence the use of violence.

Prevalence data on violence against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women iscollected through the Australian Bureau of Statistics’s [ABS] 6-yearly National Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander Health Survey, last released in 2019 (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2019b).Given that improving the safety of Aboriginal women and children is a priority of Closing the Gap Target13 (Productivity Commission, 2023a), there is a need for more current data about the prevalence ofviolence against Aboriginal women and children and the characteristics of those perpetrating againstthem – including non-Indigenous users of violence. Subject to appropriate data collectionpractices,^[8] we need to make better use of existingdata about the prevalence and characteristics of violence through agencies such as police and childprotection.

Migrant and refugee women face unique forms of DFSV, such as forced marriage, which wehave little evidence about in Australia (Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia, 2019;Lyneham & Bricknell, 2018). Further research to understand the dynamics of forced marriage indifferent cultural contexts and the characteristics of those responsible would be useful. Currentevidence suggests that criminalisation on its own is unlikely to effectively deter forced marriage andmay discourage victim-survivors from seeking help (Lyneham & Bricknell, 2018). We need to evaluateother ways to effectively prevent or intervene in cases of forced marriage without puttingvictim-survivors at greater risk.

Women with disability may be subject to reproductive violence from family members andguardians, including forced abortions and sterilisation (Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglectand Exploitation of People with Disability, 2023; Vallury, 2022). There is very limited evidence inAustralia on the characteristics and motivations of those who use reproductive violence against womenwith disability, how widespread these practices are in Australia, and how to effectively preventcoercive practices and support parents and carers to look after the reproductive health of womenwith disability.

Previous ANROWS studies have found that trans, lesbian and bisexual women are athigher risk of sexual violence than heterosexual women (Ussher et al, 2020; Townsend et al. 2022).However, national prevalence data for DFV among LGBTQI+ couples is still needed. We know little aboutthe motivations and characteristics for DFSV perpetration against LGBTQI+ people in Australia(particularly for non-binary people). Further information could help tailor programs for people who useDFSV that go beyond traditional gendered assumptions about perpetration and victimhood.

Types and patterns of violence

There are significant research gaps in three types of violence: sexual violence,coercive control, and economic abuse.

The difficult task of identifying coercive control and effectively reducingcontrolling behaviours requires more sophisticated and evidence-based DFSV service responses. Thegrowing criminalisation of coercive control in Australia has led to a need to better understand itseffects on victim-survivors.

Sexual violence

… anything to kind of strengthen that research agenda can be used bycampaigners to say it is completely inappropriate to have sexual violence prosecuted in front of a jury.(Focus group participant 7)

The available evidence indicates that sexual violence is a growing problem inAustralia, and our established systems are not properly equipped to respond to victim-survivors orpeople who use sexual violence effectively (DSS, 2022). Younger women in Australia are more likely toreport experiencing sexual violence in their lifetime: prevalence rates are 51 per cent of women bornfrom 1989 to 1995, while they are 34 per cent for women born in 1973 to 1978 (Townsend et al., 2022).Research to improve criminal justice system responses are particularly urgent: in 2016, only 11.3 percent of women said they had contacted police in relation to their most recent sexual assault (AIHW,2022).

The criminal justice system

For victim-survivors who choose to report sexual violence to police, many haveidentified problems when reporting, such as dismissive police attitudes (Lawler & Boxall, 2023;Ting, Scott, & Palmer, 2020). Large numbers of sexual assault complaints do not proceed to court.Between 2008 and 2017, police closed around 25 per cent of sexual assault cases across Australia withoutmaking an arrest (Ting et al., 2020). This research also showed large variations between jurisdictionsin the numbers of sexual assault complaints that are rejected or “unfounded”, from 20 per cent inQueensland to 4 per cent in Tasmania.^[9] More research is required on policeofficers’ understanding of sexual violence and the reasons that reports of sexual violence are notproceeding to trial. Additionally, more evaluations are needed of police competency in responding tosexual violence complaints.

Despite the high rates of sexual violence, only 28.7 per 100,000 of people reportedfor committing sexual assault are proven guilty (AIHW, 2020). It is critical to undertake furtherresearch into why the charging rates and conviction rates for sexual assault are so low and whysentences are often not custodial despite involving multiple victims, significant violence, or repeatedoffending (AIHW, 2020). Some studies have examined judges and juries’ misconceptions about sexualviolence and its victims (Tidmarsh & Hamilton, 2020) and reasons for general communityattitudes of mistrust towards women’s reports of sexual violence (Minter et al., 2021). ANROWS’s recentiteration of the NCAS indicated that there are still concerning levels of the Australian public that donot believe women’s and girls’ reports of sexual violence, with 34 per cent believing women report as aform of revenge and 24 per cent believing they report because they regretted consensual sex afterwards(Coumerelos et al., 2023). These attitudes may help explain why juries do not convict people accused ofsexual violence. Research needs to explore the impact of community beliefs and attitudes on sentencingoutcomes and the education that may be required with juries in sexual violence matters.

Conversely, further research is needed on how legal definitions of rape and consentimpact on community attitudes towards sexual violence, including the need to demonstrate activeresistance. Legal definitions of sexual violence vary between states and territories. Some states haveintroduced affirmative consent laws, meaning that all parties need to give and obtain consent before anysexual activity (Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, 2023). In 2023, theSenate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee conducted an inquiry on sexual consent lawsin Australia. This included inconsistencies in the state and territory definitions of consent, and howconsent laws impact victim-survivors experiences of the justice system. Recommendation 4 of the reportfrom this inquiry recommended the Australian Law Reform Commission “includes an affirmative consentstandard in any proposal to harmonise Australia’s sexual consent laws and taking into account theevidence of the operation of recently adopted affirmative consent laws” (Senate Legal and ConstitutionalAffairs References Committee, 2023). We need more research on the low conviction rates, how sentencingoutcomes affect the attitudes and behaviours of people who use sexual violence, and whether sentencingoutcomes enable or disrupt their use of sexual violence.

The current adversarial system for prosecuting sexual violence is not victim centredor trauma informed and would require extensive changes to become so. ANROWS recommends trialling andevaluating alternative justice mechanisms for sexual violence that may more effectively support thesafety and wellbeing of victim-survivors. The Meeting of Attorneys-General Work Plan toStrengthen Criminal Justice Responses to Sexual Assault, 2022–2027 has committed tobuilding a shared evidence base and suggested that exploring restorative justice practices andalternative reporting mechanisms for sexual offending would be valuable (Attorney-General’s Department,2022).

Sexual consent education

Obtaining sexual consent is an act of negotiating power. Various factors can influencewho holds power in a sexual relationship, including gender, age, sexual histories, and the length of therelationship. Evidence indicates that the Australian community does not understand sexual consent well;they lack confidence in addressing it and many still try to avoid dealing with it (Kantar Public, 2022;Women’s Safety and Justice Taskforce, 2022b). Improving community understanding and skills innegotiating consent can help to prevent acts of sexual violence (Minter et al., 2021). Evaluations areneeded of practical education programs and resources that help people of different ages to navigatesexual consent. Education should address the practicalities of navigating consent in the moment, therole of power dynamics and how they can change, and what to do if you or your partner cross consentboundaries or use coercive behaviours to gain consent.

The media

The media has a significant influence on community attitudes. Previous ANROWSresearch that analysed media representations of violence found that the framing of sexual violence newsstories minimised the harms of rape, and 16 per cent of news stories inferred women had putthemselves at risk (Sutherland et al., 2016). Some forms of media, especially mainstream pornography,portray women as subordinate and depict men’s sexual entitlement and lack of women’s sexual pleasure as“normal” (Miller, 2019). More research is needed on how media (including pornography) portrayals of malesexual entitlement and sexual violence impact on societal attitudes and individual behaviours,particularly on young men. Police data from 2018 to 2019 shows that young men aged 15 to 19 are the agegroup that commits the most sexual violence offences (AIHW, 2020).

Sexual harassment

Sexual harassment exists on the sexual violence continuum. In Australia, 77 percent of people have experienced sexual harassment at some point since they were 15; in the workplace,the rate is one in three (AHRC, 2022). Like sexual violence, there is low reporting of, andaccountability for, workplace sexual harassment (AHRC, 2022). While we now know more about theprevalence and the targets of sexual harassment, effective workplace responses – and the motives forsexual harassment – are still not well understood. Research is needed on the factors and systems thatenable people to sexually harass others.^[10]

Coercive control

… there is a lack of understanding of coercive control, there is a lackof understanding of the power imbalance … (Focus group participant 5)

I think that they’re missing the link between how significant coercivecontrol in particular is …
(Focus group participant 14)

Understanding and prevalence

Coercive control is a course of conduct aimed at dominating and controlling another(usually an intimate partner but can be other family members; ANROWS, 2021) and, in heterosexualrelationships, is almost exclusively perpetrated by men against women (Johnson, 1995; Nancarrow, 2019;Pence & Dasgupta, 2006; all cited in ANROWS, 2021). There has been an emerging body of researchabout coercive control in Australia in the past few years. There have also been changes in policy, forexample the development of the National Principles to Address Coercive Control in Family and DomesticViolence (Attorney-General’s Department, 2023a), but there is still a lot that we do not know. Firstly,it would be valuable to have more evidence about the Australian community’s understanding of coercivecontrol and whether they know where to get help (for victim-survivors and people who use DFSV). Moredata is needed about the prevalence and drivers of coercive control (Beckwith et al., 2023), and moreaccurate community understanding of coercive control can help to improve the reliability of thesefigures.

Impacts and effectiveness of criminalisation

Research should explore the most effective response models for people using coercivelycontrolling behaviours. Australian states and territories are increasingly criminalising coercivecontrol, using varying definitions of the behaviours involved. However, to date there has been limitedAustralian evaluations on whether criminalising coercive control effectively reduces DFSV.

Evaluations of coercive control legislation need to assess any unintended consequencesof criminalisation on the safety and wellbeing of victim-survivors, especially any potential negativeimpacts on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and migrant and refugee women (Newton, 2023).Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations have raised concerns that criminalising coercivecontrol is likely to increase Aboriginal women’s risk of misidentification and criminalisation(Buxton-Namisnyk et al., 2022). Research will need to assess the effects of coercive control laws onAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and migrant and refugee women, including changes to rates ofincarceration and criminal charges since the introduction of new laws. Examining the application ofcoercive control laws may help to prevent further systemic discrimination.

Economic abuse

… [if] you’re sharing a bank account with your abuser, it might go directlyinto their account as well. (Focus group participant 9)

The behaviours involved in economic abuse are not clearly defined in research, policyor legislation, which makes it difficult to understand the extent of the problem in Australia (GenderedViolence Research Network, 2020). Experiences of economic abuse are often “hidden” and can includeexploitation (dowry abuse and appropriating partners income); control (withholding money or assets,threatening to disconnect essential services); and sabotage (preventing a partner from working orstudying; Deloitte Access Economics, 2022).

Increased financial insecurity from economic abuse can make it more difficult forvictim-survivors to leave their partner, to stay safe when leaving, and can increase the power thatpeople who use DFSV have over them. Economic abuse from family members can also increase risks to womenalready at risk of marginalisation and poverty.

The ANROWSEvidence Portal is a living resource that uses systematic review methodology that draws onevidence from high income countries. It is a repository of interventions designed to end violenceagainst women. In November 2023, 520 studies were included in the ANROWS Evidence Portal. Of thesestudies, 20 focused on financial disadvantage and abuse. These evaluations were situated within the DFVsector and focused on individual behaviour change, rather than broader community or societal change.Predominately interventions focus on financial literacy of victim-survivors. None of the 20 evaluatedinterventions focused on prevention. However, there are interventions in low- and middle-incomecountries that include cash transfer, microcredit programs and gender-transformativeeconomic-empowerment interventions.

Most of the evaluated interventions in the ANROWS Evidence Portal focused on IPV, notother forms of family violence such as elder abuse or dowry abuse. While the evidence base in Australiais limited, it is clear that a substantial minority of older women experience abuse from adult children(Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2022), and migrant and refugee women experience dowry abuse byextended family members (Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, 2019).

Further research is required to develop and evaluate trauma-informed andfit-for-purpose services within sectors such as the financial industry, telecommunications andgovernment agencies such as Centrelink. These services need to include proactive mechanisms to identifypeople at risk and to intervene early and respond effectively. We also need evaluations to assesswhether these services are designed inclusively with an intersectional lens.

Long-term impacts and system and service responses

The harms of economic abuse can have lasting consequences for victim-survivors wellbeyond the end of the relationship (Gendered Violence Research Network, 2020). Further research isneeded on these long-term impacts (such as credit-rating impact, inability to access utilities ortenancies due to negative records). We need evidence on how public and private systems can betterrespond to victims and prevent economic abuse from occurring (Cortis & Bullen, 2015). Governmentsand the private sector need to develop innovative partnerships^[11] to build theevidence base (Cortis & Bullen, 2015). Collaboration between government service providers andorganisations such as migrant and refugee settlement services, real estate bodies, andtelecommunications could provide a broader picture of the impacts of economic abuse and opportunitiesfor prevention.

Effectiveness of policy responses

Economic security can help protect against the harms of economic abuse (Morgan &Boxall, 2022). Recent changes to government policy promote economic security when leaving a violentrelationship, such as changes to paid domestic violence leave and the increase to Centrelink’s singleparent payment. Research into how and when victim-survivors access domestic violence support paymentsfrom Centrelink after leaving a violent relationship, and their adequacy, could ensure victim-survivorsare appropriately financially supported. This research should examine the factors that intersect witheconomic abuse to better inform policy and access to services as well as strengthen economic securityfor those at risk of victimisation (Morgan & Boxall, 2022).

Older people^[12]

For older people, economic abuse is predominantly perpetrated by their child/ren(Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2022). Research can expose the tactics used to perpetratefinancial abuse against older people; this would show how this co-occurs with other forms of abuse, theinfluence of traditional gender roles on risk of victimisation, and how it impacts their economicsecurity (Breckenridge et al., 2020). Understanding the barriers that service providers (both governmentand private) face when responding to financial abuse of older people would help develop preventioninitiatives (Breckenridge et al., 2020).

Research on how to improve older women’s economic security following economic abuse isvital. Older women can find it very difficult to recover from economic abuse. They may have limitedsavings and superannuation because they spent less time in the workforce than their partners or have fewopportunities to seek new employment because of factors such as health and physical restrictions and agediscrimination.

Dowry abuse^[13]

Despite dowry abuse being a significant problem for migrant and refugee women inAustralia, particularly those from South Asian and Middle Eastern countries (State of Victoria, 2016),legislative responses remain limited and inconsistent: outside Victoria the practice is not a crime inany Australian state or territory. The dynamics of dowry abuse are unique and can involve extendedfamily and prospective extended family members. Demands for money can be accompanied by other forms ofabuse, such as emotional and physical abuse. Powerful forces can prevent women from reporting dowryabuse such as: community ostracisation and having very limited independent resources, especially iftheir work and social security benefits are restricted by visa requirements (DSS, 2019). Furtherresearch should target the prevalence, characteristics and motivations for dowry abuse in Australia.This research should first consult with migrant and refugee communities to safely collect data. Someexperts have argued that alternatives to criminalisation may be a more appropriate response (SenateLegal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, 2019). Ideally programs aiming to preventand respond to dowry abuse in different ethnic communities should be evaluated.

Section 2: Ways of working

It is not just the research that we do, but how we do it, that matters.

The co-design sessions set out to develop the ANRA research priorities and toarticulate the priorities for how that research should be developed, funded and conducted: our“ways
of working”.

Throughout the co-design process, it became clear that ANROWS needs to further developits understanding of:

• what is meant by evidence and “ways of knowing”
• what different ways of knowing might look like
• who researchers should engage with or work with in different ways.

In this section we discuss the different research traditions and ways of knowing thatcan contribute to the evidence base to end DFSV. ANROWS will adopt these ways of working and ways ofknowing, and we recommend them to anyone undertaking, participating in, or funding research on, DFSV inAustralia.

Appreciating the landscape from multiple dimensions

ANROWS recognises that there are multiple research traditions that increase theknowledge base for ending DFSV. Both Indigenous research methodologies^[14] andfeminist-participatory action research can address power imbalances that may exist in other researchparadigms. Meaningful and authentic co-creation and participatory research helps to disrupt norms aroundwho holds the power to produce knowledge (Smith, 1999).

The co-design process and the focus groups clearly recognised those ways of knowingand doing that sit outside mainstream research traditions, especially working with the knowledge ofexperts by experience.

Indigenous research methodologies and methods

For many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples it is hard to disassociatelived experience from other roles and responsibilities (Aboriginal participant). It is possible to be anacademic, a person with lived experience and a community leader (Aboriginal participant).Compartmentalising different roles may sit more comfortably in mainstream worldviews. Martin Nakata, anIndigenous academic, defines a worldview as a system comprising knowing (ontology), believing(epistemology) and acting (methodology; Nakata, 2002). ANROWS recognises Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander ways of knowing that address power imbalances through Indigenous research methodologies (Smith,1999).

Indigenous methodologies have always existed and are based on connection; they removepower differentials between researcher and participant (National Indigenous Research and KnowledgesNetwork, 2022; Ryder et al., 2020). This “living knowledge” has been passed down through generations andis always evolving (Ryder et al., 2020). Indigenous methodologies encourage the researcher to “taketime” to immerse themselves in the community to more deeply understand context (National IndigenousResearch and Knowledges Network, 2022). Methods such as Dadirri,^[15] which buildstrust and connection and is rooted in deep and respectful listening, can enhance understanding of thedata by allowing the researcher to “appreciate cultures and environments of Indigenous peoples and howand why they function within those” (Stronach & Adair, 2014).

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers in the co-design and consultation ofANRA reminded us that these methodologies can also apply to any community, such asthose with lived experience of violence. Recognising the limits of traditional western methodologies(Smith, 1999) allows us to incorporate Indigenous methodologies into research, “research at theinterface” as it is known, enriching the evidence base (Ryder et al, 2020). In this way, research itselfcan become decolonising.

It is also true that non-Indigenous people with lived experience hold multiple rolesand choose when, and if, to share their lived experience. Individuals with lived experiences of DFSVsometimes need to compartmentalise themselves, or elements of who they are, to align with existingstructures and social norms (Survivor and researcher co-design participant). While recognising thatshame or fear of judgement often inhibits people disclosing lived experience in certain settings(Dolezal & Gibson, 2022), that person is always cognisant of their lived experience and managingtheir own trauma. The sharing of lived experience is an act of deep generosity and bravery, oftenfuelled by determination that other people do not experience abuse or harm (Elliot, 2023).

At ANROWS, we respect that there are ways of knowing that do not sit within mainstreamresearch traditions and seek to find ways of working that respect, employ and value these different waysof knowing (See Box 3).

Approaches to research

In this section we discuss creating space for pilots and evaluationsof community-led interventions and making better use of existing data. Each section discusses thebenefits and challenges of these approaches and includes examples of research in practice to encouragereflection on ways to implement the principles.

Create space for pilots and evaluations of community-led interventions

… it’s about having the community say we want research on this, and this ishow we want it done, and this is who we want it with, and having the community as the drivers of thatresearch and then they’re working out how it’s going to be used and how it’s going to be applied. (Focusgroup participant 7)

… for me, the (research) gap is the gap between what we think research istelling us, but what is actually happening on the ground … we get this little picture and it’s normallythe same people that come to the table. (Focus group participant 10)

The co-design workshops recommended creating space for pilots and evaluations ofcommunity-led interventions. By this, we mean research selected and undertaken by people who identify asbeing part of the population that researchers seek to understand and who are impacted by the researchtopics. Community members are involved in the whole research process, from setting the researchquestion(s) to data collection, analysis and monitoring.

Benefits and challenges

Community-led interventions can create innovative ways of preventing and addressingviolence within communities. They also encourage participation in research and provide opportunities toupskill community researchers. Solutions are tailored and meaningful to individual contexts. This kindof research reduces power imbalances between researchers and communities (Goodman et al., 2017; Lamb etal., 2023).

Community-led research can have challenges. The research findings may not be widelyapplicable to other communities. Researchers can also find it difficult to determine the “right” peopleto work with in communities where there are people or groups that hold opposing views. There needs to betime to build trust and understanding between communities and researchers before the researchcommences, and researchers and institutions need to take the time to work alongside and with communityresearchers and co-researchers with lived expertise to upskill them in research practice “on the job”.

While community-led research aims to give some power back to communities to determinetheir own priorities, power imbalances can still be present. Projects are generally reliant on morepowerful funding bodies such as ANROWS that can influence the focus, scope and timeframe of evaluations.

Considerations for implementation

Researchers should recognise their position of privilege and reflect on how aspects oftheir identity – including their gender, sexuality, ethnicity, education level and age – may influencetheir relationships with community-based researchers.

A position of cultural humility engenders a deeper understanding of privilege.Cultural humility refers to a “lifelong commitment to self-reflection and self-critique”, to “redressingpower imbalances” and “developing mutually beneficial and non-paternalistic clinical and advocacypartnerships with communities” (Tervalon & Murray-Garcia, 1998). Cultural humility goes a stepbeyond cultural competence in recognising the need for continuous learning as an approach that does notposition researchers as the only experts (Tervalon & Murray-Garcia, 1998). Methodologies thatsupport cultural humility include community-based participatory research, participatory action research,and Indigenous research methodologies.

Make better use of existing data

I was wondering if there was something you could do with the SARO [NSW SexualAssault Reporting Option] data because I mean, that they are collecting a lot of it, but I don’t thinkthe police are doing much with it … there is a lot of data in there that could be used. (Focus groupparticipant 4)

There is a considerable amount of administrative data collected on DFSVvictim-survivors and people who use DFSV that is not being used for research purposes. This includesdata collected by agencies as well as services who engage with them for other purposes, such as banks,real estate/housing services, and social media platforms.

Improved use of administrative data can include data development, data linkage andenhanced data analysis. Data development relates to new data collections or the creation of new dataitems in existing collections. Data linkage involves connecting existing data across multiple datasetswhere there is a unique identifier for individuals. Enhanced data analysis refers to conducting furtheranalysis of existing data.

Benefits and challenges

There are substantial resource benefits from leveraging existing administrative datafor research. The approach builds on the principle of collecting data from people once and using itoften (AIHW, 2007).

Administrative data can help fill significant research gaps in our understanding ofthe characteristics and dynamics of violence and how victim-survivors and people who use DFSV engagewith services. Administrative records can triangulate and enrich data collected through other methodssuch as interviews and surveys. This data can be useful in evaluations of programs, particularly whenlooking at longer-term program outcomes.

Using administrative data requires careful adherence to privacy laws and ethicalresearch standards. Data custodians hold a powerful position in their ability to access and analysepeople’s personal information without explicit consent. While administrative data can be a rich sourceof insight, those whose data is being used often don’t know their information will be used for researchpurposes. Administrative data is therefore often based on limited, pre-determined items to gainquantitative knowledge. This means that it is more limited in its ability to provide nuance aboutpeople’s unique experiences.

Identifying the data of people who use DFSV is difficult since it often relies onthose who have engaged with the criminal justice system. People who use DFSV may be identified throughother means, such as health screening and workplaces, but privacy laws can restrict the sharing of thisinformation. We need to keep looking for ways to improve mechanisms to identify and share informationabout people who use DFSV to assist researchers to collect and link data.

Researchers should carefully consider the methods used by agencies to collect data andhow this may influence findings and potentially perpetuate inequities. For example, when collectinghistorical data, who is likely to have collected the data, what was its primary purpose, and how mightthis influence their judgments of victim-survivors or people who use DFSV? Are there people unlikely tobe captured in the data because of issues such as reporting barriers or our evolving understanding ofthe dynamics of DFSV, gender and sexual identity?

We need to improve administrative data collection about Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander peoples. The current lack of disaggregated data about gender and Indigeneity means thatAboriginal women can be made invisible when advocating for better service delivery. There are severalrisks in using administrative data collected about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples todate, and so we need to carefully consider its limitations and opportunities for improvement. Forexample, identifiers for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are not collected consistently byDFSV services, or they are collected in situations where people may not be comfortable to disclose theirIndigenous status (National Indigenous Australian Agency, 2023). Aboriginal community-controlledorganisations report not having enough resourcing to collect data about their clients and/or documentthis information to inform service monitoring and evaluations (Productivity Commission, 2023a).Furthermore, although rights to data sovereignty have been recognised internationally in human rightsinstruments such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander peoples in Australia often have no control over how their data is collected andused. For organisations seeking to implement more appropriate and collaborative ways of collectingAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander data, there are tools available (for example, the Kowa Collaboration resources).

Considerations for implementation

Data development

Where the need for a new data collection has been identified, we recommendestablishing a national minimum dataset (NMDS) to improve consistency and comparability of data overtime. The NMDSs should draw on existing national standards wherever possible. For example, theAustralian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) METEOR site is a registry for Australianmetadata standards for statistics in the health and welfare sectors.

ANROWS recommends that any efforts to improve how data is done be in accordancewith Improving the Collection and Use of Administrative Data on Violence against Women: GlobalTechnical Guidance (United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women& World Health Organization, 2022) and the ABS’s Data Collection and ReportingFramework (ABS, 2014).

The principles above also apply when developing a new data item/s for an existingcollection. Researchers developing new surveys, should collect information according to existingstandard national population survey questions and or standards (e.g. ABS’s Standard for Sex, Gender,Variations of Sex Characteristics and Sexual Orientation Variables).

New ways of collecting data about victim-survivors and perpetrators are beingdeveloped and refined by DFSV and other services, such as the NSW Police Force’s Sexual AssaultReporting Option (SARO; n.d.) and the Commonwealth Bank’s (2023) identification of financial anddomestic abuse. These data sources may provide invaluable information on the characteristics ofvictim-survivors and people who use DFSV and the violence itself. ANROWS recommends that partnerships bedeveloped between researchers and DFSV services and other services to explore ways to use new datasources to build the evidence base.

Data sharing and linkage

Continued efforts are needed to improve information sharing between services for easeof data collection and to encourage the consistent collection of information. There is evidence thatdata sharing has improved in some states and territories (McCulloch et al., 2020). However, further workis needed at both a jurisdictional and national level. Improved data sharing between government andresearchers can help strengthen research and policy analysis (see “Research inPractice” below).

ANROWS encourages researchers to build relationships and develop research projectswith agencies other than those engaging directly with victim-survivors and people who use DFSV to accesstheir data. ANROWS urges these agencies to be open to partnerships, while allowing researchers access todata where it is permissible by law, with consideration of ethical standards and human rights.

Ways of knowing

In this section we discuss working with the knowledge of experts by experience,listening to children when they are children, and valuing practitioners’ expertise. As in the previoussection, the considerations for implementation under each principle offer preliminary ideas when usingthese approaches. ANROWS recognises that understanding and using these ways of knowing is complex. Whilethere is no simple solution or single guide, we recommend reading the referenced frameworks that moredeeply explore the considerations for implementation.

Work with the knowledge of experts by experience

… you come, and we give you – we take your story and then off you go there.Thanks. Pat on the shoulder. We use that to develop our – build our career pathway, but we’ll leave youwhere you are. No. It doesn’t work that way. It shouldn’t work that way. (Focus group participant 15)

… we’re getting more and more knowledge like empirical knowledge and it’sincredibly valuable but what we are lacking in that narrative is that lived experience knowledge and Isee them as equitable … they both bring something entirely different to the narrative, and if we don’tinclude them as equitable we are missing out on part of the story of how we address family and domesticviolence and sexual violence. (Focus group participant 2)

People with lived experience of DFSV have valuable expertise to contribute toresearch. Victim-survivors’ expertise needs to sit alongside empirical evidence to ensure a fairerdistribution of power. Co-designed research “engages people with lived experience (victim-survivorco-researchers and lived experience researchers) in research or evaluation after the research questionshave been determined or the funding received. People with lived experience are then involved in allstages of the research project from development to dissemination” (Lamb et al., 2023).

Co-designing research with victim-survivors aligns with the Experts byExperience Framework (Lamb et al., 2020) and An Australian Framework for the EthicalCo-Production of Research and Evaluation with Victim Survivors of Domestic, Family and SexualViolence (Lamb et al., 2023). There are several victim-survivor advocate groups in Australia whowork with researchers, government agencies and service providers to improve research, policy andpractice. These include the Independent Collective of Survivors,the WEAVERs, Safe Steps SurvivorAdvocate Program and NOORSurvivor-Advocates. Some agencies have also established their own survivor advocate groups toadvise them, such as Full StopAustralia and GenWest.

Benefits

Much of the knowledge we have about DFSV today has been sourced from victim-survivortestimony and contributions to research. People with lived experience of DFSV are usually highlymotivated to participate in research as they want to realise the social change needed to end DFSV(Goodman et al., 2017). The specificity of individual experiences, the similarities in DFSV patterns andshared determination to end DFSV often makes working with lived experience an empowering, revelatory andenriching process for academic and lived experience co-researchers alike (Lamb et al., 2023; Wark,2022).

Co-design can have multiple benefits. The benefits for research include having a morenuanced understanding of the issues, opportunities for important insights from people in communitiesaffected by the research implications, and the implementation of research recommendations as these aregrounded in real life experience. Benefits for victim-survivors include:

• a renewed sense of confidence and trust in their own capability
• receiving appropriate remuneration and value for their expertise
• upskilling
• increased power over the research process
• improved career pathways.

Considerations for implementation

ANROWS recognises that there is no single voice or experience for victim-survivors.Researchers must create co-design opportunities with victim-survivors with the most relevant livedexperience and from different backgrounds. Research that recognises and responds to the uniquecharacteristics of a particular form of violence or qualities of a community is ultimately more likelyto reduce that form of violence, with positive outcomes for the specific community. Trauma-informedapproaches as outlined in the Experts by Experience Framework (Lamb et al., 2020)should be followed to mitigate the risk of causing harm (Nonomura et al., 2020).

There are DFSV practitioners, policymakers and researchers who bring lived expertiseto their roles; researchers need to be mindful that some will choose not to disclose. Research needs tohave comprehensive safeguards and social and emotional support, without being paternalistic, to ensurethat everyone can feel safe and respected through the research process. Safety and wellbeing measurescan include organisational and practitioner readiness, reflective practice, and comprehensive access toemployee assistance programs (EAP), regular opportunities for debriefing and flexibility in working onDFSV projects.

Listen to children when they are children

I think it’s really important to get the experiences of kids while they’restill kids. Because one thing I’ve noticed, I mean obviously I, you could say I’m a child survivorbecause I grew up with it, but you reinterpret your own experience in a lot of your adult experiences.(Focus group participant 12)

I think there’s something to be said for some research that shows thatchildren participating in research is actually not an inherently harmful thing … I think we actuallyneed some research to show that it’s possible and that it may even have healing outcomes or, you know,recovery outcomes for children. (Focus group participant 18)

It is critical to recognise children and young people as victims of DFV in their ownright.

Benefits and challenges

Including the voices and opinions of children and young people inresearch when they are still children demonstrates respect and validation of theirexperiences and may help to improve their sense of power and agency (Ethical Research Involving Children[ERIC], 2019). It also helps to better design system responses and services to accommodate andappropriately respond to their needs.

Researchers may avoid engaging with children and young people for various reasons.They may believe it carries too high a risk of harm and/or retraumatisation. These concerns are sharedby some service providers, who can be reluctant to assist in recruiting child participants and act as“gatekeepers” to recruitment (Robinson et al., 2023). If service providers don’t help with recruitment,this can mean the research has only very small sample sizes. Children’s voices are sometimes representedthrough engagement with their family members instead, which can reduce children’s power and risk theirviews being misinterpreted.

Working with children and young people can take extra time and thought in gainingethics approvals, which project timelines do not always allow for. Research with children and youngpeople also requires specific knowledge and skills to engage appropriately, especially those who haveexperienced trauma.

Considerations for implementation

When including children’s voices, stay true to the language they use and try not tointerpret it through an adult lens. One way to do this is to adopt a critical youth studies approachwhen researching topics that engage with or directly affect children and young people (Best, 2007;Luguetti et al., 2023). This approach prioritises children and young people in the study design and dataanalysis. It creates opportunities for young people to identify issues of importance to them that canguide research questions (Best, 2007; Luguetti et al., 2023). It recognises that children hold a lesspowerful social position than adults, and that adult ways of knowing are held in higher esteem thanyoung peoples’. Researchers must try to correct this imbalance through challenging their adult-centricworldview and critically self-reflecting throughout the research process (Best, 2007; Luguetti et al.,2023).

While guidance on doing DFSV research with children and young people has beendeveloped by Ethical Research InvolvingChildren (ERIC; 2019), the research sector would benefit from further guidance materials andtraining on good practice principles. This could help researchers to demonstrate to service providersthat they have adequately considered and mitigated the risks. Where possible, funding agencies shouldoffer flexibility in research project timeframes to complete ethics processes and recruit participants.

Value the practitioners’ expertise

Engaging practitioners who work in primary prevention, early intervention, response,and healing is vital when undertaking high-quality research. However, there are often resourcingconstraints that prohibit or limit practitioners’ involvement.

Benefits

Practitioners’ knowledge about prevention, response and healing is important toinclude in the design phase of research, as well as when collecting data. They can offer importantinsights into measurable education, client and service outcomes, and potential challenges in recruitmentand data collection.

Practitioners with experience in trauma- and DFSV-informed care can help to create asafe and empowering space for participants. Practitioners who work with people who use DFSV are skilledat handling their attempts to manipulate, hide or minimise their responsibility. Practitioners can helpframe research questions for perpetrators in a way that avoids potential collusion and can assist withinterviewing and/or data collection. This can be critical to achieving the best possible researchoutcomes. Practitioners engaged as research participants bring a critical lens to how services operateand opportunities for improvement.

Engaging in research can have benefits for frontline services too, by helping todevelop research skills, as well as data collection and monitoring processes within services.

Considerations for implementation

ANROWS encourages researchers who partner with service organisations to providetraining on conducting research and evaluations to practitioners interested in building their knowledge.

Government departments should consider including more money in frontline services’funding agreements to participate in research projects. This can help to foster an environment thatprioritises continuous evidence building across sectors. Alternatively, remuneration should be builtinto research project budgets for research partners or advisors:

a) as a reflection of their value in the process

b) to prevent additional workload pressures and stress.

When frontline services are resourced to be involved in research, managers andpractice leaders should encourage opportunities that involve practitioners.

Implementation and monitoringof the ANRA

ANROWS will undertake a phased approach to implementing the ANRA across its own workas well as across Australia. The implementation phases include:

• funding ANRA priority research
• nationwide awareness and adoption
• building key partnerships
• expanding the ANRA beyond the DFSV sector.

Phase 1:
Funding ANRA priority research

Launch

It starts right here at ANROWS.

An important first step in implementing the ANRA is for ANROWS to embed the ANRAacross the organisation. We do this by using the ANRA research priorities to determine which research weconduct and fund. ANROWS will use the ways of working to guide how we conduct our commissioned andin-house research.

Our commitment

• Use our role as national leaders in research on violence against womento steward the implementation of
  the ANRA.

One of the ANRA research priorities will be the theme for each of ANROWS’s futuregrants rounds. Grant applicants will be expected to identify a research aim and questions that speak tothe identified priority.

In the guidance provided about applying for an ANROWS grant, we strongly encourageapplicants to:

• involve people with lived experience throughout the research process,starting from the research design phase
• form partnerships with people from the communities that they areresearching and/or DFSV service organisations to undertake research
• appropriately remunerate people with lived experience, community-basedresearchers and DFSV service organisations for their time in project budgets, and/or provideopportunities for in-kind support
• make use of existing service data where possible.

ANROWS’s commissioned grants are determined by an open competitive process assessed bypanels of experts. Assessors will be asked to take the factors above into account when scoringapplications. A person with lived experience of DFSV and a DFSV practitioner will sit on each of thepanels.

Our actions

• Fund research aligned with ANRA priorities through our grants program.
• Support applicants in applying ANRA approaches.
• Develop a grant-approval process that champions lived experience,community partnerships, fair compensation and smart data use.

Phase 2:
Nationwide awareness andadoption

Once ANROWS has embedded the ANRA across the organisation, we will work on the nextphase – working with stakeholders to encourage them to use the ANRA to guide research on ending DFSV.This will include targeted resources to assist researchers, funding bodies (universities andphilanthropic organisations), policymakers, service providers and practitioners, and survivor advocatesin using the ANRA and applying the ways of knowing and ways of working. Recognising that ANROWS’s 2021Stakeholder survey revealed the previous ANRA was not easily applied by all stakeholders, we will ensurea targeted and tailored approach of this ANRA for our stakeholders.

Shared success

For ANRA 2023–2028 to be successful, the whole research community needs to be on boardand researchers and research participants need to have as positive an experience as possible.

Our commitment

• Use our resources to support the DFSV research community to embed theANRA in their practice.

Our actions

• Understand and meet the support needs of research producers, funders andusers.
• Provide tailored resources and learning opportunities.
• Advocate for the ANRA through influential channels, from media topolicymakers.
• Promote the Register of Active Research (RAR) for a one-stop database ofnational research.

Phase 3:
Building key partnerships

The third phase involves creating partnerships to conduct research in the priorityareas.

Strength in numbers

Research partnerships allow the sharing of resources, knowledge and skills. Workingtogether facilitates the sharing of specialisations, niches and focus areas to generate new evidencearound the key priorities.

Our commitment

• Collaborate with research organisations, service providers, governments,business and peak bodies.

Our actions

• Engage in-house research partnerships.
• Facilitate the creation of research alliances.
• Collaborate with like-minded organisations to translate findings intoaction.

Phase 4:
Expanding the ANRAbeyond the DFSV sector

The fourth phase involves extending ANROWS’s reach to encourage other organisations touse the ANRA to influence their research. Strategies may include: presenting the ANRA to Centres forExcellence addressing violence against women, working with Human Research Ethics Committees and journaleditorial boards, working with ARC and NHRMC and their research priority processes.

The two assumptions we are testing during our fourth phase are that: 1) people wantpriorities for research; and 2) people will adopt the ways of working.

Reaching beyond

• Extend the use of the ANRA 2023–2028 within the nation’s researchinstitutions as they work on projects related to DFSV.

Our commitment

• Collaborate with major actors and custodians in the national researchcommunity.

Our actions

• Collaborate with:
• journal editorial boards
• Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs)
• Australian Research Council (ARC)
• National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)

Measuring the impact of the ANRA 2023–2028

The principles guiding the approach to measuring impact are as follows:

• Staged – start small, be selective as to measures and build up overtime.
• Serve the team first – ensure measuring impact is feasible andmeaningful for the team, and that it helps the team to understand and reflect on impact of the ANRAover time.
• Capacity building – build the capacity of the team to measure andunderstand impact.
• Clarity – ensure the approach provides clear direction for improving theANRA.
• Honesty and integrity – commit to continuous improvement of the ANRAthrough reflecting on impact with honesty and integrity.

To measure impact, in the early stage of ANRA implementation (year 2024 to year 2025)ANROWS will collect data in line with three monitoring questions, which correspond to the intendedshort-term outcomes set out in the ANRA’s theory of change. They are:

a) To what extent is ANROWS embedding the ANRA research priorities and waysof working in their grants rounds?

b) To what extent is ANROWS following a comprehensive approach to using theANRA across the organisation?

c) To what extent is ANROWS using the ANRA to form strategic partnerships toconduct research?

To measure impact in the longer term, ANROWS will also include the followingmonitoring question:

a) Who else is using the ANRA and how are they using it?

Strategic reflection will be conducted in 6-monthly cycles and underpinned by themonitoring questions.

Register of Active Research (RAR)

ANROWS manages a Register of Active Research(RAR) for all DFSV research currently underway in Australia. The RAR assists in minimisingthe unnecessary duplication of research by allowing researchers and funding bodies to search forresearch underway on particular topics, populations or categories.

The RAR supports the purpose of research agendas by helping to ensure efficient andeffective use of limited resources and was previously used to monitor the impact of ANRA 2020–2022. TheRAR also enables collaboration between researchers with similar areas of focus.

The current RAR will be updated to ensure the research priorities and the ways ofworking and ways of knowing are being monitored for all DFSV Australian research.

Author contributions

The Director of Research and Evaluation at ANROWS, Jane Lloyd, led all aspects of thepriority setting process, in partnership with survivor advocate and lived experience expert, LulaDembele.

Jane led the research design and provided strategic oversight. She co-facilitated theANRA focus groups and co-design workings and led the analysis of the Focus group findings and thewriting of the research priorities and ways of working.

Lula contributed to the ethics approval processes, advised and supported therecruitment of participants to the focus groups and co-design workshops for the ANRA. She co-facilitatedthe ANRA focus groups and co-design workshops, contributed to the analysis of the Focus group findingsand the writing of the research priorities and ways of working.

ANROWS Senior Research Officer, Cassandra Dawes, oversaw the ethical processes in thedevelopment of the ANRA, developed the coding framework and coded reports for the review of ANROWSfunded research, managed the invitations to Focus group participants, identified potential candidateswith relevant expertise to be part of the ANRA co-design workshop, led components of the thematicanalysis for the focus groups and contributed to writing the ANRA.

ANROWS Research Officer, Sarah Jane, coordinated the organisation of the focus groupsand co-design workshops, including the development of run sheets and presentations, contributed to thecoding and thematic analysis of the focus groups, identified potential candidates with relevantexpertise to be part of the co-design workshop, identified stakeholders to review the draft, coded thereports for the review of ANROWS funded research and undertook the analysis, and contributed to writingthe ANRA.

Evaluation and Impact Specialist, Lucy Macmillan, provided specialist advice on theco-design and evaluation processes, contributed to the facilitation and provided input into multipledrafts of the ANRA.

Definitions

References

ACON. (2019). A language guide: Trans and gender diverse inclusion.ACON. https://www.acon.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/TGD_Language-Guide.pdf

Attorney-General’s Department. (2022). The Meeting of Attorneys-General WorkPlan to Strengthen Criminal Justice Responses to Sexual Assault, 2022–2027. AustralianGovernment. https://www.ag.gov.au/crime/publications/work-plan-strengthen-criminal-justice-responses-sexual-assault-2022-27

Attorney-General’s Department. (2023a). National Principles to AddressCoercive Control in Family and Domestic Violence. Commonwealth of Australia. https://www.ag.gov.au/families-and-marriage/publications/national-principles-address-coercive-control-family-and-domestic-violence

Attorney-General’s Department. (2023b). Scoping the development of specialisedand trauma-informed legal services for victims and survivors of sexual assault: Discussionpaper. Australian Government. https://consultations.ag.gov.au/crime/sexual-assault/

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2014). Foundation for a National DataCollection and Reporting Framework for family, domestic and sexual violence. ABS. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/foundation-national-data-collection-and-reporting-framework-family-domestic-and-sexual-violence/latest-release

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2019a). Disability, Ageing and Carers,Australia: Summary of Findings methodology. ABS. https://www.abs.gov.au/methodologies/disability-ageing-and-carers-australia-summary-findings/2018#

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2019b). National Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander Health Survey. ABS. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-peoples/national-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-health-survey/latest-release.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2021). Standard for Sex, Gender, Variationsof Sex Characteristics and Sexual Orientation Variables. ABS. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/standards/standard-sex-gender-variations-sex-characteristics-and-sexual-orientation-variables/latest-release#

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2023). Personal Safety,Australia. ABS. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/personal-safety-australia/latest-release

Australian Human Rights Commission. (2020). Respect@Work: National Inquiryinto sexual harassment in Australian workplaces. AHRC. https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/sex-discrimination/publications/respectwork-sexual-harassment-national-inquiry-report-2020

Australian Human Rights Commission. (2022). Time for Respect: Fifth nationalsurvey on sexual harassment in Australian workplaces. AHRC. https://humanrights.gov.au/time-for-respect-2022

Australian Institute of Family Studies. (2022). Elder abuse in Australia:Financial abuse. Australian Institute of Family Studies. https://aifs.gov.au/research/research-snapshots/elder-abuse-australia-financial-abuse

Australian Institute of Family Studies. (2023). Sexual Violence Prevention andResponse Strategy: Draft for consultation. Government of Western Australia. https://www.wa.gov.au/system/files/2023-08/sexual-violence-prevention-response-strategy-draft-consultation_0.pdf

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2007). A guide to datadevelopment. AIHW. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/health-care-quality-performance/a-guide-to-data-development/summary

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2020). Sexual assault inAustralia (Cat. no. FDV 5). AIHW. https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/0375553f-0395-46cc-9574-d54c74fa601a/aihw-fdv-5.pdf.aspx?inline=true

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2021). Examination of hospitalstays due to family and domestic violence 2010–11 to 2018–19 (Cat. no. FDV 9).AIHW. https://doi.org/10.25816/9ypy-9p54

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2022). Family, domestic andsexual violence data in Australia (Cat. no. FDV 6). AIHW. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/domestic-violence/family-domestic-sexual-violence-data

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2023a). METEOR – Metadata OnlineRegistry. Australian Government. https://meteor.aihw.gov.au/content/181162

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2023b). National IntegratedHealth Service Information Analysis Asset (NIHSI AA) (Version 1.0) [Data set]. AustralianGovernment. https://meteor.aihw.gov.au/content/766334

Australian Research Council. (2022). ARC Centre of Excellence for TheElimination of Violence Against Women. Australian Government. https://www.arc.gov.au/funding-research/discovery-linkage/linkage-program/arc-centres-excellence/arc-centre-excellence-elimination-violence-against-women

Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety.(2014). National Research Agenda to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children.ANROWS. https://anrowsdev.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/National-Research-Agenda-May-2014.pdf

Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety.(2020). Australia’s National Research Agenda to Reduce Violence against Women and theirChildren: ANRA 2020–2022. ANROWS. https://anrowsdev.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/ANROWS-ANRA_20-22.1.pdf

Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety.(2021). Defining and responding to coercive control: Policy brief (ANROWS Insights,01/2021). ANROWS. https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/defining-and-responding-to-coercive-control/

Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety. (2023, Sept7). ANROWS Evidence Portal. ANROWS Evidence Portal. https://evidencepordev.wpengine.com/

Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety.(n.d.). Register of Active Research. ANROWS. Retrieved July 24, 2023, from https://www.anrows.org.au/register-of-active-research/

Basu, T. (2020, February 7). The “manosphere” is getting more toxic as angry men jointhe incels. MIT Technology Review. https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/02/07/349052/the-manosphere-is-getting-more-toxic-as-angry-men-join-the-incels/

Baum, F., MacDougall, C., & Smith, D. (2006). Participatory actionresearch. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 60(10),854–857. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2004.028662

Beckwith, S., Lowe, L., Wall, L., Stevens, E., Carson, R., Kaspiew, R., MacDonald, J.B., McEwan, J., Willoughby, M., & Gahan, L. (2023). Coercive control literature review:Final report. Australian Institute of Family Studies. https://aifs.gov.au/research/research-reports/coercive-control-literature-review

Best, A. L. (Ed.). (2007). Representing youth: Methodological issues incritical youth studies. New York University Press.

Botto, M., & Gottzén, L. (2023). Swallowing and spitting out the redpill: Young men, vulnerability, and radicalization pathways in the manosphere. Journal ofGender Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2023.2260318

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis inpsychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Breckenridge, J., Singh, S., Lyons, G., Suchting, M. (2020). Understandingeconomic and financial abuse and older people in the context of domestic and familyviolence. Gendered Violence Research Network, University of New South Wales.https://www.commbank.com.au/content/dam/commbank-assets/support/docs/NextChapter_UNSW-Report-5_Full-Report_FY22_Q4_A41.pdf

Brown, L. J., Lowe, H., Gibbs, A., Smith, C., & Mannell, J. (2023). High-riskcontexts for violence against women: Using latent class analysis to understand structural and contextualdrivers of intimate partner violence at the national level. Journal of InterpersonalViolence, 38(1–2), 1007–1039. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605221086642

Budiarto, Y., & Helmi, A. F. (2021). Shame and self-esteem: Ameta-analysis. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 17(2), 131–145. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.2115

Buxton-Namisnyk, E., Gibson, A., & MacGillivray, P. (2022, August 26). Unintended,but not unanticipated: Coercive control laws will disadvantage First Nations women. TheConversation. https://theconversation.com/unintended-but-not-unanticipated-coercive-control-laws-will-disadvantage-first-nations-women-188285#:~:text=Both%20states%20have%20committed%20to,Nations%20victim%2Dsurvivors%20of%20violence.

Cahill, H., Lusher, D., Farrelly, A., Calleja, N., Wang, P., & Hassani, A.(2023). A social network analysis and implementation study of an intervention designed toadvance social and emotional learning and respectful relationships in secondaryschools (Research report, 07/2023). ANROWS. https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/respectful-relationships-research-report/

Callander, D., Wiggins, J., Rosenberg, S., Cornelisse, V., Duck-Chong, E., Holt, M.,Pony, M., Vlahakis, E., MacGibbon, J., Cook, T. (2019). The 2018 Australian Trans and GenderDiverse Sexual Health Survey: Report of findings. Kirby Institute, University of New SouthWales. http://doi.org/10.26190/5d7ed96ceaa70

Campo, M. (2015). Children’s exposure to domestic and family violence: Keyissues and responses (Child Family Community Australia [CFCA] paper no. 36). AustralianInstitute of Family Studies. https://aifs.gov.au/resources/policy-and-practice-papers/childrens-exposure-domestic-and-family-violence

Carlisle, E., Coumarelos, C., Minter, K., & Lohmeyer, B. (2022). “Itdepends on what the definition of domestic violence is”: How young Australians conceptualisedomestic violence and abuse (Research report, 09/2022). ANROWS. https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/it-depends-on-what-the-definition-of-domestic-violence-is-how-young-people-conceptualise-domestic-violence-and-abuse/

Centre for Innovative Justice. (2015). Opportunities for early intervention:Bringing perpetrators of family violence into view. RMIT University. https://ntv.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/r3qx75qh2913.pdf

Clare, C. A., Velasquez, G., Mujica Martorell, G. M., Fernandez, D., Dinh, J.,Montague, A. (2021). Risk factors for male perpetration of intimate partner violence: Areview. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 56, Article 101532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2020.101532

Commission of Inquiry into Queensland Police Service responses to domestic and familyviolence. (2022). A call for change. Queensland Government. https://www.qpsdfvinquiry.qld.gov.au/about/report.aspx

Commonwealth Bank of Australia. (2023). CommBank NextChapter. Retrieved July 24, 2023, from https://www.commbank.com.au/support/next-chapter.html

Connell, R. W. (2020). Masculinities (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003116479

Cornish, F., Breton, N., Moreno-Tabarez, U., Delgado. J., Rua, M., de-Graft Aikens, A.,& Hodgetts, D. (2023). Participatory action research. Nature Reviews Methods Primers,3(34). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-023-00214-1

Cortis, N., & Bullen, N. (2015). Building effective policies and servicesto promote women’s economic security following domestic violence: State of knowledgepaper (ANROWS Landscapes, 11/2015). ANROWS.https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/building-effective-policies-and-services-to-promote-womens-economic-security-following-domestic-violence-state-of-knowledge-paper/

Costa, B. M., Kaestle, C. E., Walker, A., Curtis, A., Day, A.,Toumbourou, J. W., & Miller, P. (2015). Longitudinalpredictors of domestic violence perpetration and victimization: A systematicreview. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 24, 261–272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.06.001

Coumarelos, C., Weeks, N., Bernstein, S., Roberts, N., Honey, N., Minter, K., &Carlisle, E. (2023). Attitudes matter: The 2021 National Community Attitudes towards Violenceagainst Women Survey (NCAS), Findings for Australia (Research report, 02/2023).ANROWS. https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/attitudes-matter-the-2021-national-community-attitudes-towards-violence-against-women-survey-ncas-findings-for-australia/

Cullen, P., Stevenson, S., Baffsky, R., & Walker, N. (2021). A newmodel of care for women experiencing trauma from domestic, family and sexual violence: Co-designreport July 2021. University of New South Wales. https://www.womenshealthcentre.com.au/app/uploads/2023/07/A-New-Model-of-Care.pdf

Deloitte Access Economics. (2022). The cost of financial abuse inAustralia. Commonwealth Bank of Australia. https://www.commbank.com.au/content/dam/caas/newsroom/docs/Cost%20of%20financial%20abuse%20in%20Australia.pdf

Department of Social Services. (2019). Dowry abuse [Fact sheet].Australian Government. https://www.dss.gov.au/women-publications-articles-reducing-violence/dowry-abuse-factsheet

Department of Social Services. (2021). Safe and Supported: The NationalFramework for Protecting Australia’s Children 2021–2031. Commonwealth of Australia. https://www.dss.gov.au/the-national-framework-for-protecting-australias-children-2021-2031

Department of Social Services. (2022). National Plan to End Violence againstWomen and Children 2022–2032. Commonwealth of Australia. https://www.dss.gov.au/ending-violence

Department of Social Services. (2023a). Aboriginal and Torres Strait IslanderAction Plan 2023–2025: Under the National Plan End Violence against Womenand Children 2022–2032. Commonwealth of Australia. https://www.dss.gov.au/the-national-plan-to-end-violence-against-women-and-children/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-action-plan-2023-2025

Department of Social Services. (2023b). First Action Plan 2023–2027: Underthe National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022–2032. Commonwealth ofAustralia. https://www.dss.gov.au/the-national-plan-to-end-violence-against-women-and-children/first-action-plan-2023-2027

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. (n.d.). National Strategy toAchieve Gender Equality. Australian Government. Retrieved July 24, 2023, from https://www.pmc.gov.au/office-women/national-strategy-achieve-gender-equality

Dolezal, L., & Gibson, M. (2022). Beyond a trauma-informed approach and towardsshame-sensitive practice. Humanities and Social SciencesCommunications, 9(214). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01227-z

Edwards, C., Bolton, R., Salazar, M., Vives-Cases,C., & Daoud, N. (2022). Young people’s constructions of gender norms andattitudes towards violence against women: A critical review of qualitative empiricalliterature. Journal of Gender Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2022.2119374

E-International Relations. (2021). Positivism, post-positivism andinterpretivism. Retrieved July 24, 2023, from https://www.e-ir.info/2021/09/25/positivism-post-positivism-and-interpretivism/

Elliot, J. (2023, May 4). Speeches [Speech transcript]. InauguralDomestic, Family and Sexual Violence Recovery and Healing Conference, Dharawal Country,Australia. https://ministers.dss.gov.au/speeches/11106

Ethical Research Involving Children. (2019). Ethical guidance. Centre forChildren and Young People, Southern Cross University; UNICEF Office of Research –Innocenti. https://childethics.com/ethical-guidance/

Family Safety Victoria. (2018). Family Violence Multi-Agency Risk Assessmentand Management Framework: A shared responsibility for assessing and managing family violencerisk. State of Victoria. https://content.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-01/Family%20violence%20multi-agency%20risk%20assessment%20and%20management%20framework.pdf

Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia. (2019). Forcedmarriage in Australia: A literature review. Department of Home Affairs. https://fecca.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/FECCA-Literature-Review-on-Forced-Marriages.pdf

Fitz-Gibbon, K., Meyer, S., Boxall, H., Maher, J., & Roberts, S.(2022). Adolescent family violence in Australia: A national study of prevalence, history ofchildhood victimisation and impacts (Research report, 15/2022). ANROWS. https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/adolescent-family-violence-in-australia-a-national-study-of-prevalence-history-of-childhood-victimisation-and-impacts/

Flood, M. (2019). Engaging men and boys in violence prevention. PalgraveMacMillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-44208-6

Flood, M. (2020). Masculinities and health: Attitudes towards men andmasculinities in Australia. Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth). https://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/VicHealth-Attitudes-to-men-and-masculinity-report-July-2020.pdf

Flood, M., & Burrell, S. R. (2023). Engaging men and boys in theprimary prevention of sexual violence. In Miranda A. H. Horvath & Jennifer M.Brown (Eds.), Rape: Challenging contemporary thinking – 10 years on (2nd ed.;pp. 221–235). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003163800

Foley, K., Robinson, S., valentine, k., Burton, J., Marshall, A., Smith, R., &Moore, T. (2023). Connecting the dots: A strengths-based practice framework for responding tothe needs and priorities of children and young people with disability who experience domestic andfamily violence [Practice framework]. ANROWS. https://www.anrows.org.au/resources/connecting-the-dots-practice-framework/

Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education. (2015). National framework foraction to prevent alcohol-related family violence. FARE. https://fare.org.au/national-framework-for-action-to-prevent-alcohol-related-family-violence/

Full Stop Australia. (2023). Lived expertise. Full StopAustralia. https://fullstop.org.au/advocacy/lived-expertise-advocacy

Gendered Violence Research Network. (2020). Understanding economic and financialabuse in intimate partner relationships. University of New South Wales. https://rlc.org.au/sites/default/files/attachments/UNSW%20report%201%20-%20Financial%20Abuse%20and%20IPV%20-%20PDF%20version%20-%20Final.pdf

GenWest. (2023). Become a GenWest survivoradvocate. GenWest. https://genwest.org.au/news-and-events/survivor-advocate/

Goldsworthy, K. (2023). Involving children in evaluation: What should youknow? Australian Institute of Family Studies. https://aifs.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-05/2305_Involving-children-in-evaluation-PG.pdf

Goodman, L. A., Thomas, K. A., Serrata, J. V., Lippy, C., Nnawulezi, N., Ghanbarpour,S., Macy, R., Sullivan, C. & Bair-Merritt, M. A. (2017). Power through partnerships: A CBPRtoolkit for domestic violence researchers. National Resource Center on DomesticViolence. https://cbprtoolkit.org/

Healing Foundation with Adams, M., Bani, G., Blagg, H., Bullman, J., Higgins, D.,Hodges, B., Hovane, V., Martin-Pederson, M., Porter, A., Sarra, G., Thorpe, A., & Wenitong, M.(2017). Towards an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander violence prevention framework for menand boys. Healing Foundation; White Ribbon Australia. https://healingfoundation.org.au//app/uploads/2017/11/HF_Violence_Prevention_Framework_Report_Oct2017_V9_WEB.pdf

Hegarty, K., McKenzie, M., McLindon, E., Addison, M., Valpied, J., Hameed, M.,Kyei-Onanjiri, M., Baloch, S., Diemer, K., & Tarzia, L. (2022). “I just felt like I was runningaround in a circle”: Listening to the voices of victims and perpetrators to transform responses tointimate partner violence (Research report, 22/2022). ANROWS. https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/i-just-felt-like-i-was-running-around-in-a-circle-listening-to-the-voices-of-victims-and-perpetrators-to-transform-responses-to-intimate-partner-violence/

Hill, A. O., Bourne, A., McNair, R., Carman, M., & Lyons, A.(2020). Private Lives 3: The health and wellbeing of LGBTIQ people inAustralia (ARCSHS Monograph series no. 122). Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health andSociety, La Trobe University. https://www.latrobe.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/1185885/Private-Lives-3.pdf

Hill, J. (2021). The reckoning: How #MeToo is changing Australia(Quarterly Essay 84). Black Inc. Books.

Hing, N., O’Mullan, C., Nuske, E., Breen, H., Mainey, L., Taylor, A., … Rawat, V.(2020). The relationship between gambling and intimate partner violence againstwomen (Research report, 21/2020). ANROWS. https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/the-relationship-between-gambling-and-intimate-partner-violence-against-women/

Holt, S., Buckley, H., & Whelan, S. (2008). The impact of exposure to domesticviolence on children and young people: A review of the literature. Child Abuse &Neglect, 32(8), 7, 797–810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.02.004

Hooker, L., Toone, E., Wendt, S., Humphreys, C., & Taft, A.(2022). RECOVER – Reconnecting mothers and children after family violence: The child–parentpsychotherapy pilot (Research report, 05/2022). ANROWS. https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/recover-reconnecting-mothers-and-children-after-family-violence-the-child-parent-psychotherapy-pilot/

Horta Ribeiro, M., Blackburn, J., Bradlyn, B., De Cristofaro, E., Stringhini, G., Long,S., Greenberg, S., & Zannettou, S. (2021). The evolution of the manosphere across theweb. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and SocialMedia, 15(1), 196–207. https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v15i1.18053

Illawarra Women’s Health Centre. (n.d.). Women’s Trauma RecoveryCentre. Illawarra Women’s Health Centre. Retrieved July 24, 2023, from https://www.womenshealthcentre.com.au/womens-trauma-recovery-centre/

Independent Collective of Survivors. (2023). What wedo. ICOS. https://icos.org.au/what-we-do-1

Institute of Design at Stanford. (2010). An introduction to design thinking:Process guide. Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford University. https://web.stanford.edu/~mshanks/MichaelShanks/files/509554.pdf

Interim Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee. (2023). 2023–24 Report to theAustralian Government. Commonwealth of Australia. https://ministers.treasury.gov.au/sites/ministers.treasury.gov.au/files/2023-04/eiac-report.pdf

InTouch. (2023). NOOR survivor-advocates. InTouch. https://intouch.org.au/noor-survivor-advocates/

Jewkes, R., Morrell, R., Hearn, J., Lundqvist, E., Blackbeard, D., Lindegger, G.,Quayle, M., Sikweyiya, Y., & Gottzén, L. (2015). Hegemonic masculinity: Combining theory andpractice in gender interventions. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 17(sup2),112–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2015.1085094

Just Reinvest NSW. (n.d.). Bourke (Maranguka). JR NSW. RetrievedJuly 24, 2023, from https://www.justreinvest.org.au/community/bourke-maranguka/

Kantar Public. (2022). Reducing Sexual Violence – research informing thedevelopment of a national campaign. Department of Social Services. https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/03_2022/reducing-sexual-violence-research-informing-development-national-campaign-february-2022.pdf

Keddie, A., Hewson-Munro, S., Halafoff, A., Delaney, M., & Flood, M. (2023).Programmes for boys and men: Possibilities for gender transformation. Gender and Education,35(3), 250–266. www.doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2022.2147670

Kennedy, M., Maddox, R., Booth, K., Maidment, S., Chamberlain, C., & Bessarab, D.(2022). Decolonising qualitative research with respectful, reciprocal, and responsible researchpractice: A narrative review of the application of Yarning method in qualitative Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander health research. International Journal for Equity in Health, 21, Article134. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-022-01738-w

Kowa. (n.d.). Impact yarns. Retrieved July 24, 2023, from https://www.kowacollaboration.com/resources

KPMG. (2018). Maranguka justice reinvestment project: Impact assessment.Just Reinvest NSW. https://apo.org.au/node/206461

KPMG. (2022). Evaluation of the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Womenand Their Children (2010–2022). KPMG. https://plan4womenssafety.dss.gov.au/resources/research/evaluation-of-the-national-plan-to-reduce-violence-against-women-and-their-children-2010-2022/

Krivoshchekov, V., Gulevich, O., & Blagov, I. (2023). Traditional masculinity andmale violence against women: A meta-analytic examination. Psychology of Men &Masculinity, 24(4), 346–364. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000426

Lamb, K., Dembele, L., Nina, Fiona, & Hegarty, K. (2023). An AustralianFramework for the ethical co-production of research and evaluation with victim survivors ofdomestic, family, and sexual violence. University of Melbourne. https://www.saferfamilies.org.au/codesignframework

Lamb, K., Hegarty, K., Amanda, Cina, Fiona, the University of Melbourne WEAVERs livedexperience group, & Parker R. (2020). The Family Violence Experts by ExperienceFramework. Domestic Violence Victoria. https://safeandequal.org.au/working-in-family-violence/service-responses/experts-by-experience-framework/

Langton, M., Smith, K., Eastman, T., O’Neill, L., Cheesman, E., & Rose, M.(2020). Improving family violence legal and support services for Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander women (Research report, 25/2020). ANROWS. https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/improving-family-violence-legal-and-support-services-for-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-women/

Law Enforcement Conduct Commission. (2023). Review of NSW Police Forceresponses to domestic and family violence incidents. State of New South Wales. https://www.lecc.nsw.gov.au/news-and-publications/publications

Lawler, S., & Boxall, H. (2023). Reporting of dating app facilitatedsexual violence to the police: Victim-survivor experiences and outcomes (Trends &issues in crime and criminal justice no. 662). Australian Institute of Criminology. https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-03/ti662_reporting_of_dating_app_facilitated_sexual_violence_to_the_police.pdf

Lisnek, J. A., Wilkins, C. L., Wilson, M. E., & Ekstrom, P. D. (2022). Backlashagainst the #MeToo movement: How women’s voice causes men to feel victimized. Group Processes& Intergroup Relations, 25(3), 682–702. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302211035437

Luguetti, C., Jice, N., Singehebhuye, L., Singehebhuye, K., Mathieu, A., & Spaaij,R. (2023). “Sitting there and listening was one of the most important lessons I had to learn”: Criticalcapacity building in youth participatory action research. Journal of YouthStudies. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2023.2226082

Lyneham, S., & Bricknell, S. (2018). When saying no is not an option:Forced marriage in Australia and New Zealand (Research report no. 11). AustralianInstitute of Criminology. https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/rr/rr11

McCulloch, J., Maher, J., Fitz-Gibbon, K., Segrave, M., Benier, K., Burns, K., McGowan,J., & Pfitzner, N. (2020). Review of the Family Violence Information Sharing Scheme finalreport. Monash University. https://doi.org/10.26180/5f3b5c4b08731

McLachlan, R., Gilfillan, G., & Gordon, J. (2013). Deep and persistentdisadvantage in Australia. Productivity Commission, Australian Government. https://www.pc.gov.au/research/supporting/deep-persistent-disadvantage

McMahon, M., & McGorrery, P. (2020). Criminalising coercive control:Family violence and the criminal law. Springer.

Miller, D. J. (2019). Pornography’s influence on men’s sexual relationshipsand attitudes toward women [Doctoral dissertation, James Cook University]. https://doi.org/10.25903/mcwc-x957

Minter, K., Carlisle, E., & Coumarelos, C. (2021). “Chuck her on a liedetector”: Investigating Australians’ mistrust in women’s reports of sexualassault (Research report, 04/2021). ANROWS. https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/chuck-her-on-a-lie-detector-investigating-australians-mistrust-in-womens-reports-of-sexual-assault/

Morgan, A., & Boxall, H. (2022). Economic insecurity and intimate partnerviolence in Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic (Research report, 02/2022).ANROWS. https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/economic-insecurity-and-intimate-partner-violence-in-australia-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/

Morgan, G., Butler, C., French, R., Creamer, T., Hillan, L., Ruggiero, E., Parsons, J.,Prior, G., Idagi, L., Bruce, R., Twist, A., Gray, T., Hostalek, M., Gibson, J., Mitchell, B., Lea, T.,Miller, C., Lemson, F., Bogdanek, S., … Cahill, A. (2023). Healing our children and youngpeople: A framework to address the impacts of domestic and family violence (ANROWSInsights, 01/2023). ANROWS. https://www.anrows.org.au/resources/healing-our-children-and-young-people-a-framework-to-address-the-impacts-of-domestic-and-family-violence/

Nakata, M. (2002). Indigenous knowledge and the cultural interface: Underlying issuesat the intersection of knowledge and information systems. IFLA Journal, 28(5–6),281–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/034003520202800513

Nancarrow, H., Thomas, K., Ringland, V., & Modini, T. (2020). Accuratelyidentifying the “person most in need of protection” in domestic and family violencelaw (Research report, 23/2020). ANROWS. https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/accurately-identifying-the-person-most-in-need-of-protection-in-domestic-and-family-violence-law/

National Indigenous Australian Agency. (2023). Implementation Plan 2023:Commonwealth Closing the Gap. Commonwealth of Australia. https://www.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/closing-the-gap-implementation-plan-2023.pdf

National Indigenous Research and Knowledges Network. (2022, March23). Research methodologies and methods. Australian Research Council. Retrieved July 24,2023, from https://www.nirakn.edu.au/dashboard/research-methodologies-and-methods/

National Office for Child Safety. (2021). National Strategy to Prevent andRespond to Child Sexual Abuse 2021–2030. Commonwealth of Australia. https://www.childsafety.gov.au/resources/national-strategy-prevent-and-respond-child-sexual-abuse-2021-2030

National Office for Child Safety. (n.d.). Establishing a Child Safety ResearchAgenda. Australian Government. Retrieved July 24, 2023, from https://www.childsafety.gov.au/what-we-do/establishing-child-safety-research-agenda

Newton, L. (2023). Not ready, not right: Key objections to criminalising coercivecontrol in New South Wales. Sydney Law Review 121, 45(1). http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/SydLawRw/2023/5.html

Nonomura, R., Giesbrecht, C., Jivraj, T., Lapp, A., Bax, K., Jenney, A., Scott, K.,Straatman, A.-L., & Baker, L. (2020). Toward a trauma- and violence-informed researchethics module: Considerations and recommendations. Centre for Research & Education onViolence Against Women & Children, Western University. https://kh-cdc.ca/en/resources/reports/Grey-Report—English.pdf

NSW Police Force. (n.d.). Sexual assault reportingoption. Government of New South Wales. Retrieved July 24, 2023, from https://portal.police.nsw.gov.au/adultsexualassault/s/sexualassaultreportingoption/

Our Watch. (2018). Changing the picture: A national resource to supportthe prevention of violence against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and theirchildren. Our Watch. https://media-cdn.ourwatch.org.au/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/11/05233003/Changing-the-picture-AA-3.pdf

Our Watch. (2021). Change the story: A shared framework for the primaryprevention of violence against women in Australia (2nd ed.). Our Watch. https://www.ourwatch.org.au/resource/change-the-story-a-shared-framework-for-the-primary-prevention-of-violence-against-women-in-australia.

Politoff, V., Crabbe, M., Honey, N., Mannix, S., Mickle, J., Morgan, J., Parkes, A.,Powell, A., Stubbs, J., Ward, A., & Webster, K., (2019). Young Australians’ attitudes toviolence against women and gender equality: Findings from the 2017 National Community Attitudestowards Violence against Women Survey (NCAS) (ANROWS Insights, 01/2019). ANROWS. https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/young-australians-attitudes-to-violence-against-women-and-gender-equality-findings-from-the-2017-national-community-attitudes-towards-violence-against-women-survey-ncas/

Primary Health Network. (2023). How we assist with domestic, family and sexualviolence. PHN. https://thephn.com.au/what-we-do/domestic-family-violence

Productivity Commission. (2023a). Review of the National Agreement on Closingthe Gap – Priority Reform 4: Shared access to data and information at a regional level(Information paper 5). Australian Government. https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/current/closing-the-gap-review/draft/ctg-review-draft-information5.pdf

Productivity Commission. (2023b). Socioeconomic outcome area 12: Aboriginaland Torres Strait Islander children are not overrepresented in the child protection system. Closingthe Gap Information Repository. Australian Government. https://www.pc.gov.au/closing-the-gap-data/dashboard/socioeconomic/outcome-area12

Robinson, K. H. (2005). Reinforcing hegemonic masculinities through sexualharassment: Issues of identity, power and popularity in secondary schools. Gender andEducation, 17(1), 19–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/0954025042000301285

Robinson, S., Foley, K., Moore, T., Valentine, K., Burton, J., Marshall, A., O’Donnell,M., & Brebner, C. (2023). Prioritising children and young people with disability inresearch about domestic and family violence: Methodological, ethical and pragmaticreflections. Journal of Family Violence, 38, 1191–1204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-023-00496-9

Robinson, S., valentine, k., Marshall, A., Burton, J., Moore, T., Brebner, C.,O’Donnell, M., & Smyth, C. (2022). Connecting the dots: Understanding the domestic andfamily violence experiences of children and young people with disability within and across sectors:Final report (Research report, 17/2022). ANROWS. https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/connecting-the-dots-understanding-the-domestic-and-family-violence-experiences-of-children-and-young-people-with-disability-within-and-across-sectors-final-report/

Rothermel, A. -K. (2023). The role of evidence-based misogyny in antifeminist onlinecommunities of the “manosphere”. Big Data & Society, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517221145671

Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People withDisability. (2023). Nature and extent of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation: Finalreport (Vol. 3). Commonwealth of Australia. https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/system/files/2023-09/Final%20Report%20-%20Volume%203%2C%20Nature%20and%20Extent%20of%20Violence%2C%20abuse%2C%20neglect%20and%20exploitation.pdf

Russell, E., Zhou, H., & Franich, G. (2022). Gendered injustice: Thepolicing and criminalisation of victim-survivors of domestic and family violence. Fitzroy LegalService. https://fls.org.au/app/uploads/2022/06/Gendered_injustice_report_spreads.pdf

Ryder, C., Mackean, T., Coombs, J., Williams, H., Hunter,K., Holland, A. J. A., & Ivers, R. Q. (2020). Indigenous researchmethodology – weaving a research interface. International Journal of Social ResearchMethodology, 23(3), 255–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2019.1669923

Safe Steps. (n.d.). Survivor Advocate Program. VictorianGovernment. Retrieved July 24, 2023, from https://www.safesteps.org.au/our-advocacy/survivor-advocate-program/

Safer Families. (n.d.). WEAVERs @ Safer Families: University of Melbourne,Family Violence Experts by Experience researchers. The Safer FamiliesCentre. Retrieved July 24, 2023, from https://www.saferfamilies.org.au/weavers

Salter, M., Conroy, E., Dragiewicz, M., Burke, J., Ussher, J., Middleton, W., Vilenica,S., Martin Monzon, B., & Noack-Lundberg, K. (2020). “A deep wound under my heart”: Constructionsof complex trauma and implications for women’s wellbeing and safety fromviolence (Research report, 12/2020). ANROWS. https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/a-deep-wound-under-my-heart-constructions-of-complex-trauma-and-implications-for-womens-wellbeing-and-safety-from-violence/

Salter, M., & Hall, H. (2020). Reducing shame, promoting dignity: A model for theprimary prevention of complex post-traumatic stress disorder. Trauma, Violence &Abuse, 23(3), 906–919. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020979667

Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee. (2019). Practiceof dowry and the incidence of dowry abuse in Australia. Commonwealth of Australia. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/DowryAbuse/Report

Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee. (2023). Currentand proposed sexual consent laws in Australia. Commonwealth of Australia. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/sexualcontentlaws/Report

Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenouspeoples. Zed Books.

SNAICC, National Family Violence Prevention Legal Services, & National Aboriginal& Torres Strait Islander Legal Services. (2017). Strong Families, Safe Kids: Familyviolence response and prevention for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children andfamilies. SNAICC; NFVPLS; NATSILS. https://www.snaicc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Strong_Families_Safe_Kids-Sep_2017.pdf

Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence in Queensland. (2015). Not now,not ever: Putting an end to domestic and family violence in Queensland. Department ofJustice and Attorney-General. https://www.justice.qld.gov.au/initiatives/end-domestic-family-violence/about/not-now-not-ever-report

State of Victoria. (2016). Royal Commission into Family Violence: Report andrecommendations (Vol. 5, Parl paper no. 132, 2014–16). http://rcfv.archive.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/MediaLibraries/RCFamilyViolence/Reports/Final/RCFV-Vol-V.pdf

Stronach, M. M., & Adair, D. (2014). Dadirri: Reflections on a research methodologyused to build trust between a non-Indigenous researcher and Indigenousparticipants. Cosmopolitan Civil Societies, 6(2), 117–134. https://doi.org/10.5130/ccs.v6i2.3859

Summers, A. (2022). The choice: Violence or poverty. University ofTechnology Sydney. https://doi.org/10.26195/3s1r-4977

Sutherland, G., McCormack, A., Pirkis, J., Vaughan, C., Dunne-Breen, M., Easteal, P.,& Holland, K. (2016). Media representations of violence against women and their children:Final report. (ANROWS Horizons, 03/2016). ANROWS. https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/media-representations-of-violence-against-women-and-their-children-final-report/

Syme, S. L. (2004). Social determinants of health: The community as an empoweredpartner. Preventing Chronic Disease, 1(1), A02.

Tan, A., Nagraj, S. K., Nasser, M., Sharma, T., & Kuchenmüller, T. (2022). What dowe know about evidence-informed priority setting processes to set population-level health-researchagendas: An overview of reviews. Bulletin of the National Research Centre, 46(1),6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42269-021-00687-8

Tervalon, M., & Murray-Garcia, J. (1998). Cultural humility versus culturalcompetence: A critical distinction in defining physician training outcomes in multiculturaleducation. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 9(2),117–125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2010.0233

The Men’s Project, & Flood, M. (2018). The Man Box: A study on being ayoung man in Australia. Jesuit Social Services.https://cdn.jss.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/28111318/The-Man-Box-A-study-on-being-a-young-man-in-Australia-1.pdf

The National Council to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children.(2009). The cost of violence against women and their children. Commonwealth ofAustralia. https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/05_2012/vawc_economic_report.pdf

Tidmarsh, P., & Hamilton, G. (2020). Misconceptions of sexual crimesagainst adult victims: Barriers to justice (Trends & issues in crime and criminaljustice no. 611). Australian Institute of Criminology. https://doi.org/10.52922/ti04824

Ting, I., Scott, N., & Palmer, A. (2020, January 28). Rough justice: How police arefailing survivors of sexual assault. ABC News. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-28/how-police-are-failing-survivors-of-sexual-assault/11871364

Townsend, N., Loxton, D., Egan, N., Barnes, I., Byrnes, E., & Forder, P.(2022). A life course approach to determining the prevalence and impact of sexual violence inAustralia: Findings from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health (Researchreport, 14/2022). ANROWS. https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/a-life-course-approach-to-determining-the-prevalence-and-impact-of-sexual-violence-in-australia-findings-from-the-australian-longitudinal-study-on-womens-health/

UN Women Australia. (2020). Types of violence against women and girls.United Nations. https://unwomen.org.au/types-of-violence-against-women-and-girls/

United Nations. (2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of IndigenousPeoples. UN. https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf

United Nations. (n.d). Victims’ rights first. UN. RetrievedJuly 24, 2023, from https://www.un.org/en/victims-rights-first#:~:text=What%20is%20the%20victim%2Dcentred,affiliation%20of%20the%20alleged%20perpetrator.

United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women, & WorldHealth Organization. (2022). Improving the collection and use of administrative data onviolence against women: Global technical guidance. UN Women; WHO. https://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2022/05/global-technical-guidance-for-collection-and-use-of-administrative-data-on-violence-against-women

University of Canberra. (n.d.). Evidence-Based Practice in Health: Hierarchyof Evidence. University of Canberra. Retrieved July 24, 2023, from https://canberra.libguides.com/c.php?g=599346&p=4149721

Ussher, J. M., Hawkey, A., Perz, J., Liamputtong, P., Marjadi, B., Schmied, V., Dune,T., Sekar, J. A., Ryan, S., Charter, R., Thepsourinthone, J., Noack-Lundberg, K., & Brook, E.(2020). Crossing the line: Lived experience of sexual violence among trans women of colour fromculturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds in Australia (Research report,14/2020). ANROWS. https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/crossing-the-line-lived-experience-of-sexual-violence-among-trans-women-of-colour-from-culturally-and-linguistically-diverse-cald-backgrounds-in-australia/

Vallury, K. (2022). Reproductive coercion and abuse among clients withdisabilities of an Australian pregnancy options counselling service. Children byChoice. https://www.childrenbychoice.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Reproductive-Coercion-and-Abuse-among-clients-with-disabilities-of-an-Australian-pregnancy-options-counselling-service-1.pdf

Victorian Government. (2022). Victorian Family Violence Research Agenda2021–2024. State Government of Victoria. https://www.vic.gov.au/victorian-family-violence-research-agenda-2021-2024

Walter, M., & Suina, M. (2019). Indigenous data, indigenous methodologiesand indigenous data sovereignty. International Journal of Social ResearchMethodology, 22(3), 233–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2018.1531228

Wark, A. (2022). Sources of lived experience in the family violence sector:Issues paper. Safe and Equal. https://safeandequal.org.au/resources/sources-of-lived-experience-in-the-family-violence-sector-issues-paper/

Women’s Legal Service Victoria. (2018). Snapshot of police family violenceintervention order applications: January – May 2018. WLSV. https://www.womenslegal.org.au/~womensle/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Snapshot-of-Police-Family-Violence-Intervention-Order-applications.pdf

Women’s Safety and Justice Taskforce. (2022a). Discussion paper 3: Women andgirl’s experiences across the criminal justice system as victims-survivors of sexual violence andalso as accused persons and offenders. The State of Queensland. https://www.womenstaskforce.qld.gov.au/publications#link-from-home

Women’s Safety and Justice Taskforce. (2022b). Community attitudes to sexualconsent: Research report 2022. The State of Queensland. https://www.womenstaskforce.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/723859/sexual-consent-report-2022-enhance-research.pdf

Appendix A:
Co-design methods

Co-design is a framework that brings together interested parties/stakeholders in thedesign, decision-making and dissemination of the research (Goodman et al., 2017). Co-design with DFSVvictims and survivors allows for collaboration with the people that have been most impacted by DFSV andrespects lived expertise as equal to empirical research (Lamb et al., 2023; Wark, 2022).

ANROWS’s co-design process followed the Hasso Plattner method developed by theInstitute of Design at Stanford (Institute of Design at Stanford, 2010).

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria for participants taking part in the co-design workshop were:

• a person with lived experience of DFSV
• a DFSV service provider
• a DFSV researcher.

Heterosexual males with lived experience of DFSV and male perpetrators of DFSV wereexcluded from participating.

Recruitment

The lived experience participants for the co-design workshops were purposively sampledfrom the network of the co-lead investigator, Lula Dembele. Some people with lived experience whoparticipated in the focus groups were invited to contribute to the co-design workshop. ANROWS drew onour established networks to purposively recruit researchers and service providers/practitioners.

We aimed to recruit a maximum of 16 people, with equal representation across the threeinclusion groups. When determining who to invite to participate, we considered a number of factors:

• diverse community representation
• diverse expertise, including different disciplines, settings, types ofviolence and National Plan domains
• representation from different states and territories.

An email was sent to each potential participant in co-design inviting them toparticipate in two online workshops. The email included a participant information sheet and consentform.

Participants

Five participants attended the first co-design workshop, and nine participantsattended the second workshop. Two people participated in both workshops.

Four participants identified as having lived expertise of DFSV. Five participants wereacademics with expertise in DFSV primary prevention, early intervention and/or responses for women andchildren. Three participants worked in DFSV services for victim-survivors and/or people who use DFSV.Some participants belonged to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and LGBTQI+ communities;there was also participation from people with disability and older women. Participants were based infive Australian states and territories: New South Wales, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, andWestern Australia.

Data collection

ANROWS held the workshops over Microsoft Teams in March and June 2023. Each workshoplasted 90 minutes to 2.5 hours and was co-facilitated by the research team. The research team presentedthe co-design participants in each session with the findings from the review of evidence and thepreliminary themes that emerged from the focus groups. The question that guided the first workshopdiscussion was, “What research do we need to do now to end violence against women?”

The research team developed a list of research priorities based on the discussion inthe first workshop and mind maps that were created during the discussion. The draft priorities werepresented to participants in the second workshop and the participants were asked to build on thesepriorities through discussion and consensus.

In the second workshop, ANROWS also presented participants with a list of preferredways of undertaking research, identified by Focus group participants. Co-design participants were askedabout how they thought these ways of working could be embedded in research.

Lived experience and self-employed co-design participants who participated in bothworkshops were offered $250 in recognition of their time. Those who participated in one workshop wereoffered $125.

Data analysis

The transcripts of the workshop discussions were analysed by the research team toidentify emerging research priorities and areas of consensus. After the second workshop, one of the leadresearchers (JL) analysed the second workshop transcript and identified key themes from the discussion.Members of the research team then drafted the research priorities and ways of working for inclusion inthe ANRA. These priorities and ways of working were discussed among the members of the research team andamendments were made based on consensus during these discussions.

The draft research priorities and ways of working were sent to the co-designparticipants for feedback. ANROWS also offered those who were invited but unable to attend the co-designworkshops the opportunity to review the research priorities and ways of working. These suggestions werediscussed among the research team and the content of some of the priorities and ways of working weremodified based on team consensus. The priorities were also amended following advice from governmentrepresentatives who participated in the online forum in July 2023 (see “Methodology” section).

ANROWS reviewed the research priorities following the release of the Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander Action Plan (DSS, 2023), released in August 2023, to ensure they were aligned.

Ethics

This project received ethics approval in February 2023 from the University of NewSouth Wales Human Research Ethics Committee (HC220719).

Limitations

The demographics of participants in the co-design workshops have not been furtherdisaggregated because the research team did not seek ethics approval to collect this information fromthem or to publish this information.

Appendix B:
Suggestedresearch topics

The suggested topics listed under each research priority were raised through theANRA’s design (focus groups and co-design workshops) and consultation process. They are provided as astarting point to prompt researchers’ thinking. This list is designed to be comprehensive but notprescriptive.

The topics have been structured under the nine research priority areas. Whereappropriate, the table includes outcomes from the National Plan (NP) and the Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander Action Plan (ATSIAP) that align to the topics.

Theme: Systems and society

Priority area: Structural inequity

Area

• Service and system improvements
• NP outcome 1
• NP outcome 2
• ATSIAP reform area 3

Priority area: Gender relations, gender norms and attitudes

Area:

• Attitudes and understandings
• NP outcome 3
• NP outcome 4
• NP outcome 6

Area:

• Drivers and risk factors
• NP outcome 3
• NP outcome 5

Area:

• Piloting new interventions
• NP outcome 2
• NP outcome 3
• NP outcome 4
• NP outcome 5

Area:

• Service and system improvements
• NP outcome 2

Area:

• Power: prompt questions
• NP outcome 3
• NP outcome 6

Priority area: Trauma- and DFSV-informed, victim-centred systems

Area:

• Attitudes and understandings
• NP outcome 2
• ATSIAP reform area 2

Area:

• Prevalence, characteristics and impacts of violence
• NP outcome 1
• NP outcome 5

Area:

• Piloting new interventions
• NP outcome 1
• NP outcome 2
• NP outcome 4
• NP outcome 6
• ATSIAP reform area 2

Area:

• Service and system improvements
• NP outcome 2
• NP outcome 6
• ATSIAP reform area 2
• ATSIAP reform area 3

Area:

• Power: prompt questions
• NP outcome 1
• ATSIAP reform area 3

Theme: Populations in focus

Priority area: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples

Area:

• Attitudes and understandings
• NP outcome 3
• ATSIAP reform area 2

Area:

• Prevalence, characteristics and impacts of violence
• NP outcome 4
• NP outcome 6
• CTG 13
• ATSIAP reform area 1
• ATSIAP reform area 4
• ATSIAP reform area 5

Area:

• Piloting new interventions
• ATSIAP reform area 2

Area:

• Service and system improvements
• NP outcome 1
• NP outcome 2
• ATSIAP reform area 2
• ATSIAP reform area 3

Area:

• Power: prompt questions

Priority area: Children and young people

Area:

• Attitudes and understandings
• NP outcome 2
• NP outcome 5
• ATSIAP reform area 1

Area:

• Prevalence, characteristics and impacts of violence
• NP outcome 5

Area:

• Piloting net interventions
• NP outcome 2
• NP outcome 5

Area:

• Service improvements
• NP outcome 1
• NP outcome 2
• NP outcome 5

Area:

• Power: prompt questions
• NP outcome 5

Priority area: People who use DFSV

Area:

• Prevalence, characteristics and impacts of violence
• NP outcome 4
• ATSIAP reform area 4

Area:

• Drivers and risk factors
• NP outcome 2
• NP outcome 4

Area:

• Piloting new interventions
• NP outcome 2
• NP outcome 4

Area:

• Service and system improvements
• NP outcome 2
• NP outcome 4
• ATSIAP reform area 3

Area:

• Power: prompt questions
• NP outcome 3
• NP outcome 4

Theme: Types and patterns of violence

Priority area: Sexual violence

Area:

• Attitudes and understandings
• NP outcome 1
• NP outcome 3

Area:

• Prevalence, characteristics and impacts of violence

Area:

• Piloting new interventions
• NP outcome 2

Area:

• Service and system improvements
• NP outcome 1
• NP outcome 4
• NP outcome 6

Area:

• Power: prompt questions
• NP outcome 1
• NP outcome 3

Priority area: Coercive control

Area:

• Attitudes and understandings
• NP outcome 3

Area:

• Prevalence, characteristics and impacts of violence
• ATSIAP reform area 3

Area:

• Drivers and risk factors

Area:

• Piloting new interventions
• NP outcome 4

Area:

• Service and system improvements

Area:

• Power: prompt questions
• NP outcome 1
• NP outcome 4
• ATSIAP reform area 3

Priority area: Economic abuse

Area:

• Prevalence, characteristics and impacts of violence

Area:

• Drivers and risk factors

Area:

• Piloting new interventions

Area:

• Service and system improvements

Area:

• Power: prompt questions

Endnotes

1. The aim of ANROWS’s establishment was to build the evidence base that supports endingviolence against women and children in Australia. Because of this, and the need to alignwith the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children2022–2032, the ANRA predominantly focuses on violence against women andchildren. However, it is important to emphasise that trans and gender diverse peopleexperience equal or greater rates of DFSV than the general population (Callander et al.,2019; Hill et al., 2020) and have received little attention in DFSV policy and serviceprovision until recently. Back to reference ↑
2. Primary prevention is defined as “stopping violence against women from occurring in thefirst place by addressing its underlying drivers. This requires changing the socialconditions that give rise to this violence; reforming the institutions and systems thatexcuse, justify or even promote such violence; and shifting the power imbalances and socialnorms, structures and practices that drive and normalise it” (Our Watch, 2021, p. 55). Back to reference ↑
3. For more information on the National Office for Child Safety’s research agendavisit: https://www.childsafety.gov.au/what-we-do/establishing-child-safety-research-agendaBack to reference ↑
4. Primary prevention is defined as “stopping violence against women from occurring in thefirst place by addressing its underlying drivers. This requires changing the socialconditions that give rise to this violence; reforming the institutions and systems thatexcuse, justify or even promote such violence; and shifting the power imbalances and socialnorms, structures and practices that drive and normalise it” (Our Watch, 2021
   p. 55). Back to reference ↑
5. Secondary prevention, or early intervention, aims to identify violence against women asearly as possible and connect individuals to services. Back to reference ↑
6. The United Nations defines a victim-centred approach as putting “the rights and dignity ofvictims, including their well-being and safety, at the forefront of all efforts to preventand respond … It requires the empathetic, individualized, holistic delivery of continuousand reliable services in a non-judgmental and non-discriminatory manner” (UnitedNations, n.d). Backto reference ↑
7. Please refer to Section 2, “Ways of Working: Listening to Children when they are Children”for our recommendations on inclusive research with children and young people. Back to reference ↑
8. See the section “Make Better Use of Existing Data” for further discussion about datalimitations. Back toreference ↑
9. Police have inconsistently used the category “unfounded” to justify when a case is closed.“Unfounded” cases can include withdrawn complaints and cases that police have determined tobe unsubstantiated or inaccurate reports (Ting et al., 2020). Back to reference ↑
10. There are concerted efforts by government to undertake this research with the soon to bereleased National Strategy to Achieve Gender Equality, and organisations, such as the AHRCthat undertake the national sexual harassment survey every 4 years, and Our Watch, who havedeveloped prevention tools for workplaces. ANROWS currently has four projects exploringworkplace sexual harassment across different settings for different groups as part ofthe SexualHarassment Research Program 2021–2024. Back to reference ↑
11. This includes partnerships such as CommBank’s NextChapter initiative work with community services to help victim-survivors offinancial abuse (and DFV) to achieve financial independence. The Commonwealth Bank’spartnership with the UNSW Gendered Violence Research Network recommends several areas offuture research in this area. Back to reference ↑
12. Note that older men are also victims of economic abuse; however, due to IPV being genderedin nature, economic and financial abuse of older people often gets categorised as elderabuse and not as a form of DFV (Gendered Violence Research Network, 2020). Back to reference ↑
13. Dowry abuse is “any act of coercion, violence or harassment associated with the giving orreceiving of dowry at any time before, during or after marriage … Dowry-related abusecommonly involves claims that dowry was not paid and coercive demands for further money orgifts from a woman and her extended family” (DSS, 2019). Back to reference ↑
14. The Anti-Colonial Research Library (published September 2023) contains open access journalsand text on Indigenous research methodologies and decolonising approaches to research,see
    https://www.anticolonialresearchlibrary.org/.Back to reference ↑
15. While it is not the purpose of the ANRA to discuss each Indigenous research methodology indetail, Dadirri has been provided as an example. The purpose of discussing Indigenousresearch methodologies overall is to encourage researchers exploring other “ways of knowing,being and doing” (Kennedy et al., 2022) , such that researchers are not restricted tomainstream western research methods. The research methodology should be the most appropriatefor the research question and the community the research is focussed on. Back to reference ↑
16. National Health and Medical Research Council (2009), as cited in University of Canberra(n.d.). Back to reference↑
17. Information for this case study was obtained through communication with AIHW staff. Back to reference ↑
18.  Information for this case study was taken from Cullen et al., 2021. Back to reference ↑
19. Information for this case study was obtained through communication with AIHW staff. Back to reference ↑
20. Information from this case study is sourced from Robinson et al., 2022 and Robinson et al.,2023. Back to reference↑
21. The content from this case study is drawn from Morgan et al., 2023. Back to reference ↑
22. See Family Safety Victoria, 2018. Back to reference ↑
23. “Community-led” research refers to research selected and undertaken by people who identifyas being part of the population that researchers seek to understand and who are impacted bythe research topics. Backto reference ↑