1. Your research focuses on police responses to technology-facilitated domestic and family violence. What drew you to this area of research, and what is one finding or insight from your PhD that you think researchers, practitioners, or policymakers should pay more attention to?
My interest in police responses to technology-facilitated domestic and family violence (TFDFV) grew out of a broader commitment to addressing gaps between lived experiences of victim-survivors and institutional responses. As digital technologies develop, they expand the tools available to perpetrators of family violence to be able to surveil, harass and coerce victim-survivors. Yet, it is difficult for policing frameworks and frontline practices to keep up to date with these shifts. I was drawn to understanding how police respond to forms of abuse which are not traditionally well-recognised within incident-based models of DFV.
One key insight from my PhD is that TFDFV may be minimised in police responses, rather than understood as part of a broader pattern of violence which may have significant impacts on victim-survivors. According to the practitioners in my study, police are most likely to respond to TFDFV where there is perceived risk of physical harm or homicide. This minimises the real impacts of TFDFV beyond physical harm, including emotional, psychological and quality of life impacts. I think researchers, practitioners, and policymakers need to further examine how policy and practice conceptualise risk, as risk assessment frameworks typically revolve around homicide or serious injury. This largely ignores how victim-survivors may endure other serious harm, or even end their own lives due to the abuse.
2. What opportunities do you see for research to influence policy and practice in the family violence space?
Research has strong potential to shape both policy and practice in the DFV space, particularly by highlighting the complexities of abuse that the system traditionally does not account for (particularly non-physical abuse). This can inform more nuanced legislation, risk assessment tools, and policing practices that move beyond incident-based responses toward recognising patterns of harm.
Our work in the DFV space can also strengthen evidence-informed training and frontline practice. Research can identify where gaps in knowledge or capability exist, and in turn, provide institutions with the opportunity to improve. Our work can assist in developing consistent, trauma-informed responses that account for diverse experiences, including those of First Nations communities, migrant and refugee women, and young people. Family violence is rarely confirmed to a single discipline or system, yet responses are frequently fragmented. It is important to develop cross-sector, interdisciplinary collaboration so we can create more coordinated, holistic responses to DFV. The most impactful research is co-designed with victim-survivors and practitioners, ensuring that policy and practice reforms are grounded in evidence, real-world needs, and practical considerations.
3. What advice would you give to current HDR candidates?
Stick to your values, and remember that doing a higher degree by research is never going to be easy! Building a strong support network is crucial. Try to engage regularly with your supervisors, connect with peers, and actively build a network of like-minded researchers both within and beyond your institution. If you connect with people who are doing similar work to you or have similar research interests, you may be able to work together on exciting projects in the future. Many of my valuable connections have started with a simple email or conversation, so don’t be afraid to reach out to people doing interesting work.
Publish where you can, but also consider applying for awards, presenting your work beyond academic spaces, and engaging with practitioners and organisations if relevant. Also remember to revisit the reasons you started your research when times get tough. It’s great to remind yourself of the value of your work.
