Exploring challenges and opportunities through the lens of LGBT+ domestic homicide
SPEAKER: James Rowlands, PhD candidate, Sociology, University of Sussex
DATE & TIME: 13 December 2019 | 1:00 - 2:00 PM Eastern Standard Time
SPEAKER BIOGRAPHY: James Rowlands is a Doctoral Researcher at the University of Sussex. His doctoral research concerns Domestic Homicide Reviews in England and Wales, specifically the part they play in the coordinated community response and the difference they make, including whether they bring about system change and reduce the likelihood of future homicides. In 2019, James was awarded a Churchill Fellowship. Prior to undertaking his PhD, James worked in a variety of operation and strategic roles in the domestic violence sector and local government. As a Churchill Fellow, James is investigating international approaches to domestic / family violence death reviews, exploring and comparing the different approaches in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. http://www.sussex.ac.uk/profiles/450624
DESCRIPTION: England and Wales have been undertaking Domestic Homicide Review (DHR) since 2011. However, DHRs are often taken-for-granted and there has been limited research into both their operation and the process of knowledge production. DHRs are a product of multi-agency inquiry, which means there is a complex relationship between the participants involved in their ‘doing’. Moreover, diverse practices shape the narratives available in the talk between participants and the final report produced.
Offering both a practitioner and researcher perspective, James Rowlands will provide an overview of policy and practice in England and Wales and draw on key issues in the conceptualization and function of DHRs. He will highlight the unique challenges of the DHR process with reference to minoritized communities. Using the example of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans (LGBT+) victims of domestic homicide, his focus will be two-fold: 1) the question of who becomes the subject of a DHR, exploring why some LGBT+ victims are included while others are excluded and 2) how knowledge generation operates, mapping how particular discursive practices frame inquiry in relation to LGBT+ victims and shape knowledge production.