Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine the potential benefits as well as some of the practical barriers to the implementation of a collective impact initiative in law enforcement and public health (LEPH) in Tasmania, Australia.

The paper is based on a review of programs, agencies and initiatives that are at the intersection of LEPH in Tasmania, through an analysis of the findings in evaluation reports, and the views of practitioners identified at a workshop on LEPH held at a national AOD conference and facilitated by the authors.

The strengths of collective impact initiatives, particularly in LEPH, are presented and some weaknesses identified. Some major obstacles to the consolidation of LEPH initiatives include siloed ways of working and budgets, lack of leadership and political will. Some progress has been made in addressing these weaknesses, although addressing complex social problems by moving beyond inter-agency collaboration toward an integrated model of service provision remains challenging.

The authors argue that there are practical benefits to the adoption of a collective impact model to address problems in Tasmania that lie at the nexus between LEPH. In reviewing existing collaborations, the authors demonstrate the value of a structural mapping process to identify ways forward for government and non-government agencies that are inclined to go further in merging the two disciplinary areas. The authors offer some suggestions with respect to identifying the preconditions for a collective impact model and how to build on these to initiate action.

A significant proportion of the literature on LEPH remains at a conceptual and theoretical level. This contribution highlights some practical issues while looking at existing examples of collaboration across LEPH at a state level in Australia, and starts mapping a way forward for constructing more integrative LEPH initiatives.

The research technique of shadowing is the most in‐depth type of systematic, direct observation in situ of behaviours within a particular organisational or social setting, and yet, it crucially lacks documentation and critical analysis. The origins of the under‐documenting, coupled with the mutation of the scientific method of shadowing through its adoption by many industries as a means of on‐the‐job training, have led to a misunderstanding of shadowing as a scientific technique. This is problematic at several levels for academics deeply involved in qualitative methodology. The purpose of this paper is to address, in part, this gap in the literature.

By defining shadowing, considering the reasons why shadowing has had little critique from social science scholars and then exploring the problems of it as a research technique, particularly within the current context of ethics regimes, the authors wish to proactively help to avoid unintentional yet delicate fieldwork situations, in which misunderstanding may happen due to the lay use of “shadowing” as a passive (non‐obtrusive) observation.

The authors argue that the research practice of shadowing implies specific systematic techniques and extensive self‐discipline by the researcher. It also caters for a need in data collection that oversteps traditional observation‐and‐interviewing techniques, by adding a new hermeneutical layer to the information gathered. It becomes an essential tool in the evaluation of public policy initiatives and programmes and in the understanding of not only the mechanics, but of the motivations behind actions and behaviours.

This paper addresses part of a gap in the literature and paves the way for more critical analysis of the dynamics that emerge during the shadowing of a research participant.