Session: Addressing Intimate Partner Violence and Alcohol/Other Drugs Together: Creating “Hybrid” Approaches in Contested Spaces (Society for Social Work and Research 20th Annual Conference - Grand Challenges for Social Work: Setting a Research Agenda for the Future)

Intimate partner violence (IPV) and problems with alcohol and other drugs (AOD) are frequently intertwined, with studies showing that 25-60% of people affected by one are also affected by the other. Each is a costly and stigmatized social problem with increased consequences in multiple arenas when both are present. They are rarely addressed together, within communities, human services or social policy, despite growing evidence that doing so reduces barriers to change and improves outcomes. Separate intervention fields for IPV and AOD have evolved, with divergent histories, conceptual paradigms, and approaches (e.g., safety in one, recovery in the other), as well as significant controversies within each field. Practitioners report many conflicts and problems working across fields and creating composite approaches, despite substantial efforts at state and Federal levels to support such efforts. Despite barriers, some innovative organizations and practitioners have developed “hybrid” approaches, which we define as: methods for addressing IPV and AOD together in ways appropriate for particular people, circumstances, settings, and communities.

This symposia addresses two overarching questions:

• How much are organizations engaging in hybrid approaches for both IPV and AOD, how are they doing this, and what have they learned?
• What are important methodological challenges and strategies in studying hybrid approaches for IPV and AOD?

The four papers use different research methods and focus on separate but interrelated questions. The first paper uses public data sources to estimate the incidence of hybrid approaches among the population of organizations involved in IPV and AOD work in a 9 county metropolitan area (n=383) and provides insight into differences between hybrid and non-hybrid organizations. The other three use “trench to bench” approaches (Proctor, 2003) or practice-based research and knowledge development, learning from innovative practitioners. Paper two draws on survey results from a purposive sample of organizations that reported addressing both IPV and AOD (N=222). Paper three uses comparative case study and grounded theory methods with 35 organizations (from 20 states and Canada) selected because they devote significant attention to both IPV and AOD. Paper four analyzes semi-structured interviews from the same project, using modified ethnographic methods to examine how practitioners navigate the many challenges and opportunities encountered while endeavoring to accomplish hybrid interventions.

Together, these papers illuminate factors influencing engagement in hybrid work on IPV and AOD and various strategies different kinds of organizations use to become and remain hybrid. They contribute both to theoretical understandings of challenges involved in navigating different and conflicting practice domains and illuminate issues specific to the IPV and AOD fields. Each paper grapples with operationalizing measures of “hybridity” and characterizing organizations, approaches, and practitioner dilemmas stemming from different strategies for implementing hybrid approaches. We outline challenges associated with different research methods, how they were addressed, and identify examples of how these different approaches can lead to different conclusions. The papers also identify many successes and challenges associated with hybrid work and how these are influenced by organizational differences and the broader systems in which they operate.