Assessing the Evidence: How Systems That Address Intimate Partner Violence Evaluate the Credibility and Utility of Research Findings

Background and Purpose: Despite advances in practitioner-researcher partnerships, barriers to the uptake of research evidence in practice sectors that address intimate partner violence (IPV) persist. The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine how practitioners across victim services, criminal justice, and law enforcement systems assess the usefulness and credibility of research evidence to their practice and policy-related decision making.

Methods: Data were derived through qualitative interviews with 37 representatives of victim services, criminal justice, and law enforcement organizations across eight counties in Washington State. Practitioners described the criteria and processes used to determine the credibility and usefulness of research evidence they encounter. Thematic analysis, incorporating a coding process that sought to capture concepts within context, was used to generate results. Although we did not specifically elicit perceptions of barriers to using research, barrier-related content emerged organically in 26 of 36 interviews, and was closely related to the issue of what made research compelling and credible.

Results: Respondents reported five major factors associated with evaluating research evidence. First, practitioners across service systems reported that the credibility of the messenger of research evidence was centrally related to its trustworthiness. Credible sources included trusted colleagues, national organizations who engage experts in the field and collaborate with one another, and organizations with funded projects. Respondents were wary of sources that they perceived had a conflict of interest or political agenda. Second, practitioners assessed research evidence based on its relevance and applicability to their own practice context. Third, practitioners evaluated research based on the rigor of the methods used and whether practices were designated as evidence-based.

In addition to the above factors, two major barriers to viewing domestic violence research evidence as useful were identified. Two-thirds of respondents reported that resource constraints, i.e. lack of time and money, were barriers to generating, accessing, assessing, and using research evidence. Approximately one-third of respondents expressed suspicion of the research enterprise altogether, citing their perception that research findings change constantly and in contradictory ways, that findings can be manipulated to fit any ideological goal, and/or that it is impossible to interpret or draw conclusions from broad, decontextualized statistics.

Conclusions and Implications: Given the centrality of the messengers of research evidence in practitioners’ assessment of its credibility, IPV systems should invest in intermediaries, such as domestic violence coalitions and professional organizations, to facilitate the translation of research evidence for practice. Such investments may include funding and capacity building for research clearinghouse staff, or embedding researchers in intermediary organizations. The importance of personal and professional relationships for evaluating the credibility of research evidence suggests that information sharing networks should be assessed and strengthened, both at the local level as well as through research roundtables at the state or national level. Researchers in the domestic violence field should take steps to address the relevance and applicability of their research, including partnering with practitioners at each stage of the research and emphasizing the applicability of research design and findings to real-life settings.