title: An investigation of stalking in intimate partner violence cases in Aotearoa New Zealand

authors: Tomkins, Jordan

abstract: Partner stalking is often assumed to be a dangerous problem that is distinct from intimate partner violence (IPV) overall, or from other types of IPV (e.g., physical, sexual, and psychological violence). Such assumptions imply that partner stalking requires identification, assessment, and response processes distinct from other types of harm within both intact and separated intimate relationships. However, considerable confusion—about how best to (a) define partner stalking and (b) distinguish partner stalking from other harm types—seems to persist among researchers and practitioners alike. Accordingly, this thesis contains three empirical studies that investigate these assumptions (and the corresponding confusion) by focusing on partner stalking definitions and identification, as well as partner stalking-related risk prediction. The first study examined police-recorded partner stalking in episode reports across 1,150 IPV cases. Few police officers explicitly used the label ‘stalking’, but we found evidence of partner stalking within one in every seven IPV cases reported to New Zealand Police. The second study was a qualitative analysis of practice-based definitions of partner stalking, based on interviews with 14 specialist IPV practitioners. Rather than providing a summary definition of partner stalking, practitioners defined partner stalking as a list of behaviours. There was also considerable heterogeneity in whether—and, if so, how—practitioners distinguished partner stalking from other types of IPV harm. Finally, the third study examined whether partner stalking predicted subsequent IPV outcomes reported to police across a 12-month follow up in 1,126 cases. Partner stalking was a weak predictor of any IPV recurrence (in univariate analysis only) and did not predict physical IPV recurrence (in univariate or multivariate analyses). Taken together, and broadly mirroring the previous research literature, the findings in this thesis suggest that police and specialist IPV practitioners lack a shared understanding of partner stalking; in turn, hindering their ability to clearly define and identify this phenomenon, especially in relation to other types of IPV. And within this current practice context, partner stalking may not warrant special consideration for risk prediction, given that (with one exception) partner stalking did not predict subsequent IPV outcomes reported to police. Overall, these findings challenge assumptions that partner stalking—at least based on current research- and practice-based conceptualisations of the construct—is meaningfully understood as a distinct concern from other types of harm within abusive relationships. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of this conclusion, while considering recommendations for ongoing research and theory development.

text: An investigation of stalking in intimate partner violence cases in Aotearoa New Zealand Partner stalking is often assumed to be a dangerous problem that is distinct from intimate partner violence (IPV) overall, or from other types of IPV (e.g., physical, sexual, and psychological violence). Such assumptions imply that partner stalking requires identification, assessment, and response processes distinct from other types of harm within both intact and separated intimate relationships. However, considerable confusion—about how best to (a) define partner stalking and (b) distinguish partner stalking from other harm types—seems to persist among researchers and practitioners alike. Accordingly, this thesis contains three empirical studies that investigate these assumptions (and the corresponding confusion) by focusing on partner stalking definitions and identification, as well as partner stalking-related risk prediction. The first study examined police-recorded partner stalking in episode reports across 1,150 IPV cases. Few police officers explicitly used the label ‘stalking’, but we found evidence of partner stalking within one in every seven IPV cases reported to New Zealand Police. The second study was a qualitative analysis of practice-based definitions of partner stalking, based on interviews with 14 specialist IPV practitioners. Rather than providing a summary definition of partner stalking, practitioners defined partner stalking as a list of behaviours. There was also considerable heterogeneity in whether—and, if so, how—practitioners distinguished partner stalking from other types of IPV harm. Finally, the third study examined whether partner stalking predicted subsequent IPV outcomes reported to police across a 12-month follow up in 1,126 cases. Partner stalking was a weak predictor of any IPV recurrence (in univariate analysis only) and did not predict physical IPV recurrence (in univariate or multivariate analyses). Taken together, and broadly mirroring the previous research literature, the findings in this thesis suggest that police and specialist IPV practitioners lack a shared understanding of partner stalking; in turn, hindering their ability to clearly define and identify this phenomenon, especially in relation to other types of IPV. And within this current practice context, partner stalking may not warrant special consideration for risk prediction, given that (with one exception) partner stalking did not predict subsequent IPV outcomes reported to police. Overall, these findings challenge assumptions that partner stalking—at least based on current research- and practice-based conceptualisations of the construct—is meaningfully understood as a distinct concern from other types of harm within abusive relationships. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of this conclusion, while considering recommendations for ongoing research and theory development.

year: 2024

title: Diverse voices and alternative rationalities: Imagining forms of postcolonial organizational communication

authors: Broadfoot, Kirsten J.

subjects: organizational communication

abstract: In his exploration of nationalism and imagined communities, Anderson (1991) claims that nations are “imagined” (that is, they are constructions), insomuch that people are convinced of the comradeship of unknown fellow compatriots, often ignoring any actual inequality and exploitation that exists in such an imagined community. In a similar fashion, we argue that the subdiscipline or community of organizational communication scholars is also imagined, as much organizational communication scholarship conducted within the global context is performed and interpreted from the dominant Euro-American intellectual tradition, privileging those concepts as well as particular voices and traditions and often ignoring inequality and exploitation within the scholarly community. This forgetting and the imagined scholarly community it creates continue to reify and legitimate a particular form of rationality and, in practice, lead to further colonization, subordination, and oppression of native/indigenous/other forms of understanding and organizing within our disciplinary field. So, how do we recover alternative rationalities, worldviews, and voices on the processes of organizing in diverse contexts?

text: Diverse voices and alternative rationalities: Imagining forms of postcolonial organizational communication In his exploration of nationalism and imagined communities, Anderson (1991) claims that nations are “imagined” (that is, they are constructions), insomuch that people are convinced of the comradeship of unknown fellow compatriots, often ignoring any actual inequality and exploitation that exists in such an imagined community. In a similar fashion, we argue that the subdiscipline or community of organizational communication scholars is also imagined, as much organizational communication scholarship conducted within the global context is performed and interpreted from the dominant Euro-American intellectual tradition, privileging those concepts as well as particular voices and traditions and often ignoring inequality and exploitation within the scholarly community. This forgetting and the imagined scholarly community it creates continue to reify and legitimate a particular form of rationality and, in practice, lead to further colonization, subordination, and oppression of native/indigenous/other forms of understanding and organizing within our disciplinary field. So, how do we recover alternative rationalities, worldviews, and voices on the processes of organizing in diverse contexts?

year: 2007

title: The Environmental Justice Implications of the Planning Policy and Practice of Flood Risk Management in New Zealand

authors: Martynoga, Charlotte

subjects: environmental justce

abstract: Following an international trend, the flood defence approach historically applied in New Zealand has been superseded by a shift to flood risk management, an approach that aligns with the notion of ‘living with risk’ and devolves responsibility to risk-takers at the local level. Citizens are required to assume responsibility for assessing and minimising their own exposure, increasing their resilience and adapting to periodic flooding events. Inevitably, specific communities respond differently to flooding as their capabilities to understand, identify and manage flood risk varies. Environmental justice is the framework of inquiry within which issues of power, representation and participation in planning for flood risk management are examined to consider the injustices that are experienced by communities ‘living with risk’. 

Quantitative and qualitative methods are used to investigate the extent planning is complicit in delivering flood risk management processes that can create environmentally unjust outcomes. Flood hazard maps overlaid with contextual demographic data identify who is living in at risk spaces in three case-study communities. Primary data was collected through semi-structured interviews with local government representatives and iwi, and a questionnaire to local residents was followed by interviews. 

The analysis demonstrates how the environmental justice components of distributive justice, procedural justice, justice as recognition and a capabilities approach to justice are tied together in the political and social processes of managing floods. Procedural justice is based on participatory parity so ensuring all members of the affected community are treated fairly in the deliberative and discursive decision-making is essential. Evidence revealed a community’s limited access to extensive flood risk information, unequal power sharing in decision-making and community participation, and restricted ability for disadvantaged groups to access legal processes. Distributive justice demands the use of multi-criteria analysis, rather than cost-benefit analysis, in prioritising and directing flood risk management to vulnerable communities. Using direct benefit rating to fund flood mitigation works heightens existing inequalities within communities and demands consideration of social difference in flood risk vulnerabilities. To ensure justice as recognition, local and indigenous knowledge needs to be valued and included in decision-making processes. Whilst working party arrangements are not inclusive they empower communities to be actively involved, promote trust and ownership of their local place and flood risk project. Recognition of identities and cultural practices is crucial for self-determination and minimises the marginalisation of voices. Planners need to examine social aspects of how people perceive, adapt and cope with flood risk, alongside place-based vulnerability. Policy, in embracing a capabilities approach to justice, would focus on the functionings people actually achieve rather than the opportunities. This calls for removing aggregations to look at the capabilities of individuals and communities to manage and respond to their flood risk. Judgements on planning initiatives need to be based on whether distributional outcomes enhance the capabilities of the relatively disadvantaged, thereby improving the resilience capacity of a community to manage flood risk. 

This study bridges a research gap in drawing together flood risk management, planning and environmental justice; advancing understanding of the environmental injustices within flood risk management in New Zealand.

text: The Environmental Justice Implications of the Planning Policy and Practice of Flood Risk Management in New Zealand Following an international trend, the flood defence approach historically applied in New Zealand has been superseded by a shift to flood risk management, an approach that aligns with the notion of ‘living with risk’ and devolves responsibility to risk-takers at the local level. Citizens are required to assume responsibility for assessing and minimising their own exposure, increasing their resilience and adapting to periodic flooding events. Inevitably, specific communities respond differently to flooding as their capabilities to understand, identify and manage flood risk varies. Environmental justice is the framework of inquiry within which issues of power, representation and participation in planning for flood risk management are examined to consider the injustices that are experienced by communities ‘living with risk’. 

Quantitative and qualitative methods are used to investigate the extent planning is complicit in delivering flood risk management processes that can create environmentally unjust outcomes. Flood hazard maps overlaid with contextual demographic data identify who is living in at risk spaces in three case-study communities. Primary data was collected through semi-structured interviews with local government representatives and iwi, and a questionnaire to local residents was followed by interviews. 

The analysis demonstrates how the environmental justice components of distributive justice, procedural justice, justice as recognition and a capabilities approach to justice are tied together in the political and social processes of managing floods. Procedural justice is based on participatory parity so ensuring all members of the affected community are treated fairly in the deliberative and discursive decision-making is essential. Evidence revealed a community’s limited access to extensive flood risk information, unequal power sharing in decision-making and community participation, and restricted ability for disadvantaged groups to access legal processes. Distributive justice demands the use of multi-criteria analysis, rather than cost-benefit analysis, in prioritising and directing flood risk management to vulnerable communities. Using direct benefit rating to fund flood mitigation works heightens existing inequalities within communities and demands consideration of social difference in flood risk vulnerabilities. To ensure justice as recognition, local and indigenous knowledge needs to be valued and included in decision-making processes. Whilst working party arrangements are not inclusive they empower communities to be actively involved, promote trust and ownership of their local place and flood risk project. Recognition of identities and cultural practices is crucial for self-determination and minimises the marginalisation of voices. Planners need to examine social aspects of how people perceive, adapt and cope with flood risk, alongside place-based vulnerability. Policy, in embracing a capabilities approach to justice, would focus on the functionings people actually achieve rather than the opportunities. This calls for removing aggregations to look at the capabilities of individuals and communities to manage and respond to their flood risk. Judgements on planning initiatives need to be based on whether distributional outcomes enhance the capabilities of the relatively disadvantaged, thereby improving the resilience capacity of a community to manage flood risk. 

This study bridges a research gap in drawing together flood risk management, planning and environmental justice; advancing understanding of the environmental injustices within flood risk management in New Zealand.

year: 2018