ABSTRACT
Decades of collective and cumulative work by practitioners, activists and researchers have made violence prevention an important part of international development agendas. However, violence prevention and response work addressing women and children has historically been siloed. Those working at the intersection of violence against women (VaW) and violence against children (VaC) have wrestled with the age–gender divide. Addressing the historical and political influences that underpin this divide will likely enhance progress towards more integrated strategies. This paper examines the origins and development of this polarisation and potential strategies for a more coordinated and collaborative agenda. This paper draws on the insights gained from eleven (11) semi-structured interviews conducted with key violence prevention actors in VaW and VaC from across the globe, alongside relevant published literature. Informants were purposively sampled on the basis of their expertise in the field. Findings reveal key differences and tensions between the two fields, including in collection and use of research and evidence, core conceptual frameworks, and the development, funding and implementation of policy and practice. Potential opportunities for future synergies between the two fields are highlighted, particularly through a focus on the adolescent girl.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Know Violence in Childhood initiative for encouraging us to produce this paper and providing a forum for thoughtful discussion among its scholars and practitioners. Thanks also to Susan Kelly who worked with us in the early stages of the paper, the Sydney Law School Research Assistants and interns: Shirley Huang, Judy Zhu, Maxine Malaney, Cherie Chen Ann Wen and Natalie Gouda. Thanks also to Sophie Yap, intern for the End Violence Lab [,] who pushed us over the finish line. Finally a big thanks to our informants who shared their wisdom and reflections on this important field of practice.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).