Many helpline services are available to women with experiences of violence. But what actually happens when these women call for help? Are there small things that could be changed to improve interpersonal communication between service providers and clients? Our research shows that an ordinary question about address could pose difficulties for women experiencing housing instability. Although routinely used by the institution to identify callers, the question sometimes led to personal disclosures of violence which can be retraumatising for women.
The negative impacts of gendered violence,
the barriers that prevent women from help-seeking, and the difficulties women
face being believed and getting help are well established. However, little is
known about what happens in the ‘here and now’ of interactions between support service
providers and clients. Our
research analyses naturally occurring calls for help which were audio
recorded with ethical permission from callers and call-takers. The setting is a
victim support helpline in New Zealand. We used conversation analysis to examine
in detail the sequential unfolding of talk turn by turn. For women who had
experienced violence at home, answering a routine institutional question about
address could be difficult. Housing instability is a well-known problem associated
with domestic violence and our findings originally highlight how it also
creates trouble at the micro level of social interaction with institutions
whose role is to help.
A seemingly innocuous question
At face value, the question “what’s your
address?” seems innocuous. It’s the kind of question that routinely gets asked
in a variety of institutional interactions. On the victim support helpline we
studied, call-takers asked the question to confirm callers’ details against their
casefiles. Yet our analyses reveal that the question can be difficult to answer.
Questions convey presuppositions and communicate values, assumptions, and
beliefs about the world. These assumptions are particularly problematic for
women experiencing domestic violence and housing instability.
Recurrently, women who had experienced
violence were unable to answer the address question straightforwardly. The case
below demonstrates how this interactional trouble is visible in the details of
the talk. The transcript represents both what was said and how, including
features like silences (timed in tenths of a second) and non-lexical sounds
like “um”. Capturing this level of detail makes visible what is happening at
the micro level of social interaction. For example, the first indication that
the question is not straightforward for the caller is the 1.8 seconds of
silence that follows (line 12). Usually straightforward answers to questions
come without delay. The second indication of trouble is the “um” at the
beginning of the caller’s turn (line 13).
The caller responds to the question by describing
her living situation. Housing instability is indicated by the reference to time
“at the moment” and the description of where she is “staying” (line 13) – which
is not a place of permanent residence. In her next turn (line 17), the caller
elaborates with an explanation. Accounts like this reveal how people understand
and construct their worlds. In this case, the caller treats her living
arrangements as non-normative and in need of explanation. The reason that she
does not have an address is because, like many women escaping violence, she
does not reside where she used to. The term “ex-partner” (line 17) makes it
inferentially available that the caller left her home because of violence,
which is confirmed later in the call. Thus, a routine institutional question
about address is difficult to answer for this caller and occasions an
unnecessary – albeit implicit – disclosure of violence.
Unintentional consequences of ordinary
actions
Asking for an address is a very ordinary
question that does small but important things such as confirming a caller’s
identity for institutional purposes. Our research suggests that institutions
should carefully consider how routine practices such as asking for address
might pose unintended problems for service users in vulnerable circumstances. Analyses
of what actually happens in service encounter interactions is important for empirically
grounded recommendations for the delivery of socially sensitive support.
In sum, this study shows how a global
problem of domestic violence and housing instability also becomes a trouble at
the micro level of social interaction.
About the authors
