Crossing Knowledge Boundaries in Interprofessional Collaborations

Knowledge Sharing in the Child’s Best Interest

Helene Filstad Jakobsen

Lecturer

Child Welfare Consultant, Oslo Crisis Center and Competence Center for domestic violence in close relationships.

Jakobsen has a bachelor’s in social science from the University of Bergen and a master’s in social sciences, specialization in child welfare from the Metropolitan University in Oslo. She has several years of experience in working with child welfare and cases of domestic violence against children. In her master’s thesis she studied the interprofessional collaboration between the police and child welfare service in cases of domestic violence against children.

Cathrine Filstad

Professor, PhD

Norwegian Police University College and Kristiania University College, Norway.

Filstad’s research interests are leadership and police leadership, organizational learning, knowing, and knowledge sharing in organizations, interprofessional collaboration, change management and police reforms, leadership development and police culture. She has written nine textbooks; a number of books chapters and has a substantial amount of international publication within these topics. Her publications include a number of international police journals.

Publisert 09.12.2020, Nordic Journal of Studies in Policing 2020/2, Årgang 7, side 121-136

Lesetid ca. 30 minutter

Abstract

This article investigates the interprofessional collaboration between the police and Child Welfare Service, in cases of domestic violence against children. We apply a knowledge sharing lens when exploring possible knowledge boundaries to address what constitutes a common ground and therefore a common interprofessional practice between the two professions. We found knowledge boundaries between the two professions. In particular, we identify differences in legislation, duties of confidentiality, but also sources of more complex challenges, such as: (1) different definitions of what constitutes violence and when it should be reported; and (2) different professional understandings of the best interests of the child, and the best procedures for investigating perpetrator(s), The result is a challenging division of responsibilities, which can be explained as limited knowledge sharing, limited knowledge of each other’s professional roles, and a lack of confidence in the competence of professional counterparts. We argue that the knowledge boundaries between the professions could be reduced through the development of joint knowledge sharing practices. This would mean that each profession’s knowledge would have to be translated as meaningful and respected. Knowledge sharing has the ultimate aim of transforming each profession’s own professional knowledge and thus developing mutual knowledge in an interprofessional practice.

Keywords

  • interprofessional collaboration
  • knowledge sharing
  • knowledge boundaries
  • police
  • Child Welfare Service

Introduction

In cases where children are at risk of domestic violence, the Child Welfare Service and the police are subject to a statutory duty of interprofessional collaboration (Norwegian Ministry of Justice and Public Security 2013). The establishment of the national network of Children’s Houses has focused greater attention on interprofessional collaboration between the police and the Child Welfare Services (NOU [Norwegian Official Report] 2017: 12). Their mandate is to act in children’s best interests, securing their legal rights and ensuring that domestic violence is investigated and prosecuted (NOU 2017: 12). The Children’s Houses operate under the auspices of the police, who are responsible for the forensic interviews and where the purpose of co-locating different agencies in Children’s Houses is to ensure a high level of interprofessional competence in safeguarding children (Gamst, 2017).

Interprofessional collaboration is the most complex form of boundary-crossing collaboration, where expertise and problem solving needs to be socially, relationally and culturally distributed (Axelsson & Axelsson, 2009; Edwards, Daniels, Gallagher, Leadbetter & Warmington, 2009; Måseide, 2008). For instance, the long-term caring intervention of the child services and the police’s controlling intervention of prosecution of the offender creates difficulties in establishing a common interprofessional ground in the best interest of the child (Rodger, 2012; Sherif, 2015). Policy guidelines build, however, on assumptions that a shared understanding of how to implement these policies of safeguarding children will happen automatically (Hudson, 2007).

The interprofessional collaboration literature, often dominated by research on interprofessional team in health services, shows that different professions will have own expectations and priorities (Lauvås & Lauvås 2004) and express concerns about the fear of professional autonomy and uniqueness being lost (Gopee & Galloway, 2009; Pihl, 2011). The multi-agency coordination literature often dominates police research on networks that prevent crime or multi-agency investigation networks (Strype, Gundhus, Egge & Ødegård, 2014; Meyer & Mazerolle, 2014). The literature also identifies the importance of interpersonal trust, transparency and bridging organizational boundaries to pool their powers, as tensions over interest and priorities may cause competitions between professions (Bjelland & Vestby, 2017; Fleming & Rhodes, 2005; Whelan, 2015). Interprofessional collaboration can be perceived as an opportunity for coordinated efforts and expertise (Gilling, 2005), but also represent conflicting role boundary issues, expertise and differences in status, scope of practice, accountability and professional hierarchy rather than equal footing (Barrett & Keeping, 2005; Brown et al., 2010; Gopee & Galloway, 2009). The need for recognising power relations to ensure equal distribution of group influence, managing differences, sharing expertise, mutual beneficial goals and personal gain of value, common skills, trust, respect, supportive communication, are all argued as important for interprofessional collaboration/multi-agency coordination (Fleming & Rhodes, 2005; Horwath & Morrison, 2007; San Martín-Rodriguez, Beaulieu, D’Amour, & Ferrada-Videla, 2005; Strype et al., 2014; Thomson, Outram, Gilligan & Levett-Jones, 2015; Whelan, 2015; Widmark, Sandahl, Piuva & Bergman, 2016). Evidence of successful multi-agency coordination involves greater opportunities to use suitable legal tools in criminal prosecutions to ease the work load for the police (Mazerolle & Ransley, 2006), or facilitate pragmatic approaches for more effective police work (O’Neill & McCarty, 2014) or facilitate more information sharing across organization to increase the efficiency of law enforcement (Plecas et al., 2011).

Previous mentioned studies have demonstrated for instance the importance of information sharing, internal dynamics, communication, motivation, interpersonal trust, influence, managing differences and sharing expertise and influence in collaborative work, where most of them call for further research. However, the acknowledgement of interprofessional practices as cross-disciplinary competencies through knowledge sharing and how to reduce professional knowledge boundaries (Brown & Duguid, 1991; Carlile, 2002, 2004) is limited beyond some talk about expertise or organizational boundaries. Hence, we respond to the call for more research on interprofessional collaboration through a knowledge sharing lens. Our aim is to investigate, using a knowledge sharing lens, possible knowledge boundaries in interprofessional collaboration and how knowledge boundaries influence the creation of an interprofessional practice. The collaborative professional practice between the child care services and the police, will simultaneously need to protect each profession’s area of responsibility, to maintain the competences particular to each profession, and to develop a new collaborative competence in a new practice (Willumsen, 2016).

Knowledge sharing for interprofessional collaboration

In managing knowledge across boundaries of different professions, Carlile’s (2002) integrated framework distinguishes between (1) information processing boundaries, (2) interpretive boundaries and (3) the need for pragmatic/political boundaries, as crucial for knowledge sharing and creating a common ground for the development of interprofessional practices (Bechky, 2003; Carlile, 2004). Interprofessional practice suggests that each profession’s competences can be combined and integrated in different ways (Willumsen, 2016), also identified through the “third context” where collaboration and knowledge sharing are perceived as activities unfolding in a context of their own (Thomassen, 2011). The common ground of competence as requirement for interprofessional collaboration (Barr, Koppel, Reeves, Hammick & Freeth, 2005) provides a third context (Thomassen, 2011), where professions not only share knowledge, but also access each other’s knowledge, and where this effort provides common knowledge and practice (Carlile, 2004).

Crossing knowledge boundaries is particular challenging in hierarchical practices with unequal status, boundaries interventions, power differences, and where knowledge and information may be unevenly distributed to maintain positions and secure own interests (Barrett & Keeping, 2005; Brown et al., 2010; Rodger, 2012; Wang & Noe, 2010; Weick & Ashford, 2000). Properties of knowledge and the relative complexity of a boundary, Carlile (2004) describes as (1) differences in the amount and type of knowledge that needs to be shared and accessed to increase total knowledge, (2) dependence so that differences will have consequences in creating a common knowledge ground and (3) novelty (uncertainty) that recognizes the need for the development of an adequate common knowledge.

Collaborative competence is a prerequisite for knowledge sharing, where sharing of tacit knowledge based on for instance situational judgement requires common observation and mutual practice, as opposed to explicit knowledge (Filstad, 2016; Polanyi, 1966). For example, a forensic interview of a child will provide an opportunity to share tacit knowledge and knowledge arising from accrued experience in relation to knowing what form interviews should take, and which questions need to be adapted to fit the specific child and case. Hence, knowledge sharing between the police service and the Child Welfare Service should not be limited to only explicit knowledge and information being shared. Exploiting both tacit and explicit knowledge and therefore each other’s strengths, the interprofessional practice will be able to utilize the knowledge to increase a great deal of competence and expertise (Filstad, 2016; Glavin & Erdal, 2018; Widmark et al., 2016).

Carlile (2004) points to the necessary pre-conditions for sharing knowledge across the knowledge boundaries described earlier. In its simplest form, knowledge sharing takes place by transferring and storing knowledge directly, as information processing. In our context, this would involve, for instance, the Child Welfare Service providing the police service with explicit information about a matter or case, and the police service making a note of this. The next level of knowledge sharing is to translate knowledge that is transferred between the various parties. Translation here means ensuring that the specific knowledge is meaningful to the involved parties in the cross-professional community. In our context, this means that the knowledge the Child Welfare Service is able to explain or demonstrate is meaningful to the police, i.e. the knowledge is of relevance to what the police service finds to be important. However, the prerequisite for knowledge sharing across knowledge domains is the transformation of knowledge. In our context, this means that in addition to the knowledge being meaningful to the police service, it should also be accepted and become part of interprofessional competence and provide ground for a third context. Transformed knowledge, through the sharing of knowledge between the police service and the Child Welfare Service, will thus create a common understanding and acceptance of what constitutes the necessary comprehensive knowledge across the professions.

Trust, that refers to “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable” (Abrams, Cross, Lesser & Levin, 2003, p. 139) is known to be crucial for collaborative work in general (Horwath & Morrison, 2007; Vangen & Huxham, 2009) and knowledge sharing in particular (Abrams et al., 2003; Filstad, 2016). Trust means one can be vulnerable in the sense that one can be forthcoming without having to control what one says and does to ensure it is as expected. Interprofessional collaboration between the police service and the Child Welfare Service based on trust will thus be characterized by the parties trusting that the respective actors have sufficient knowledge, abilities and goodwill, and that individuals act in the best interests of the interprofessional practice.

Methodology

The study relied on explorative qualitative studies, where we conducted eight semi-structured interviews, four from the police and four from the Child Welfare Service and the Child Welfare Emergency Unit, including one working in a Children’s House. Our requirements were informants with collaborative experiences from respectively the police or the Child Welfare Service regarding cases of domestic violence against children. First, in order to recruit informants, we used our network in getting access to the first informants. Then, these informants gave us information about people they either had worked together with or knew about that fulfilled the required experience. We called these people and ended up with a total of eight informants considered suitable to serve the purpose of our study:

  1. Police informants The two women and two men all have long experience working with investigations involving cases of domestic violence against children. They are all aged between 40 and 50 years old. They were experienced in collaborating with the Child Welfare Services in Oslo and have long experience in conducting forensic interviews with children. They have experience from Oslo Police District, South-East Police District, West Police District and Tromsø Police District.

  2. Child welfare informants The two women and one man all have long experience, first and foremost on taking action and arrangements for children who are being abused in domestic violence. Age is between 40–55 years old. They were all skilled on collecting data and making analysis about the child and the child’s domestic circumstances and conditions for their welfare and upbringing. For the most, their experiences were from Oslo, Akershus, Buskerud and Østfold. They all had long experience working in cooperation with the Children’s House, other arrangements before that and had long experience with working together with the police.

  3. Child Welfare Emergency Unit informant This informant was male. His responsibility was helping children, youngsters and their families in crises. He also has long experience in cooperating with the police, mostly working in Oslo.

Our recruitment method was “snowball” sampling (Thagaard, 2013), as we started with a few informants, one recommended to us by the Police University College and two from the Child Welfare Services that we knew of, where these informants recommended possible new informants.

To ensure that our informants would describe their perceptions of experiences, interpretations and meaning of the interprofessional collaboration, we found that semi-structured interviews would best serve this purpose (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2017).

We utilized two interview guides, one for each profession, with themes and some supporting questions. The themes we wanted our informants to focus on were moreover their experiences with the interprofessional collaborations, knowledge about the other profession and the profession’s responsibilities, established routines and processes of knowledge sharing between the police and Child Welfare Service, experiences of collaborative knowledge-sharing and communication, attitudes towards violence, when to involve the other profession and when for the Child Welfare Service to report concerns about a child’s welfare to the police, differences and dilemmas to ensure own profession’s responsibilities, common goals, trust in the other profession’s competence, etc. We were explorative in how we collected our data, moving back and forward between theories, data and analysis, and adjusted our interview guides accordingly. We found that explorative and inductive studies were necessary due to limited research on this topic, including the limitation of theories on interprofessional collaboration.

All interviews were fully transcribed and after several “read-throughs” organized and “coded” in NVivo. Open and axial forms of coding were used to identify categories (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Using the techniques of grounded theory provided us with open categories, mostly as a way of organizing our data. For instance, instead of making choices on whether what our informants describe can be understood as trust, acceptance or even problem solving, we included their explanations under all three categories. Hence, we only use grounded theory as a technique for our data to be analyzed iteratively, as an inductive study. As researchers we therefore did go back and forth between the transcripts, coded data and theoretical literature in order to further develop and refine our insights, ending up with the three categories that we find general enough to include other smaller categories to be integrated within, and also, the three categories created a pattern of what we found to be most important in accordance with our approach (knowledge sharing and knowledge boundaries) and research question.

The results and our analysis are integrated in the next section as results and discussions. Our interviewees are referred to as P1, P2, P3 and P4 (the police) and CWS1, CWS2, CWS and CWEU (the Child Welfare Service and the Child Welfare Emergency Unit).

Results and Discussion

Developing an interprofessional practice

It appears that the police service has more clarity about their own responsibilities vis-à-vis the Child Welfare Service than the Child Welfare Service has about their responsibilities vis-à-vis the police. A police service interviewee explained that “the Child Welfare Services must safeguard the child and the child’s best interests, (…) The role of the police is of course to seek, gather and secure information that can be used to prepare a criminal case and that can be presented in court” (P4). The knowledge boundaries between the long-term care of the child interventions and controlling interventions of prosecution, might challenge an interprofessional practice (Rodger, 2012). Interviewees from the Child Welfare Service refer to internal discussions about these challenges posed by the blurring of areas of responsibility, including what happens after a forensic interview and who is responsible for reuniting children with their families. One interviewee explained:

The police run the show right up until then, deciding whether the parents should be brought in for questioning and whether the children should be interviewed.... it’s often a bit late in the afternoon, in the evening, no one wants to carry on working, and it’s been somewhat the case that the police say that we don’t have the expertise to deal with this... We think that it would be natural for the police or the Children’s House to conclude the situation in a reasonable manner with the people involved, but they [the police] often think that it’s then we should get involved. (CWS1)

The need for equal footing and accountability, as opposed to the fear of lost autonomy and professional uniqueness (Barrett & Keeping, 2005; Gopee & Galloway, 2009) is recognized here, as the police “runs the show”. The police, as sometimes argued in the literature, rely more on dominated powers, which is argued to not always be in the best interest of the child (Rodger, 2012) The Child Welfare Service, on the other hand, tends to moreover avoid confrontations out of fear of causing discomfort (Brown et al., 2010). This is the case in our studies, that the Child Welfare Service tends to confront colleagues internally instead, which creates uncertainty about whether they should report situations to the police or not. One interviewee explains this in the following way:

I often think the police believe they can decide what we should do and how things should be done. I think many people think the same, equally in other Child Welfare Services. We have to do what we think is right in relation to our profession, and then we can report situations where we think it is the right thing to do that, and then the police can do their job. (CWS3)

Blaming each other and perceived interpretation of differences in status, is a critical hindrance to a joint enterprise (Atkins, 2018), instead of professional differences and mutual dependence being acknowledged (Carlile, 2004), which is evident in our studies too. It indicates that the respective areas of responsibility are challenged by unequal distribution of influence and limited perceived value of the interprofessional collaboration, that is needed (Strype et al., 2014). This was accordingly emphasized by one of the police service interviewees:

In many cases, we feel that the Child Welfare Service could have been more thorough in their assessment in advance of reporting a case to us. Sometimes we just have to say, ‘There’s not enough here for us to start a criminal case – can you make a more detailed report first? (P3).

At the same time, the interviewees have pointed out that a lot has happened through the cases they have been working on in recent years. They have gained more knowledge of each other’s professional fields through courses and other forums. One interviewee explains:

An incredible amount has been done in recent years regarding how we work with these cases. We used to report very little before, but when we started reporting more and started having forensic interviews it was like – Stop! – then the Child Welfare Service had to stop everything they were doing, and couldn’t continue until the police had finished their interview (...), and then it became the police’s case. (CWS1)

Several interviewees express the view that their work comes to a halt when cases are reported to the police, even though they understand that the police need to do their job as well. The Child Welfare Emergency Unit refers to the collaboration routines that have been negotiated between the professions and which describe laws, distribution of responsibilities, roles and checklists, including forensic interviews when working on cases. However, not everyone is familiar with the collaboration routines, and thus the child welfare interviewees explain that they look forward to the national guidelines to be implemented soon:

We find that the collaboration can be challenging, so we look forward to having routines (…). You know ... that’s how we should do it and that’s how the police should do it. And what we are required to do by law, if the police ask us (to do something). And it’s possible to say no to the police, if we disagree with the way it should be done. (CWS2)

Knowledge of each other’s areas, but also access to each other’s knowledge provides the existence of common knowledge and responsibilities that will form the collaboration (Carlile, 2004; Handegård & Berg, 2018; Lauvås & Lauvås, 2004). The prerequisites for sharing knowledge will not be met by solely adhering to statutory routines for collaboration, where implementation will happen automatically (Hudson, 2007), which is for the most relied upon in our studies. So, when our informants refer to communication, getting to know each other, trust, and knowing how the professions work and so on, it might not be “evidence of adopting to an interprofessional persona. Atkins (2018) found that professionals, even though they had a good understanding of each other’s professions, they seek to maintain professional identity. That might very well be the case among our informants too, that relying on different interpretations is a way of protecting their professional identity.

Understanding problems and trust

Problem solving, decision-making, and mutual beneficial goals provide a common interprofessional ground of collaboration (Glavin & Erdal, 2018; Sherif, 2015). Our interviewees point out that collaboration in order to reach a common understanding of a specific problem is often person-dependent, because the various laws and regulations are practised differently, and because the parties are proactive to varying degrees in their collaboration. In this context, it seems that the police service informants’ experience is that there are varying child welfare practices, rather than the opposite. One police informant explains:

They do not have a different approach to the laws in the sense that they work with the same regulations and frameworks, but their practices can differ to some extent. Our experience is that some may wait too long, and are perhaps passive ... Some Child Welfare Services are more experienced with cases involving the police than are other Child Welfare Services. (P2)

All the police service interviewees mention that practices can be “person-dependent”, that is, they differ depending on the people involved. The police service interviewees also point to the fact that the Child Welfare Service has received criticism in the media in recent years and they have therefore noticed an increase in the number of cases reported.

It is often very dependent on the persons involved, even though we may be two different professions with slightly different work tasks, we are still completely dependent on having people who can manage to talk and collaborate with each other. (P4)

Interprofessional collaboration is known to be the most complex form of boundary-crossing collaboration (Axelsson & Axelsson, 2009; Edwards et al., 2009). This becomes evident in our study, where attitudes, working methods, experiences, professional language, and not least the exercise of professional judgement, together indicated a high level of complexity. It’s not only about the sharing of explicit, “one recipe” knowledge, but mostly about tacit knowledge, and – most crucially – a sense of mutual trust, which Abrams et al. (2003) and Carlile (2004) argue to be crucial for communication and knowledge sharing.

Our informants point to the common goal of safeguarding the children’s best interests, and the police service informants clearly state that: “we will never disregard what is best for the child” just because the police are fully required to conduct their investigation” (P2). The Child Welfare Emergency Unit also points out that “the police are extra careful and protective when there are children in the involved” (CWEU). Not having enough knowledge of each other’s working methods and competence is a recurring view amongst the interviewees of both professions, however. For instance, one police service informant says the following: “I need to know what the Child Welfare Service are thinking, because if I believe that the children are not safe in relation to what the Child Welfare Service are doing, then I have (in some cases), for example, issued a restraining order” (P2).

Interprofessional collaboration rests on trust in each other’s profession and competencies (Horwath & Morrison 2007; Widmark et al., 2016). The lack of trust between the professions might explain why we find the professions have different attitudes towards domestic violence (and how they define it); that is, what is considered best for the child, on the one hand, and what is necessary when the police need to investigate a case and ensure there is no “loss of evidence”, on the other hand. For instance, one of the Child Welfare Service informants justifies talking to the child before the police have conducted their forensic interview:

In the Child Welfare Service we talk to very many children and we know that if you talk to children in a good way then it is perhaps the opposite (to what you might expect) that one can get more information, because the child becomes more ready to tell you. (Also) that children will tell you about difficult things more than once – and that’s not harmful either. (CWS1)

However, the police often consider matters differently:

I think it’s very peculiar you know – that when children tell (you) that they have been exposed to (domestic) violence – that someone in the Child Welfare Service can sit there and consider it to be only a trifling matter – ‘so we won’t report this to the police’ – and then they start a huge investigation themselves, and actually do some of their own investigative work – and then you never know if it is a big or small case you are investigating. In fact, it’s a pretty big challenge. (P1)

It can in some way harm the criminal proceedings, you know, because then the “cat is out of the bag” ... Because the point of (police) questioning is that we do not notify the parents beforehand that we intend to carry out questioning or that we have possible suspects ... The police’s job is to question and investigate objectively in a completely different way from that of the Child Welfare Service. (P2)

A prerequisite for sharing knowledge is that the two professions have confidence in each other’s competence, and hence that they are able to trust each other (Abrams et al., 2003). It is equally important that they have joint discussions and reflect on each other’s views concerning what is the best for the child. P2 explains: “If the Child Welfare Service has to get involved with regard to what is best for the child, then of course this is the most important issue – so then we have a dialogue beforehand”. The challenge for the Child Welfare Service seems to be whether or not to report situations and what consequences this might have, that is to say, whether it will be in the best interests of the child. One informant explains:

It’s most important that the violence ceases, not that mom and dad are punished. Yes, you beat your kid. Yes, it’s against the law. But it’s not them who should be punished ... It’s those who deny being violent, who hide the violence, those who continue to be violent and instruct their children to hide what is going on. They’re the ones who should be punished. (CWS1)

Several of the Child Welfare Service informants agree with this citation and state that they want to help the parents to find alternative solutions and ways to raise their children. They explain that this is their duty. If they can put an end to domestic violence by implementing their own measures, then they do not necessarily need to report cases to the police. One of the Child Welfare Service interviewees expresses the view that the police often drop cases that have been reported, and that there are very few cases that actually end up being prosecuted in the criminal justice system. This results in even more dilemmas and discussions internally in the Child Welfare Service; one interviewee explains:

It goes from case to case – and from what I know there is a lot of disagreement about what should be reported and what shouldn’t. Because some think that everything should be reported no matter what. In other words, if it’s a question of (domestic) violence, and no matter how serious it is, then the police should take care of it. While others think that’s not always what is in the best of the child, and the family. (CWS2)

One police service interviewee also points to some uncertainty:

It’s difficult weighing up things in a way – you know, what’s right and wrong. We should investigate cases according to the law, but does the result benefit the child, or is it what is best for the child? It’s difficult. (P1)

We find that trust between the professions is a challenge for their collaborative work. To facilitate knowledge sharing across professions, trust is necessary in order to develop collaboration through communication, reflection and understanding of each other’s areas of responsibility and tasks (Lund, 2018; Vangen & Huxham, 2009; Vorland & Skjørten, 2017). This becomes clear in our studies when the police view it as being harmful to their investigation if the Child Welfare Service start their own investigation, before the police have carried out a forensic interview, so that the child has “done with talking” (about an abuse allegation) by the time the police want to conduct their interview. This becomes even more evident when collaboration is challenged by different deadlines, and when criminal proceedings are dropped by the police. When it is suspected that a child has been subjected to domestic violence, it is imperative that the respective professions have an open relationship, in order to use and exploit each other’s expertise (Gamst, 2017).

The interprofessional collaboration is largely characterized by information sharing rather than knowledge sharing, and therefore does not challenge the professions’ knowledge boundaries, as we would argue to be crucial for their collaboration. Instead, the two professions’ competencies consequently represent the various contributions that the Child Welfare Service and the police achieve separately and not as collective competence (Willumsen, 2016) to create a third interprofessional context (Thomassen, 2011). Instead, we argue that the professions’ knowledge should be “translated” to a greater extent, by creating meaning for those involved; and the knowledge should then be transformed, and thereby accepted. This is where we find that the potential lies. However, it is now perceived that some of the knowledge boundaries between the professions have become less rigid, through working together, sharing experiences and so on; this has enabled an increased understanding of each other’s tasks, especially in connection with the work being done at the Children’s Houses.

Crossing knowledge boundaries through knowledge sharing

The transformation of knowledge concerns acceptance and meaning making to create necessary comprehensive knowing and acceptance of what constitutes the interprofessional practice. Knowledge sharing is crucial, both in relation to one’s own practices and the practices of the collaborating professions together (Carlile, 2004), including sharing tacit knowledge, and must not be misconceived as information sharing. Knowledge sharing will typically involve possibilities for reflection, communication and discussions of possibilities and being open to the respective professions’ use of discretion. The impact of professional cultures, organizational structures and hierarchy (Horwath & Morrison, 2007; Widmark et al., 2016) need to be addressed, but also scope of practice, accountability and time/overload (Brown et al., 2010). For instance, the need for knowledge sharing between the Child Welfare Service and the police is critical because there are different attitudes towards domestic violence. Thus, it will be easier to assess the aspects of problems when the Child Welfare Service can receive advice from the police in advance. One of the police service interviewees explains:

We have collaborated and are probably influenced by each other’s discussions and assessments, and some have consulting teams, where you can discuss things anonymously – and then you might end up being a little more on the same level, compared to where you were before. I don’t know, but it’s just something I believe. (P2)

It is a common belief that joint discussions and consultation teams can make a positive contribution. Similarly, it has been shown that there are several possibilities for improved communication. Improved communication will, one informant argues, increase understanding of each other’s tasks, and our assessment is that it will also provide a better understanding of why the deadlines for forensic interviews are decided at such short notice:

It’s also challenging in terms of capacity, because we’re informed about the interviews at such short notice. Last time it happened, I had to cancel four appointments, because we only got to know about it the day before ... Right from when we make a decision on whether we should report (a situation) or not, and further on in the case, we have some principles according to which we work, and they have others. (...) the way it has been up until now is that their principles supersede ours, and that we have to follow what they do – and that is, in the end, very hard, because you feel you’re compromising what you think is best for the child. (…) Seeing that the child doesn’t ... (have it so good), or is perhaps even worse off, because we have to follow what they do. (CWS2)

The interprofessional collaboration is based on an interdependent relationship that here becomes clear. In our assessment, the deadlines, which are required by law, do not take this into account. In practice, this also results in the Child Welfare Service sometimes having to halt their activities, if the police do not have sufficient capacity to meet to deadlines. Rather than notifying the Child Welfare Service that they cannot meet deadlines the experience of the Child Welfare Service is that they:

have to straighten things out, both in terms of the situations, and with the police ... the police only have to say ... we can’t manage this now ... so you don’t have to wait, and then an understanding would emerge, yes, the criminal case procedures are important and the child’s legal protection is important, but the child’s here and now living conditions are also important, so that mutual respect for each other’s tasks would probably improve, so that we can be somehow more reconciled (to the importance of each other’s responsibilities). (CWS1)

The police service interviewees do not refer to non-compliance of deadlines in the same way as the Child Welfare Service interviewees:

We have strict deadlines now (…) one to two weeks’ deadlines, sometimes three, but the most serious cases, then it’s one week. And where I work, we’re quite observant of the deadlines ... It’s best that we decide together what should be done, and sometimes we decide not to conduct a (forensic) interview; the Child Welfare Service can then get involved and find out what has happened in the family, and then they have free rein to do their job. But the most important thing is just to agree on who does what. (P2)

In addition, there are also opportunities to meet to share knowledge about how they work. For instance, P1 explains that we need to understand how they work, why they do what they do, and which considerations they need to pay attention to. The interviewees from the Child Welfare Services all point to the great potential for more knowledge sharing and that the Children’s Houses have contributed positively:

I think we have both gained more knowledge and respect for each other’s fields … Being available to each other and having time for each other is important for collaboration. (…) However, it’s a problem that the domestic violence section in the police service often has a lot of other things to do than answer the phone when the Child Welfare Service call them ... we can spend a lot of time trying to get hold of someone in the police service to discuss matters. (CWS1)

We often know too little about each other’s work tasks, but it’s better now that we have been able to meet each other at the Children’s Houses in connection with the (forensic) interviews, so we are now both more informed about what work tasks we have and which laws we have to relate to. We learn more about each other’s roles, so I think that the interprofessional collaboration has improved a lot after the Children’s Houses came into the picture. (P2)

We find that the police are asking for more clarity about how the Child Welfare Service works. Not least because lack of knowledge can have serious consequences for those involved, and it can also be detrimental to accomplishing the tasks for which they are individually responsible. In the same way as discussed above, regarding the Child Welfare Service looking forward to working with the new national guidelines regarding collaboration, the police service interviewees believe that the respective professions should be legally bound to collaborate with each other from day one. This would mean there was no choice, because if there is a choice: “then you always have some “know-all”, whether it’s someone in the police service or the Child Welfare Service, that thinks that they can do everything themselves”. (P1)

However, such a legal framework also requires the development of good methods of collaboration – a point which all the interviewees are aware of. There is continual reference to the need for the opportunity to discuss and agree on solutions. The police service also seem to lack trust in the Child Welfare Service, which one of the police service informants expresses in the following way:

Although we have great respect for the legal framework they work within, we find that very many children are placed very quickly back in the home. It is perhaps more a question of the provisions they work under ... the fact that three children tell us in an interview that their parents beat them is perhaps not serious enough for a placement (e.g. in a foster home, or other alternative) ... if the police decide to apprehend both parents and place them in custody, then the Child Welfare Service will have no choice. Then they will have to find somewhere where they can place the children or find a caregiver for the children. In order to avoid having to press each other into such acute situations, it is therefore very important that the parties involved talk to each other beforehand. (P2)

The Child Welfare Service does not have any direct role in the forensic interviews that are carried out in the Children’s Houses, but they do have the right to be there in an observer role until the interview has been completed and the parties are then able to participate in a meeting afterwards. In this meeting, the respective parties discuss what will happen to the child. All the police service interviewees describe the forensic interviews as providing an excellent opportunity for the Child Welfare Service to familiarise themselves with cases and also where they can save a lot of resources, if the Child Welfare Service makes use of this opportunity. They will also receive first-hand information that will enable them to implement measures effectively afterwards. Nevertheless, it does seem that the Child Welfare Service does not always attend when the forensic interviews with children are being conducted; the police service interviewees state that this is unfortunate and makes collaboration difficult.

The interviewees emphasise the importance of these meetings in enabling all parties to be better equipped and prepared for interview days, as well as making the situation the best for the child. These meetings are therefore a good starting point for knowledge sharing, by giving the players access to each other’s knowledge, and thereby increasing knowledge of and respect for each other’s tasks by talking together, as well as working closely and solving tasks together. The fact that the Child Welfare Service does not prioritize attending the forensic interviews is regarded as problematic by the police service. It seems to be an inhibitory factor for collaboration, as the police have facilitated the Child Welfare Service’s direct access to police work, which can provide the Child Welfare Service with first-hand information; this will, in turn, allow them to implement effective measures afterwards. Lack of understanding of each other’s priorities indicates a lack of knowledge sharing, and thus a lack of transformation of knowledge to enable joint professional practice. The interviewees expressed the need for more arenas for knowledge sharing, not least where there is an opportunity to reflect on discretionary assessments, to acquire an understanding of the different roles of the professions and together to reach a common understanding of problems and thus solutions. This will provide the necessary collaborative competence that builds on the mutual knowledge of each other’s competence and mutual trust in this competence, which is the very foundation of interprofessional collaboration; and thus crucial to achieving common goals, what is best for the child, as well as essential to conducting the necessary criminal prosecutions.

Conclusion

In this article, we have discussed interprofessional collaboration between the police and the Child Welfare Service, in cases of domestic violence against children. We applied a knowledge sharing lens and explored possible knowledge boundaries in interprofessional collaboration between the two professions and how these knowledge boundaries influence the creation of a interprofessional practice.

We identified a number of knowledge boundaries, but also initiatives with positive experiences of collaborations that have developed in which particular personnel from the two agencies have become dependent on each other, and/or have become closer to each other, with better knowledge of each other’s professions through experience. Also, the establishment of the Children’s Houses is experienced as positive.

Our concern is their willingness to rely on laws and regulations that moreover forces collaborative work. We understand their optimism concerning new statutory laws due to different legislation, deadlines and duties of confidentiality applicable to the two professions. We are not, however, sharing their optimism that collaborative challenges could be resolved through statutory requirements for collaboration and the adoption of new guidelines for interprofessional collaboration. Instead, we argue for the need of acknowledging interprofessional collaboration as complex, where time, effort, motivation, accountability, trust in professional knowledge, needs to be created through knowledge sharing and thus, transformation of knowledge to create a new interprofessional practice.

We find that sources of more fundamental and complex challenges were: (1) different definitions of what constitutes violence and when and/or to what extent situations involving violence should be reported to and/or investigated by the police; and (2) different professional understandings of the problems, and thus different understanding of what constitutes shared knowledge regarding what measures are in the best interests of the child, and what are the best procedures for investigating perpetrator(s). Accordingly, the result is a somewhat blurred and challenging division of responsibilities between the two different professions, which the parties suggest is the result of insufficient communication, little knowledge of each other’s professional roles, and sometimes a lack of confidence in the competence of professional counterparts. It will take time to develop a joint professional practice and doing so will demand commitment and, not least, time and resources. We also believe that the interprofessional collaboration is especially challenged as we consider the knowledge boundaries strong as each profession maintains its own practice rather than adapting to and creating an interprofessional one. This is typical in early development stages (Carlile, 2004). Collaborative work requires the transformation that involves parties to be pragmatic in accounting for differences, dependence and novelty of joint competence in the form of joint professional practice. More opportunities for and facilitation for knowledge sharing will provide necessary common ground where our interviewees explain that they had the motivation to adapt, discuss and reflect on the competences of the other profession.

It is important to consider the positivity expressed about Children’s Houses and to consider the provision of more such houses. This might further improve interprofessional accessibility, and hence, opportunities for knowledge sharing, where our interviewees viewed the accessing of the other profession knowledge as challenging. The same applies to the areas that are becoming available for reflection between the Child Welfare Service and the police; for example, the period before the Child Welfare Service decides to report a situation to the police. We find that more research is necessary given the challenges of transforming knowledge, reducing knowledge boundaries between professions, all to succeed in creating a new interprofessional practice.

Methodological and ethical reflections

The number of informants is eight, where other research on interprofessional collaboration is limited in general and even less studies have looked at the interprofessional collaboration between the Child Welfare Service and the police. Hence, we are careful in how we use our data in our analysis where we rely mostly on discussions and potentials for further collaborations. As such our study might serve as a pre-study but where we also introduce a knowledge sharing lens as well as the importance of knowledge boundaries in how to develop new interprofessional collaborations addressing these challenges.

Interprofessional collaboration is complex and somewhat difficult for the informants to express (point to) possible hindrances and possibilities. We were also very much aware of the seriousness of the cases, children being abused and the child and the families being in crisis, and therefore the involvement of the emotional challenges for the professionals involved. We have therefore prepared our informants on what questions we wanted to ask in advance, and we did not ask them about the cases or in any way challenge them on what they did not want to talk about, and we told them that they could withdraw from the interview anytime they wanted. We also protect their anonymity in how we present our data and deleted the data set after completing the data analysis.

References

  • Abrams, L.C., Cross, R., Lesser, E. & Levin, D.Z. (2003). Nurturing interpersonal trust in knowledge-sharing networks. Academy of Management Executive, 17(4), 64–77. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2003.11851845
  • Atkins, C.A.V. (2018). Perceptions of professional identity and interprofessional working in children’s services. (PhD thesis). Kingston University.
  • Axelsson, S.B. & Axelsson, R. (2009). Altruisme i tverrprofesjonelt samarbeid og ledelse. In: Willumsen, E. (Ed.), Tverrprofesjonelt samarbeid i praksis og utdanning (p. 104–115). Universitetsforlaget.
  • Barr, H., Koppel, I., Reeves, S., Hammick, M., & Freeth, D. (2005). Effective Interprofessional Education: Argument, Assumption and Evidence. Blackwell.
  • Barrett, G., Sellman, D., & Thomas, J. (Eds.) (2005). Interprofessional Working in Health and Social Care. Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Bechky, B.A. (2003). Sharing meaning across occupational communities: the transformation of understanding on a production floor. Organization Science 14(3), 312–330. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.3.312.15162 
  • Bjelland, H.F. & Vestby, A. (2017). It’s about using the full sanction catalogue: On boundary negotiations in a multi-agency organised crime investigation. Policing and Society. 27(6), 655–670. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429060687-5
  • Brown, J.S. & Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and organization: A social-practice perspective. Organization Science. 12(2), 198–213. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.2.198.10116
  • Brown, J., Lewis, L., Ellis, K., Stewart, M., Freeman, T.R., & Kaperski, M.J. (2010). Conflict of interprofessional primary health care teams – can it be resolved. Journal of Inter- professional Care. 25(1), 4–10. https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2010.497750
  • Carlile, P.R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442–455. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.4.442.2953
  • Carlile, P.R. (2004). Transferring, translating and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555–568. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0094
  • Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (3rd ed.). Sage.
  • Edwards, A., Daniels, H., Gallagher, T., Leadbetter, J., & Warmington, P. (Eds). (2009). Improving Inter-professional Collaborations: Multi-agency Working for Children's Wellbeing. Routledge.
  • Filstad, C. (2016). Organisasjonslæring: Fra kunnskap til kompetanse. (2nd ed.). Fagbokforlaget.
  • Fleming, J. & Rhodes, R.A.W. (2005). Bureaucracy, contracts and networks: The unholy trinity and the police. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology. 38(2), 192–215. https://doi.org/10.1375/acri.38.2.192
  • Gamst, K. (2017). Profesjonelle barnesamtaler. Å ta barn på alvor. (2nd ed.). Universitetsforlaget.
  • Gilling, D. (2005). Partnership and crime prevention. In N. Tilley (Ed.). Handbook of Crime Prevention and Community Safety (p. 734–756). Willan Publishing.
  • Glavin, K. & Erdal, B. (2018). Tverrfaglig samarbeid i praksis. Til beste for barn og unge i kommune-Norge. Kommuneforlaget.
  • Gopee, N. & Galloway, J. (2009). Leadership and Management in Healthcare. Sage.
  • Handegård, T.L. & Berg, C.R. (2018). Politiets forebyggende innsats i tverrfaglig og tverretatlig samarbeid. In B. Johannessen, B., & T. Skotheim, T. (Eds.). Barn og unge i midten. Tverrfaglig og tverretatlig arbeid i barn og unges oppvekst (p. 279–305). Gyldendal Akademisk.
  • Horwath, J. & Morrison, T. (2011). Effective inter-agency collaboration to safeguard children: Rising to the challenge through collective development. Children and Youth Services Review. 33(2). 368–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.10.002
  • Hudson, B. (2007). Pessimism and optimism in inter-professional working: The Sedgefield Integrated Team. Journal of Interprofessional Care. 21(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820600991850
  • Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2017). Det kvalitative forskningsintervj (3rd ed.). Gyldendal Akademisk.
  • Lauvås, K. & Lauvås, P. (2004). Tverrfaglig samarbeid – perspektiv og strategi (2nd ed.). Universitetsforlaget.
  • Lund, I. (2018). Kommunikasjonens muligheter og utfordringer i samarbeid. In B. Johannessen & T. Skotheim (Eds.), Barn og unge i midten. Tverrfaglig og tverretatlig arbeid i barn og unges oppvekst (p. 338–357). Gyldendal Akademisk.
  • Mazerolle, L. & Ransley, J. (2006). The case for third-party policing. In D. Weisburd & A.A. Braga (Eds.), Police innovation. Contrasting perspectives, (p. 191–206). Cambridge University Press.
  • Meyer, S. & Mazerolle, L. (2014). Police-led partnership responses to high risk youths and their families: challenges associated with forming successful and sustainable partnerships. Policing and Society. 24(2), 242–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2013.784295
  • Ministry of Justice and Public Security of Norway. (2013). Forebygging og bekjempelse av vold i nære relasjoner. Det handler om å leve. (Meld. St. 15. 2012–2013). https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/1cea841363e2436b8eb91aa6b3b2d48e/no/pdfs/stm201220130015000dddpdfs.pdf
  • Måseide, P. (2008). Profesjonar i eit interaksjonsteoretisk perspektiv. In A. Molander & L.I. Terum (Eds.). Profesjonsstudier (p. 367–385). Universitetsforlaget.
  • NOU 2017: 12. (2017). Svikt og svik. Gjennomgang av saker hvor barn har vært utsatt for vold, seksuelle overgrep og omsorgssvikt. https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/a44ef6e251cd443396588483e97402ab/no/pdfs/nou201720170012000dddpdfs.pdf
  • O’Neill, M. & Mccarthy, D.J. (2014). (Re) negotiating police culture through partnership working: trust, compromise and the ‘new’ pragmatism. Criminology and criminal justice 14(2), 143–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895812469381 
  • Pihl, J. (2011). Literacy education and interprofessional collaboration. Professions and professionalism. 1(1), 52–66. https://doi.org/10.7577/pp.v1i1.149
  • Plecas, D., McCormick, A.V., Levine, J., Neal, P. & Cohen, I.M. (2011). Evidence-based solution to information sharing between law enforcement agencies. Policing: An International journal of police strategies & management (1), 120–134. https://doi.org/10.1108/13639511111106641 
  • Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. Doubleday.
  • Reeves, S., Xyrichis, A., & Zwarenstein, M. (2017). Teamwork, collaboration, coordination, and networking: Why we need to distinguish between types of interprofessional practice. Journal of Interprofessional Care. 32(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2017.1400150
  • Rodger, J. (2012). Regulating the Poor: Observations on the ‘structural coupling’ of welfare, criminal justice and the voluntary sector in a ‘Big Society’. Social Policy and Administration. 46(4), 413–431. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9515.2012.00841.x
  • San Martín-Rodriguez, L., Beaulieu, M.D., D’Amour, D., & Ferrada-Videla, M. (2005). The determinants of successful collaboration: A review of theoretical and empirical studies. Journal of Interprofessional Care. 19 Suppl 1, 132–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820500082677
  • Sherif, M. (2015). Group conflict and Co-Operation: Their Social Psychology. Psychology Press.
  • Strype, J., Gundhus, O.I., Egge, M. & Ødegård, A. (2014). Perceptions of interprofessional collaboration. Professions & Professionalism. 4(3), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820500148437
  • Thagaard, T. (2013). Systematikk og innlevelse. En innføring i kvalitativ metode (4th ed.). Fagbokforlaget.
  • Thomassen, A.O. (2011). Den tredje kontekst: integration of uddannelse og arbejde i virksomheter. In N. Stegeager & E. Laursen (Eds.). Organisationer i bevægelse, (p. 119–131). Samfundslitteratur.
  • Thomson, K., Ostram, S., Gillgan, C. & Levett-Jones, T. (2015). Interprofessional experiences of recent healthcare graduates: A social psychology perspective on the barriers to effective communication, teamwork, and patient-centred care. Journal of Interprofessional Care. 29(6), 634–40. https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2015.1040873
  • Vangen, S. & Huxham, C. (2009). En teoretisk forståelse av samarbeidets synergi. In E. Willumsen (Ed.). Tverrprofesjonelt samarbeid – i praksis og utdanning, (p. 67–85). Universitetsforlaget.
  • Vorland, N. & Skjørten, K. (2017). Barn i krise: Samarbeidet mellom barnevern og politi. Nasjonalt kunnskapssenter for vold og traumatisk stress 2017: 4.
  • Wang, S. & Noe, R. (2010). Knowledge sharing: a review and direction for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 20(2), 115–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.10.001
  • Weick, K.E. & Ashford, S.J. (2000). Learning in organizations. In F. Jablin, & L. Putnam (Eds.). The New Handbook of Organizational Communication (p. 704–731). Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Whelan, C. (2017). Security networks and occupational culture: understanding culture within and between organisations. Policing and Society. 27(2), 113–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2015.1020804
  • Widmark, C., Sandahl, C., Piuva, K., & Bergman, D. (2016). What do we think about them and what do they think about us? Social representations of interprofessional and interorganizational collaboration in the welfare sector. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 30(1), 50–55. https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2015.1055716
  • Willumsen, E. 2016. Tverrprofesjonelt samarbeid i utdanning og praksis i helse- og velferdssektoren. In E. Willumsen & A. Ødegård (Eds.). Tverrprofesjonelt samarbeidet – et samfunnsoppdrag (p. 33–48). Universitetsforlaget.
    Copyright © 2020 Author(s)

    CC BY-NC 4.0