Intervening in domestic violence in the health care and social service settings is a complex and contested issue. In this qualitative, multidisciplinary study, the barriers to but also the possibilities for health care professionals in encountering victims of violence were scrutinised. The focus was on omissions in service structure and practices. The data consisted of six focus group interviews with nurses, physicians, social workers and psychologists in specialist health care (n = 30) conducted in Finland in 2009. The aim was to explore professionals’ processes of making sense of violence interventions and the organisational practices of violence interventions. Four types of framing of the domestic violence issue were identified: (i) practical frame, (ii) medical frame, (iii) individualistic frame and (iv) psychological frame. Each frame consisted of particular features relating to explaining, structuring or dismissing the question of domestic violence in health care settings. The main themes included the division of responsibilities and feasibility of treatment. All four frames underlie the tendency for healthcare professionals to arrive at sense-making practices where it is possible to focus on fixing the injuries and consequences of domestic violence and bypassing the issue of violence as the cause of symptoms and injuries. The results indicate that developing successful practices both in identifying survivors of domestic violence and in preventing further victimisation requires a broad understanding of the effects of domestic violence and the challenges for health care professionals in dealing with it. New perspectives are needed in creating adequate practices both for victims of violence seeking help and for professionals working with this issue. Strong support at the organisational level and established practices throughout the fields of health and social care are the key elements in building a responsible approach to domestic violence.

Violence is a serious problem, and social and health care providers are in a key position for implementing successful interventions. This qualitative study of 6 focus groups with professionals (n = 30) examines the health care professionals’ ways of framing a domestic violence intervention. Of special interest here is how professionals see their own roles in the process of recognizing and helping victims of domestic violence. By using Erving Goffman's frame analysis, this study identifies several frames that either: a) emphasize the obstacles to intervention and justify nonintervention, or on the contrary, b) question these obstacles and find justifications for intervention. The possibilities for intervention are further explored by analyzing the ways in which the dynamics between the different frames allow redefinition of domestic violence interventions. Despite the challenges involved in a domestic violence intervention, there seems to be potential for change in personal attitudes and reform of professional practices. The research findings underline the role of social and health care professionals as members of a larger chain of service providers working collaboratively against domestic violence. Implications for practice and directions in policy and future research are suggested.

Objective: The aim of the study was to facilitate the understanding and interpretation of multiple aspects of working with mothers by examining Finnish mothers' mothering discourses and the interplay among these discourses.Background: According to relational dialectics theory, discourses are systems of meaning that are coproduced in interaction. Although discursive research on motherhood has identified various discourses, research on the interplay among competing motherhood discourses is in its infancy.Method: Qualitative questionnaire data from 479 Finnish mothers of infants were analyzed using contrapuntal analysis. Mothers' responses to three open‐ended questions were analyzed inductively. Emerging themes were identified so as to represent different motherhood discourses, and the power struggle among discourses was addressed.Results: Four discourses were identified. In theEquality discourse, parenting was presented as ideally shared between co‐parents, and equality between family members and various family forms was promoted. In theFamilistic discourse, traditional stay‐at‐home mothering, good housekeeping, and the unity of the family were emphasized. In theIntensive Mothering discourse, the importance of the mother to her child was highlighted. In theBalance discourse, the needs of all family members were presented as equally important, and flexibility in parenting choices was promoted. The results demonstrated discursive struggles within mothers' answers, suggesting that contemporary Finnish motherhood is a contested terrain of competing ideologies.Conclusion: The findings suggest that Finnish mothers' mothering discourses are multivocal and often competing. The results contribute to the current understanding of motherhood ideologies and provide new insights to be utilized in counseling and clinical practice.