“The workers are usually really heartbroken”: Interspecies practice as a site of moral distress
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11157/anzswj-vol37iss1id1222Keywords:
social work, companion animals, moral distress, homelessness, domestic violence, family violenceAbstract
INTRODUCTION: This article provides an account of practitioner perspectives of the difficulties they faced in enacting interspecies practice in Australia. The concept of moral distress can be used to understand both the cause and consequences of being unable to act in accordance with social work ethical codes and personal values in a professional context. Practice that engages with families who are comprised of human and more-than-human members entails extra complexity, given the anthropocentrism of the all-too-human services. The challenges that enacting interspecies practice with families in safety and housing crises entails gives rise to a range of affective responses.
METHODS: Reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2022) was used to analyse and understand accounts from practitioners describing interspecies practice in the Australian homelessness and family violence sectors, drawn from qualitative data from survey responses and in-depth interviews with social workers and other human services practitioners.
FINDINGS: Three key themes describe the challenges of interspecies practice, illustrating the affective responses articulated by practitioners and how these could be navigated. These themes are discussed and interpreted through the concept of moral distress.
CONCLUSION: The implications of centring practitioners’ affective responses and moral distress are discussed.
References
Animal Medicines Australia. (2022). Pets in Australia: A national survey of pets and people – Animal Medicines Australia. https://animalmedicinesaustralia.org.au/report/pets-in-australia-a-national-survey-of-pets-and-people-2/
Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers. (2019). Code of ethics/Ngā tikanga matatika. https://anzasw.nz/code-of-ethics-2019/
Applebaum, J. W., Horecka, K., Loney, L., & Graham, T. M. (2021). Pet-friendly for whom? An analysis of pet fees in Texas rental housing. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 8, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.767149
Ascione, F. R., Weber, C. V., & Wood, D. (1997). The abuse of animals and domestic violence: A national survey of shelters for women who are battered. Society & Animals, 5, 205–218.
Australian Association of Social Workers. (2020). Code of ethics 2020. https://www.aasw.asn.au/document/item/1201
Bennett, B., Gates, T. G., Yeung, P., & Evans, K. (2022). Inclusion of animals in allied health practice in Australia: A beginning exploration. Social Work in Mental Health, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332985.2022.2153637
Bernhardt, C., Forgetta, S., & Sualp, K. (2021). Violations of health as a human right and moral distress: Considerations for social work practice and education. Journal of Human Rights and Social Work, 6(1), 91–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41134-020-00150-0
Boetto, H. (2018). Advancing transformative eco-social change: Shifting from modernist to holistic foundations. Australian Social Work, 72(2), 139–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2018.1484501
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE Publications.
Collins, E. A., Cody, A. M., McDonald, S. E., Nicotera, N., Ascione, F. R., & Williams, J. H. (2018). A template analysis of intimate partner violence survivors’ experiences of animal maltreatment: Implications for safety planning and intervention. Violence Against Women, 24(4), 452–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801217697266
Companion Animals New Zealand. (2020). Companion animals in New Zealand 2020. https://www.companionanimals.nz/2020-report
Cronley, C., Strand, E. B., Patterson, D. A., & Gwaltney, S. (2009). Homeless people who are animal caretakers: A comparative study. Psychological Reports, 105(2), 481–499. https://doi.org/10.2466/PR0.105.2.481-499
Duvnjak, A., & Dent, A. (2023). The consideration of animals within Australian social work curriculum. Australian Social Work, 77(3), 397–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2023.2238697
Fraser, H., & Taylor, N. (2021). Animals as domestic violence victims: A challenge to humanist social work. In V. Bozalek & B. Pease (Eds.), Post-anthropocentric social work: Critical posthuman and new materialist perspectives (pp. 161–174). Routledge.
Fronek, P., Briggs, L., Kim, M. H., Han, H. B., Val, Q., Kim, S., & McAuliffe, D. (2017). Moral distress as experienced by hospital social workers in South Korea and Australia. Social Work in Health Care, 56(8), 667–685. https://doi.org/10.1080/00981389.2017.1347596
Greenslade, L., McAuliffe, D., & Chenoweth, L. (2015). Social workers’ experiences of covert workplace activism. Australian Social Work, 68(4), 422–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2014.940360
Guenther, K. (2020). The lives and deaths of shelter animals. Stanford University Press.
Gupta, M., & McDonald, S. E. (2023). Co-occurrence of animal abuse and intimate partner violence. In A. H. Fine, M. K. Mueller, N. Zenithson, A. M. Beck, & J. M. Peralta (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of human-animal interactions and anthrozoology (pp. 331–346). Routledge.
Hageman, T. O., Langenderfer-Magruder, L., Greene, T., Williams, J. H., St. Mary, J., McDonald, S. E., & Ascione, F. R. (2018). Intimate partner violence survivors and pets: Exploring practitioners’ experiences in addressing client needs. Families in Society, 99(2), 134–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044389418767836
Hanrahan, C. (2013). Social work and human animal bonds and benefits in health research: A provincial study. Critical Social Work, 14(1), 63–79. https://doi.org/10.22329/csw.v14i1.5873
Hoy-Gerlach, J., Delgado, M., Sloane, H., & Arkow, P. (2019). Rediscovering connections between animal welfare and human welfare: Creating social work internships at a humane society. Journal of Social Work, 19(2), 216–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017318760775
Irvine, L. (2013). My dog always eats first: Homeless people and their animals. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Jameton, A. (1984). Nursing practice: The ethical issues. Prentice-Hall.
Kotzmann, J., Bagaric, M., Wolf, G., & Stonebridge, M. (2022). Addressing the impact of animal abuse: The need for legal recognition of abused pets as sentient victims of domestic violence in Australia. The University of New South Wales Law Journal, 45(1), 184–208.
Labrecque, J., & Walsh, C. A. (2011). Homeless women’s voices on incorporating companion animals into shelter services. Anthrozoös: A Multidisciplinary Journal of The Interactions of People & Animals, 24(1), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303711x12923300467447
Laing, M., & Maylea, C. (2018). A Conceptual Framework for Taking Subversive Social Work into the Classroom. Advances in Social Work and Welfare Education, 20(2), 23–30. https://www.journal.anzswwer.org/index.php/advances/article/view/132
Laing, M. (2020). On being posthuman in human spaces: Critical posthumanist social work with interspecies families. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 41(3/4), 361–375. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSSP-09-2019-0185
Laing, M. (2021). Encountering interspecies homelessness: Resisting anthroparchy in social work and the all-too-human services. In B. Pease & V. Bozalek (Eds.), Post-Anthropocentric Social Work: Critical Posthuman and New Materialist Perspectives (pp. 187–197). Routledge.
Lindsay, S. M. (2022). The “problem” of multispecies families: Speciesism in emergency intimate partner violence (IPV) Shelters. Social Sciences, 11(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11060242
Ma, G. C., Ravulo, J., & McGeown, U. (2023). Emergency animal boarding: A social return on investment. Animals, 13(14), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13142264
Matsuoka, A., Sorenson, J., Graham, T. M., & Ferreira, J. (2020). No pets allowed: A trans-species social justice perspective to address housing issues for older adults and companion animals. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 32(4). https://doi.org/10.11157/anzswj-vol32iss4id793
Palma Contreras, A. M., & Pardo Adriasola, M. A. (2024). Moral distress in social work: A systematic literature review. The British Journal of Social Work, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcae078
Risley-Curtiss, C. (2010). Social work practitioners and the human-companion animal bond: A national study. Social Work, 55(1), 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/55.1.38
Scanlon, L., McBride, A., & Stavisky, J. (2020). Prevalence of pet provision and reasons for including or excluding animals by homelessness accommodation services. Journal of Social Distress and Homelessness, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/10530789.2020.1754602
Stone, W., Power, E. R., Tually, S., James, A., Faulkner, D., Goodall, Z., & Buckle, C. (2021). Housing and housing assistance pathways with companion animals: Risks, costs, benefits and opportunities [AHURI Final Report No. 350]. Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute Limited. https://www.ahuri.edu.au/research/final-reports/350
Strand, E. B., & Faver, C. A. (2005). Battered women’s concern for their pets: A closer look. Journal of Family Social Work, 9(4), 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1300/J039v09n04_04
Strier, R., & Bershtling, O. (2016). Professional resistance in social work: Counterpractice assemblages. Social Work, 61(2), 111–118. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/sww010
Taylor, N., Fraser, H., & Riggs, D. W. (2020). Companion-animal-inclusive domestic violence practice: Implications for service delivery and social work. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 32(4), 26–39. https://doi.org/10.11157/anzswj-vol32iss4id791
Weinberg, M. (2009). Moral distress: A missing but relevant concept for ethics in social work. Canadian Social Work Review/Revue Canadienne de Service Social, 26(2), 139–151. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41669909
Wuerch, M. A., Giesbrecht, C. J., Price, J. A. B., Knutson, T., & Wach, F. (2020). Examining the relationship between intimate partner violence and concern for animal care and safekeeping. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(9–10), 1866–1887. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517700618
Yeung, P., Robertson, N., & Sandford-Reed, L. (2020). Aotearoa New Zealand social workers and their views of inclusion of animals in social work practice: A descriptive study. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 32(4). https://doi.org/10.11157/anzswj-vol32iss4id790
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
By completing the online submission process, you confirm you accept this agreement. The following is the entire agreement between you and the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers (ANZASW) and it may be modified only in writing.
You and any co-authors
If you are completing this agreement on behalf of co-authors, you confirm that you are acting on their behalf with their knowledge.
First publication
By submitting the work you are:
- granting the ANZASW the right of first publication of this work;
- confirming that the work is original; and
- confirming that the work has not been published in any other form.
Once published, you are free to use the final, accepted version in any way, as outlined below under Copyright.
Copyright
You assign copyright in the final, accepted version of your article to the ANZASW. You and any co-authors of the article retain the right to be identified as authors of the work.
The ANZASW will publish the final, accepted manuscript under a Creative Commons Attribution licence (CC BY 4.0). This licence allows anyone – including you – to share, copy, distribute, transmit, adapt and make commercial use of the work without needing additional permission, provided appropriate attribution is made to the original author or source.
A human-readable summary of the licence is available from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0, which includes a link to the full licence text.
Under this licence you can use the final, published version of the article freely – such as depositing a copy in your institutional research repository, uploading a copy to your profile on an academic networking site or including it in a different publication, such as a collection of articles on a topic or in conference proceedings – provided that original publication in Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work is acknowledged.
This agreement has no effect on any pre-publication versions or elements, which remain entirely yours, and to which we claim no right.
Reviewers hold copyright in their own comments and should not be further copied in any way without their permission.
The copyright of others
If your article includes the copyright material of others (e.g. graphs, diagrams etc.), you confirm that your use either:
- falls within the limits of fair dealing for the purposes of criticism and review or fair use; OR
- that you have gained permission from the rights holder for publication in an open access journal.
