NDIS伙伴关系是否有效?矛盾,有争议的空间和残疾人领袖,家庭照顾者和残疾人服务的愿望

IF 2 2区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL ISSUES
Christina David, Belinda Johnson, Paul Ramcharan
{"title":"NDIS伙伴关系是否有效?矛盾,有争议的空间和残疾人领袖,家庭照顾者和残疾人服务的愿望","authors":"Christina David,&nbsp;Belinda Johnson,&nbsp;Paul Ramcharan","doi":"10.1002/ajs4.280","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In 2022, a new Federal Labor government introduced an NDIA Act amendment and initiatives that indicate a reorientation to partnership working and integration of co-design principles. “Partnership working” reflects collaborative aspirations where parties commit to trust, shared goals and respect for diverse knowledges and experiences. The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) espouses a partnership approach and rights-based values, yet the neoliberal emphasis on individual choice and marketisation within a social insurance model can privilege certain voices and produce adversarial processes and dynamics. Our focus group research with disability leaders, family carers and disability service professionals explored experiences in the NDIS planning phase with a focus on the extent to which partnership principles operated in practice. Our findings suggest embedded paradoxes; time and resources are required to build the trust and relationships central to interpersonal partnerships between individuals, carers and services but are undermined by organisational and structural factors such as workload pressures, administrative burden and adversarial practices produced in a cost containment context. Tensions in partnership working must also negotiate carers' workload and responsibilities with the autonomy of people with disability. We argue that partnership working is difficult to achieve where structural and systemic limitations and assumptions influence everyday practices. Partnership must operate from empowerment and relational, rather than transactional, principles if genuine participatory and inclusive practice is to be achieved.</p>","PeriodicalId":46787,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Social Issues","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ajs4.280","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"NDIS partnership working? Paradoxes, contested spaces and aspirations of disability leaders, family carers and disability services\",\"authors\":\"Christina David,&nbsp;Belinda Johnson,&nbsp;Paul Ramcharan\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ajs4.280\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In 2022, a new Federal Labor government introduced an NDIA Act amendment and initiatives that indicate a reorientation to partnership working and integration of co-design principles. “Partnership working” reflects collaborative aspirations where parties commit to trust, shared goals and respect for diverse knowledges and experiences. The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) espouses a partnership approach and rights-based values, yet the neoliberal emphasis on individual choice and marketisation within a social insurance model can privilege certain voices and produce adversarial processes and dynamics. Our focus group research with disability leaders, family carers and disability service professionals explored experiences in the NDIS planning phase with a focus on the extent to which partnership principles operated in practice. Our findings suggest embedded paradoxes; time and resources are required to build the trust and relationships central to interpersonal partnerships between individuals, carers and services but are undermined by organisational and structural factors such as workload pressures, administrative burden and adversarial practices produced in a cost containment context. Tensions in partnership working must also negotiate carers' workload and responsibilities with the autonomy of people with disability. We argue that partnership working is difficult to achieve where structural and systemic limitations and assumptions influence everyday practices. Partnership must operate from empowerment and relational, rather than transactional, principles if genuine participatory and inclusive practice is to be achieved.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46787,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Journal of Social Issues\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ajs4.280\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Journal of Social Issues\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajs4.280\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL ISSUES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Social Issues","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajs4.280","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL ISSUES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2022年,新的联邦工党政府提出了《NDIA法案》修正案和倡议,表明了合作伙伴关系的重新定位和共同设计原则的整合。“合作伙伴关系”反映了各方承诺信任、共同目标和尊重不同知识和经验的合作愿望。国家残疾保险计划(NDIS)支持伙伴关系方法和基于权利的价值观,然而,新自由主义强调社会保险模式中的个人选择和市场化,可能会赋予某些声音特权,并产生对抗的过程和动态。我们与残疾领袖、家庭照顾者和残疾服务专业人士进行了焦点小组研究,探讨了NDIS计划阶段的经验,重点是伙伴关系原则在实践中的运作程度。我们的发现表明了一些内在的悖论;在个人、照顾者和服务机构之间建立信任和关系是人际伙伴关系的核心,这需要时间和资源,但却受到工作量压力、行政负担和在成本控制背景下产生的对抗性做法等组织和结构因素的破坏。伙伴关系工作中的紧张关系还必须在照顾者的工作量和责任与残疾人的自主权之间进行协商。我们认为,在结构性和系统性限制和假设影响日常实践的情况下,伙伴关系很难实现。如果要实现真正的参与性和包容性实践,伙伴关系必须从赋权和关系而不是交易原则出发。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
NDIS partnership working? Paradoxes, contested spaces and aspirations of disability leaders, family carers and disability services

In 2022, a new Federal Labor government introduced an NDIA Act amendment and initiatives that indicate a reorientation to partnership working and integration of co-design principles. “Partnership working” reflects collaborative aspirations where parties commit to trust, shared goals and respect for diverse knowledges and experiences. The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) espouses a partnership approach and rights-based values, yet the neoliberal emphasis on individual choice and marketisation within a social insurance model can privilege certain voices and produce adversarial processes and dynamics. Our focus group research with disability leaders, family carers and disability service professionals explored experiences in the NDIS planning phase with a focus on the extent to which partnership principles operated in practice. Our findings suggest embedded paradoxes; time and resources are required to build the trust and relationships central to interpersonal partnerships between individuals, carers and services but are undermined by organisational and structural factors such as workload pressures, administrative burden and adversarial practices produced in a cost containment context. Tensions in partnership working must also negotiate carers' workload and responsibilities with the autonomy of people with disability. We argue that partnership working is difficult to achieve where structural and systemic limitations and assumptions influence everyday practices. Partnership must operate from empowerment and relational, rather than transactional, principles if genuine participatory and inclusive practice is to be achieved.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
4.00%
发文量
45
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信