残疾与预防家庭暴力:参与取证的个案研究

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
S. Robinson, Kylie Valentine, Jan Idle
{"title":"残疾与预防家庭暴力:参与取证的个案研究","authors":"S. Robinson, Kylie Valentine, Jan Idle","doi":"10.1332/174426421X16143457505305","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The paper draws on empirical evidence from a project investigating service responses to disabled women and children experiencing domestic and family violence (DFV). Service provision in these sectors is often rationed due to resource constraints, and increasingly marketised, and disabled people often do not have their needs met. Their opportunities for participation in policy and practice are also constrained.Aims and objectives: Our aim is to bring critical studies of intersectionality into dialogue with ‘evidence-making’ scholarship on policy implementation, to allow for new analyses of the inclusion of lived experience expertise in policy.We ask: What are the potential drivers for new forms of practice and evidence making in policy and service settings?Methods: The multi-method study comprised literature and policy review and qualitative research about the experience and implementation of an early intervention violence prevention support programme. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with mothers (n=27) and children (n=7), and service providers (n=28).Findings: Many mothers did not identify as disabled, although they discussed the effects of impairment. However, children were all diagnosed, and diagnosis was a means of accessing funding and services. The service was focused on brokering responses to family needs, and formal participation mechanisms for clients were not prioritised.Discussion and conclusion: Resource constraints and workforce capacity are ongoing concerns in the disability and violence prevention sectors. Relationships that facilitate trust, agency and choice remain key. Insights from critical policy scholarship suggest opportunities to recognise existing relationships as participation, with implications for policy and practice.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Disability and family violence prevention: a case study on participation in evidence making\",\"authors\":\"S. Robinson, Kylie Valentine, Jan Idle\",\"doi\":\"10.1332/174426421X16143457505305\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: The paper draws on empirical evidence from a project investigating service responses to disabled women and children experiencing domestic and family violence (DFV). Service provision in these sectors is often rationed due to resource constraints, and increasingly marketised, and disabled people often do not have their needs met. Their opportunities for participation in policy and practice are also constrained.Aims and objectives: Our aim is to bring critical studies of intersectionality into dialogue with ‘evidence-making’ scholarship on policy implementation, to allow for new analyses of the inclusion of lived experience expertise in policy.We ask: What are the potential drivers for new forms of practice and evidence making in policy and service settings?Methods: The multi-method study comprised literature and policy review and qualitative research about the experience and implementation of an early intervention violence prevention support programme. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with mothers (n=27) and children (n=7), and service providers (n=28).Findings: Many mothers did not identify as disabled, although they discussed the effects of impairment. However, children were all diagnosed, and diagnosis was a means of accessing funding and services. The service was focused on brokering responses to family needs, and formal participation mechanisms for clients were not prioritised.Discussion and conclusion: Resource constraints and workforce capacity are ongoing concerns in the disability and violence prevention sectors. Relationships that facilitate trust, agency and choice remain key. Insights from critical policy scholarship suggest opportunities to recognise existing relationships as participation, with implications for policy and practice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51652,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evidence & Policy\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evidence & Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16143457505305\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16143457505305","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本文借鉴了一个调查遭受家庭暴力的残疾妇女和儿童(DFV)服务响应的项目的经验证据。由于资源限制,这些部门提供的服务往往是定量配给的,而且日益市场化,残疾人的需求往往得不到满足。他们参与政策和实践的机会也受到限制。目的和目标:我们的目标是将交叉性的批判性研究与政策实施的“证据制造”奖学金进行对话,以便对政策中包含的生活经验专业知识进行新的分析。我们的问题是:在政策和服务环境中,新形式的实践和证据形成的潜在驱动因素是什么?方法:多方法研究包括文献和政策回顾,以及对早期干预暴力预防支持计划的经验和实施进行定性研究。对母亲(n=27)、儿童(n=7)和服务提供者(n=28)进行了半结构化访谈。研究发现:许多母亲并不认为自己有残疾,尽管她们讨论了残疾的影响。然而,所有儿童都得到了诊断,诊断是获得资金和服务的一种手段。这项服务的重点是调解对家庭需求的回应,而客户的正式参与机制没有得到优先考虑。讨论和结论:资源限制和劳动力能力是残疾和预防暴力部门持续关注的问题。促进信任、代理和选择的关系仍然是关键。来自关键政策学者的见解表明,有机会将现有关系视为参与,从而对政策和实践产生影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Disability and family violence prevention: a case study on participation in evidence making
Background: The paper draws on empirical evidence from a project investigating service responses to disabled women and children experiencing domestic and family violence (DFV). Service provision in these sectors is often rationed due to resource constraints, and increasingly marketised, and disabled people often do not have their needs met. Their opportunities for participation in policy and practice are also constrained.Aims and objectives: Our aim is to bring critical studies of intersectionality into dialogue with ‘evidence-making’ scholarship on policy implementation, to allow for new analyses of the inclusion of lived experience expertise in policy.We ask: What are the potential drivers for new forms of practice and evidence making in policy and service settings?Methods: The multi-method study comprised literature and policy review and qualitative research about the experience and implementation of an early intervention violence prevention support programme. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with mothers (n=27) and children (n=7), and service providers (n=28).Findings: Many mothers did not identify as disabled, although they discussed the effects of impairment. However, children were all diagnosed, and diagnosis was a means of accessing funding and services. The service was focused on brokering responses to family needs, and formal participation mechanisms for clients were not prioritised.Discussion and conclusion: Resource constraints and workforce capacity are ongoing concerns in the disability and violence prevention sectors. Relationships that facilitate trust, agency and choice remain key. Insights from critical policy scholarship suggest opportunities to recognise existing relationships as participation, with implications for policy and practice.
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
Evidence & Policy
Evidence & Policy SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
53
×
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