Citation

McDonald J. Aust. Social Work 2006; 59(1): 104-105.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2006, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1080/03124070500509607

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Replies to the letters from Mayet Costello and Robyn Mason (see record 2007-09908-019), and Malcolm Tyler (see record 2007-09908-009) regarding the present author's original article published in the September 2005 edition of Australian Social Work. None of the correspondents takes issue with my argument that the ascendancy of neo-liberalist policies has individualised and pathologised domestic violence. The key criticisms are (from Mayet Costello and Robyn Mason) that this shift has not effectively silenced structural analyses of domestic violence and displaced feminist service models, and (from Malcolm Tyler) that ideologically-driven feminist services were inferior to the current client-focused model with professional standards of service delivery. A central argument in the original paper is that the way in which case management has been constructed and applied within domestic violence support services, combined with the setting of service targets and the measurement of service outcomes, is a "methodology and impact (that) contributes to the individualization of domestic violence (p. 280)." On reflection, I think three things are important. The first is to use theory to help understand policies, service models, practices and how service outcomes are measured. Secondly, those in academia have a vital role to critically question the status quo. There are strong forces at work to extinguish this role. Finally, as evidenced by the email I received from a staff member in a non-government organisation, perhaps we need to find better ways at bringing together those who undertake critical analyses with the practitioners and policymakers. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)