Abstract
We give a short overview of feminist perspectives on the use of evidence in policy making, covering both empirical and conceptual work. We present the case of the Conflict Tactics Scale, a measure of interpersonal violence that is both widely used and heavily criticised in work on violence between intimate partners. We examine this case to illustrate the way that feminist advocacy and research organisations use gender informed theory to counter positivist narratives about intimate partner violence. In doing so, we show that the evidence-based policy approach, even when considered as principle or ideal, frames the policy-making process as “objective”, and in doing so ignores the gendered contexts in which knowledge is produced, used and translated into policy and implementation. By examining feminist approaches to this case study, we can learn from feminist advocate researchers the importance of context, normative arguments and the politicisation of evidence in policymaking and implementation.
Highlights
On a recent Sunday morning, one of our co-authors (Sophie Yates) was walking home with her male partner from the local craft market, having purchased a crusty baguette
We show how feminist advocate researchers have strongly criticised the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) on theoretical grounds (Nixon, 2007; Allen, 2011; DeKeseredy and Schwartz, 2011), and used research methods sensitive to power and context to empirically draw its validity into question (Currie 1998; Lehrner and Allen 2014; Ackerman 2016)
We show how, in a recent Commission of Inquiry, feminist advocate researchers have drawn on this contextually-driven research to refute claims of gender symmetry in intimate partner violence and ward off policy responses that assume most intimate partner violence is mutually perpetrated
Summary
On a recent Sunday morning, one of our co-authors (Sophie Yates) was walking home with her male partner from the local craft market, having purchased a crusty baguette. Ackerman (2016) argues that gender differences in intimate partner violence overreporting have serious implications because survey evidence affects public awareness of the problem, as well as public policy and response to the problem He felt his results suggested that several feminist theoretical claims not previously supported by empirical data—such as the potential for the CTS to produce over-reporting— deserve re-evaluation using 'methods that can potentially ameliorate over-reporting and other forms of systematic measurement error' Part of ANROWS’ strategy as a feminist advocate organisation is to highlight that the men’s rights activist group is drawing on discredited evidence, and provide argument for the use of evidence from measures that take the context of violent incidents into account Coupled with this strategy is the presentation of normative argument as to why the Inquiry should recommend resources and research funding for domestic violence against women. The success of this strategy is shown through the recognition that the people most vulnerable to domestic and family violence in Australia are women, especially Indigenous women, women with disability and women from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
