Evidence-Led Policy or Policyled Evidence?
Evidence-Led Policy or Policyled Evidence?
复制标题
证据主导的政策还是政策主导的证据？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2004
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
D. Gadd
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. Gadd
这篇文章批评了英格兰和威尔士国家缓刑服务局为暴力男性建立标准化认知行为干预措施的举措。文章质疑的说服力的研究证据，告知这一政策决定，并认为，在实践中，狭隘的重点放在认知可以减损那些方面的男子气概，牵连在犯下家庭暴力。首先探讨了在英国的家庭暴力肇事者的认知行为方案进行了评估研究的局限性，文章利用一个案例研究来说明那些希望帮助暴力的男人改变所面临的复杂挑战。特别是，否认只涉及减轻暴力责任的概念被认为过于简单化。文章的结论是，如果没有更好地认识到刑事司法系统的倾向，进一步残酷的暴力罪犯，法院授权的肇事者将继续期待缓刑干预提供“治愈”，并越来越多地抵制从事时，没有这样的治疗方法被发现。
This article critiques the move towards establishing standardized cognitive behavioural interventions for violent men within the National Probation Service of England and Wales. The article queries the persuasiveness of the research evidence informing this policy decision, and argues that in practice a narrow focus on cognition can detract from those aspects of masculinity that are implicated in the perpetration of domestic violence. Having first explored the limits of the evaluation research that has been conducted on cognitive behavioural programmes for domestic violence perpetrators in the UK, the article utilizes a case study to illustrate the complex challenges confronting those who wish to help violent men to change. In particular, the notion that denial is only implicated in mitigating responsibility for violence is exposed as unduly simplistic. The article concludes that without greater acknowledgement of the criminal justice system’s tendency to further brutalize violent offenders, court-mandated perpetrators will continue to expect probation interventions to provide ‘cures’, and become increasingly resistant to engage when no such cures are found.