There is growing international interest in service user involvement in social work education, but some service user groups are more likely to be included than others. This article explores the possibility of involving male service users who use intimate partner violence in Australian social work education. The article describes focus groups conducted separately with social work students and men who use intimate partner violence, which explored participants’ understandings of lived experience, service user involvement in social work education and the place of men who use intimate partner violence in the social work academy. The findings suggest it may be possible to involve previously excluded service user groups in social work education.
AnghelR.RamonS. (2009) ‘Service Users and Carers’ Involvement in Social Work Education: Lessons from an English Case Study’, European Journal of Social Work12(2): 185–99.
4.
AnkaA.TaylorI. (2016) ‘Assessment as the Site of Power: A Bourdieusian Interrogation of Service User and Carer Involvement in the Assessments of Social Work Students’, Social Work Education35(2): 172–185.
CabiatiE. (2016) ‘Teaching and Learning: an Exchange of Knowledge in the University among Students, Service Users, and Professors’, European Journal of Social Work19(2): 247–62.
9.
CarrS. (2012) ‘Participation, Resistance and Change: Examining Influences on the Impact of Service User Participation’, in BeresfordP.CarrS. (eds) Social Care, Service Users and User Involvement, pp. 37–51. London: Jessica Kingsley.
10.
ClarkA. (2008) ‘Critical Realism’, in GivenL. (ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods, pp. 168–71. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
11.
CoghlanD. (2011) ‘Action Research: Exploring Perspectives on a Philosophy of Practical Knowing’, The Academy of Management Annals5(1): 53–87.
12.
ConnorP.D.NouerS.S.MackeyS.N.BanetM.S.TiptonN.G. (2012) ‘Overcoming Barriers in Intimate Partner Violence Education and Training of Graduate Social Work Students’, Journal of Teaching in Social Work32(1): 29–45.
13.
CorvoK.JohnsonP.J. (2003) ‘Vilification of the “Batterer”: How Blame Shapes Domestic Violence Policy and Interventions’, Aggression and Violent Behavior8(3): 259–81.
14.
Council of Australian Governments (2015) ‘Glossary of the National Outcome Standards for Perpetrator Interventions’, National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and Their Children. Canberra: Council of Australian Governments.
DayA.ChungD.O’LearyP.CarsonE. (2009) ‘Programs for Men who Perpetrate Domestic Violence: an Examination of the Issues Underlying the Effectiveness of Intervention Programs’, Journal of Family Violence24(3): 203–12.
DriessensK.McLaughlinH.van DoornL. (2016) ‘The Meaningful Involvement of Service Users in Social Work Education: Examples from Belgium and The Netherlands’, Social Work Education35(7): 739–51.
EllisC.FlahertyM.G. (1992) ‘An Agenda for the Interpretation of Lived Experience’, in EllisC.FlahertyM.G. (eds) Investigating Subjectivity: Research on Lived Experience, pp. 1–13. London: SAGE.
21.
Esteban-GuitartM.MollL.C. (2014) ‘Lived Experience, Funds of Identity and Education’, Culture & Psychology20(1): 70–81.
22.
FoxJ. (2016) ‘Being a Service User and a Social Work Academic: Balancing Expert Identities’, Social Work Education35(8): 960–9.
23.
FuluC.WarnerXMiedemaS.LiouC. (2014) ‘Replicating the UN Multi-Country Study on Men and Violence: Understanding Why Some Men Use Violence against Women and How We Can Prevent It’ (Partners for Prevention: A UNDP, UNFPA, UN Women and UNV Regional Joint Programme for Gender-Based Violence Prevention in Asia and the Pacific). Bangkok: Partners for Prevention.
24.
GairS.MilesD.ThomsonJ. (2005) ‘Reconciling Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Knowledges in Social Work Education: Action and Legitimacy’, Journal of Social Work Education41(2): 179–90. Available online at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.5175/JSWE.2005.200300358
GlasbyJ.BeresfordP. (2006) ‘Commentary and Issues: Who Knows Best? Evidence-Based Practice and the Service User Contribution’, Critical Social Policy26(1): 268–84. Available online at: http://csp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/1/268
HeronJ.ReasonP. (2001) ‘The Practice of Co-Operative Inquiry: Research “with” rather than “on” People’, in ReasonP.BradburyH. (eds) Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, pp. 179–188. London: SAGE.
30.
HughesM. (2017) ‘What Difference Does It Make? Findings of an Impact Study of Service User and Carer Involvement on Social Work Students’ Subsequent Practice’, Social Work Education36(2): 203–16.
31.
HumphreyC. (2013) ‘Dilemmas in Doing Insider Research in Professional Education’, Qualitative Social Work12(5): 572–86. Available online at: http://qsw.sagepub.com/content/12/5/572
32.
JuryR.BoxallK. (2018) ‘Working with the Enemy? Social Work Education and Men Who Use Intimate Partner Violence’, Social Work Education37(4): 507–518.
33.
KeysM. (2009) ‘Determining the Skills for Child Protection Practice: Emerging from the Quagmire!’, Child Abuse Review18(5): 316–32.
34.
KruegerR.A.CaseyM.A. (2014) Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Singapore: SAGE.
35.
LinhorstD.M. (2002) ‘A Review of the Use and Potential of Focus Groups in Social Work Research’, Qualitative Social Work1(2): 208–28. Available online at: http://qsw.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/1/2/208
SchönU.-K. (2016a) ‘User and Carer Involvement in Social Work Education: Reasons for Participation’, Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research18(2): 154–63.
45.
SchönU.-K. (2016b) ‘User Involvement in Social Work and Education: A Matter of Participation?’, Journal of Evidence-Informed Social Work13(1): 21–33.
46.
SmithM. (2013) ‘Involving Child Protection Service Users in Social Work Education’, Journal of Practice Teaching Learning11(2): 77–91.
47.
SmithM.GallagherM.WosuH.StewartJ.CreeV.E.HunterS.EvansS.MontgomeryC.HolidayS.WilkinsonH. (2012) ‘Engaging with Involuntary Service Users in Social Work: Findings from a Knowledge Exchange Project’, British Journal of Social Work42(8): 1460–77.
48.
SpiteriD. (2013) ‘How Is a Service Development Simulation Exercise Useful? A Student-Centered Perspective’, Research in Education90(1): 1–14.
49.
StanleyL.WiseS. (2002) Breaking Out Again: Feminist Ontology and Epistemology. London: Routledge.
50.
TrevithickP. (2008) ‘Revisiting the Knowledge Base of Social Work: A Framework for Practice’, British Journal of Social Work38(6): 1212–37. Available online at: http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/6/1212
BagshawD.ChungD. (2000) Women, Men and Domestic Violence. Canberra: University of South Australia and Partnerships Against Domestic Violence (PADV).
54.
FeltonA.StickleyT. (2004) ‘Pedagogy, Power and Service User Involvement’, Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing11(1): 89–98.
55.
FraserH.SeymourK. (2017) Understanding Violence and Abuse: An Anti-Oppressive Practice Perspective. Black Point: Fernwood Publishing.
56.
MaguireP. (2001) ‘Uneven Ground: Feminisms and Action Research’, in ReasonP.BradburyH. (eds) Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, pp. 59–69. London: SAGE.
57.
OrmeJ. (2002) ‘Social Work: Gender, Care and Justice’, British Journal of Social Work32(6): 719–814.
58.
OrmeJ.DominelliL.MullenderA. (2000) ‘Working with Men from a Feminist Social Work Perspective’, International Social Work43(1): 89–105.
59.
ReidC.FrisbyW. (2008) ‘Continuing the Journey: Articulating Dimensions of Feminist Participatory Action Research (FPAR)’, in ReasonP.BradburyH. (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, 2nd edn, pp. 93–105. London: SAGE.
60.
TewJ. (2006) ‘Understanding Power and Powerlessness: Towards a Framework for Emancipatory Practice in Social Work’, Journal of Social Work6(1): 33–51.
61.
WilsonA.BeresfordP. (2000) ‘“Anti-Oppressive Practice”: Emancipation or Appropriation?’, British Journal of Social Work30(5): 553–73.
