Sequence and Timing of Three Community Interventions to Domestic Violence

Community responses to domestic violence typically involve the introduction of multiple interventions. Yet very little is known about the impact of the timing and sequencing of these interventions on community outcomes. A reason for this is the inherent limitations of traditional methods in social science. New methods are needed to understand the effect of varying the sequence and timing of interventions. This study responds to the issue by introducing system dynamics as a method for modeling community interventions. The paper presents a model of domestic violence cases moving through a criminal justice response, and uses the simulation model to evaluate the impact of implementing three interventions—mandatory arrest, victim advocacy, and changes in level of cooperation—on two system-level outcomes: improving offender accountability and increasing victim safety. Results illustrate the complex nature of these relationships. Implications for community practice and future research are also discussed.     

Advancing access to Medicare-funded mental health treatment during the opioid epidemic: A counselor advocacy analysis

Although advocacy is a priority for counseling professionals, little is known about counseling advocates’ participation in the legislative advocacy process. Recent legislation to address the opioid crisis allowed counseling advocates to provide public comments to advance counselor inclusion in the Medicare program. A thematic analysis of 548 public comments provided on behalf of the counseling profession yielded four categories: advocacy on behalf of (1) the proposed rule change; (2) broader Medicare inclusion; (3) the proposed rule change with an additional request for broader Medicare reimbursement; and (4) no clear advocacy. Subthemes included increasing access to care, qualifications necessary to provide care, and the urgency of the opioid epidemic, among others. Implications for the counseling profession and counselor advocacy are discussed.     

Thomas J. Sweeney: A Visionary Leader and Advocate for the Counseling Profession

The contributions of Thomas J. Sweeney to the counseling profession through professional leadership and advocacy, scholarship, teaching, and the development of Chi Sigma Iota are chronicled through a personal interview and comments from professional colleagues. Readers are provided with a sense of the depth and breadth of his more than 50 years of dedicated service.     

‘An Association for All’—Notions of the Meaning of Autistic Self‐Advocacy Politics within a Parent‐Dominated Autistic Movement

In this paper, we seek to explore the tensions between advocacy and self advocacy autistic movements in a Swedish context with a special focus on the meanings that enable the production of particular understandings of autism and the autistic subject. Drawing on articles written for the Swedish advocacy magazine Empowerment written for and by people with autism, the discourse analysis explores two competing discourses: a reformist and a radical. The reformist discourse underlines a goal of (political) representation expressed in Empowerment. It may be understood as an important part of producing a legitimate autistic political subject–positioned as a full member, with a full membership–within a parent‐dominated autistic advocacy movement. The reformist discourse can be viewed as a result of a negotiation, where full membership is conditioned on the parents' terms and granted on specific terms. These include working together (neuro‐inclusively), advocacy based on interest rather than identity/position as a specific target/member group, agreement upon a definition of autism as a disability (a deficit) a person has rather than an identity. In relation to this, an alternative legitimate autistic subject is produced through invoking the counter‐hegemonic radical discourse. Such a narrative produces the ‘Asperger’ or ‘Aspie’. Here, the ‘full membership’ refers to a sense of identification with sense of belonging to and being at home with other people with autism. It contains a certain amount of autistic solidarity within the group of adults with autism. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Woven together: advocacy and research as complementary

One of the many important contributions of second-wave feminist scholarship was the re-positioning of scholarly activity as being necessarily situated in relation to ‘I.’ This insistence on standpoint, or positionality, was coupled with a contribution from postmodernism, which challenged the notion that (universal) truths could circulate without specific attachments to people and places. Advocacy was a less used word, but the position taken in this paper is that every piece of research, in all science, carries with it the potential for advocacy. Drawing on the author's own experiences of advocacy as interwoven though her career as a lawyer and an academic, this paper examines various aspects of the intersection of advocacy and professional work.     

Off the stage,on the page: on the relationship between advocacy and scholarship

When and how should scholars of religion draw a line between advocacy and research activities? In what ways does advocacy contribute to or cut against scholarly credibility? Addressing these questions from the intersection of the academic study of religion and Indigenous Studies, this article opens by asserting that both fields are frequently hampered by deferential treatments of their subject matter, a problem that is potentially exacerbated when scholars in these fields engage in forms of political advocacy. Problematizing this narrative, the author turns to his ethnographic experiences in Hawai'i with regard to burial-protection struggles in order to describe ways his theoretical commitments and advocacy activities stand in tension and how he has attempted to navigate these competing but sometimes complementary elements of his scholarly life. In this context, a heuristic definition of advocacy is advanced in order to sketch a spectrum of forms, ranging from direct advocacy (e.g., physical action, legal testimony, or publication) to indirect advocacy (e.g., sharing documents, brainstorming about pending issues, or providing transportation to a meeting). The article concludes with reflections on advocacy and changing institutional demands upon scholars in the humanities and social sciences with reference to perceived public relevance.     

Review Section

No abstract available for this article.