In preparing for this module, we conducted a formal survey of accredited schools of social work in the U.S. We were particularly interested in ascertaining the nature and structure of knowledge and skill learning specific to domestic violence and disability in all levels of social work education. With the exception of a handful of schools, most curricula did not provide formal coursework in disability and domestic violence. In many schools, students could elect to do individual assignments on different aspects of disability and domestic violence. Over 50% of those who responded indicated the desire for teaching materials on domestic violence and disability. We therefore tailored the curriculum recommendations that follow to guide these respondents and others who will find this module informative.
Because all social work curricula accredited by the Council on Social Work Education must contain common areas of content, we organize our curriculum discussion by these four primary didactic areas: Human Behavior in the Social Environment, Policy Practice, Clinical Practice, Community Practice, and Research Practice. Although description, explanation, and legitimacy appear within each of these curriculum divisions, we suggest that different areas of emphasis will be addressed in each.
In Tables 1-4 below, we have presented a model for organizing description, explanation and legitimacy by the theoretical approach in each of the four curriculum areas.
Table 1 – Theoretical and Conceptual Dimensions of Description
| Intrinsic | Extrinsic | Interactive | |
|---|---|---|---|
| HBSE |
-Anger indicators |
-Provocative
elements -Cultural norms |
-Family and couple interactive patterns |
| Policy Practice | -Range of consequences and activities that are considered to be harmful | -Range of consequences and activities that are considered to be harmful | -Range of consequences and activities that are considered to be harmful |
| Community Practice | -Recognition of harm and “not harm” in individuals within communities | -Recognition of community factors that contribute to or decrease harm | |
| Clinical Practice | -Assessment of psychological, physical and cognitive harm
consequences -Assessment of perpetrator activities |
-Assessment of provocative victim behaviors -Assessment of perpetrator behavioral patterns |
-Assessment of family and couple interactions |
| Research Practice | -Narrative -Prevalence -Incidence -Outcome studies |
-Ethnography -Environmental, cultural, and contextual influences -Outcome studies |
-Multivariate approaches to developing and testing theory -Family studies -Outcome studies |
Table 2 – Theoretical and Conceptual Dimensions of Explanations for Harm Activity and Consequence
| Intrinsic | Extrinsic | Interactive | |
|---|---|---|---|
| HBSE | -Psychodynamic -Evolutionary -Cognitive -Genetic -Physiological -Psychological |
-Behavioral -Social -Cultural -Feminist approaches |
-Systems approaches -Feminist approaches |
| Policy Practice | -Perpetrator or victim fault |
Social/cultural/economic/resource/ faith-based causes for and consequences of harm |
-Systemic and power-related causes for and consequences of harm |
| Community Practice | -Identification of individual psychological, physical and cognitive norms in gender interactions | -Identification of the political, social, economic, faith/religious influences on harm activity and consequence | -Identification of systemic and power-related causes and consequences of harm |
| Clinical Practice | -Psychodynamic -Psychological -Evolutionary -Cognitive |
-Behavioral, Social, Cultural and Feminist approaches | -Systems approaches -Feminist approaches |
| Research Practice | -Studies to examine causes of psychological, cognitive and physical harm consequences and harm activity | -Studies to examine social, economic, faith/religious influences on harm consequences and harm activity | -Studies to examine systemic and power-related causes of harm consequences and harm activity |
Table 3 – Theoretical and Conceptual Dimensions of Legitimacy (Determination)
| Intrinsic | Extrinsic | Interactive | |
|---|---|---|---|
| HBSE | -Fit of harm threshold (victim symptoms), harm activity, and explanations with intrinsic theories | -Fit of harm threshold (victim symptoms), harm activity, and explanations with extrinsic theories | -Fit of harm threshold (victim symptoms), harm activity, and explanations with interactive theories |
| Policy Practice | -Fit of harm threshold, harm activity and explanations with legal definitions of domestic violence | -Fit of harm threshold, harm activity and explanations with legal definitions of domestic violence | -Fit of harm threshold, harm activity and explanations with legal definitions of domestic violence |
| Community Practice | -Determination that harm threshold, activity and intrinsic explanation have occurred within community values and parameters | -Determination that harm threshold, activity and extrinsic explanation have occurred within community values and parameters | -Determination that harm threshold, activity and systemic explanation have occurred within community values and parameters |
| Clinical Practice | -Fit of harm threshold (diagnosis), harm activity and explanations with theories domestic violence | -Fit of harm threshold (diagnosis), harm activity and explanations with theories domestic violence | -Fit of harm threshold (diagnosis), harm activity and explanations with theories domestic violence |
| Research Practice | -Prevalence -Incidence |
-Prevalence -Incidence |
-Prevalence -Incidence |
Table 4 – Theoretical and Conceptual Dimensions of Legitimacy (Response)
| Intrinsic | Extrinsic | Interactive | |
|---|---|---|---|
| HBSE | -Critical discussion and/or revision of theory | -Critical discussion and/or revision of theory | -Critical discussion and/or revision of theory |
| Policy Practice | -Examination, and maintenance or change in legal definitions of harm consequence, activity, threshold and explanations | -Examination, and maintenance or change in legal definitions of harm consequence, activity, threshold and explanations | -Examination, and maintenance or change in legal definitions of harm consequence, activity, threshold and explanations |
| Community Practice | -Psycho-education | -Prevention, community education, contextual
program development (e.g. decrease community stressors etc.) |
-Prevention, community education, community programming, (e.g. community policing/watch programs, school-based girls and boys awareness, development and leadership programs, boys etc.) |
| Clinical Practice | -Psychological -Physical -Cognitive assessment -Diagnosis -Treatment |
-Assessment of social- contextual factors and consequences and interventions to elicit behavioral and/or contextual changes | -Couple and family assessment and treatment |
| Research Practice | -Outcome studies | -Participatory needs assessment and evaluation | -Participatory needs assessment and evaluation |
In HBSE, we place primary emphasis on description and explanation and suggest that harm activities, consequences and explanations be the focus of the course.
In clinical, policy, and community practice, assessment of harm, harm threshold and legitimacy (determination of the presence of domestic violence and response) is shaped by one’s theoretical approach. Thus, equipped with the multi-theoretical background from HBSE, you can compare and contrast how applying diverse theories will shape assessment, practice and expected outcome.
In research practice, we suggest focusing on theory building, theory testing and the full range of evaluation practice from problem definition through needs assessment and outcome assessment (DePoy & Gilson, 2003). This knowledge and skill can be informed by the three theoretical areas, and can contribute empirical support for approaches to social work description, explanation, and legitimate determination and response.
In all areas of the curriculum, we highlight that disability, as only one area of human diversity, adds a level of complexity to description, explanation and legitimacy that must be considered and analyzed in social work education and practice. As we have noted above, disability creates a unique area of vulnerability, which if not recognized and addressed, will often exclude women with disabilities from the category of credible victims and thus from adequate and socially just responses.
Now, let us turn to two character studies to illustrate.
Chapter 5 continues on next page.