The Citizenship Theory of social justice: exploring the meaning of personalisation for social workers

Duffy, Simon

doi:10.1080/02650533.2010.500118

Cited by 66 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While Duffy's (2010) paper in this journal failed to address these conflicting agendas, it is to his credit that in subsequent speeches and articles, he has sought to do so and has been at pains to emphasise the limitations of current models of personalisation. Self-directed support, properly funded and supported by good advocacy services, can be one of the ways in which people with disabilities can gain a degree of control over their lives but it is only one.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Personalisation, social justice and social work: a reply to Simon Duffy

Ferguson¹

2012

Journal of Social Work Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Simon Duffy's paper in a previous issue of this journal (Duffy, 2010) is a welcome contribution to current debates on the meaning and implications of this major policy development for social care and social work. To say that Duffy has a long-standing interest in this topic would be a considerable understatement.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Personalisation, social justice and social work: a reply to Simon Duffy

Ferguson¹

2012

Journal of Social Work Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…If, as some researchers have suggested (Epstein, Farina, & Heidt, 2014;Race, Boxall, & Carson, 2005), the "voices" of people with disabilities and their families or informal primary carers were to become embedded within every aspect of disability service policy development, this might address the perceived "power advantage" of service providers. Instead of "us and them", co-production relationships would exist between the professionals providing services and the service users, which could transform the welfare system (Brown & Osborne, 2012;Duffy, 2010;Osborne, Radnor, & Nasi, 2013;Roberts, Greenhill, Talbot, & Cuzak, 2011). Policies facilitating greater choice and control by people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, together with a co-production approach, could influence a paradigm shift away from the perception that people with intellectual and developmental disabilities are "passive recipients of services and burdens on the system, into one where they are equal partners in designing and delivering services" (Boyle, Slay, & Stephens, 2010, p. 23).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A critical discourse analysis of the voices of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities within Australian community access service policies and practice: my voice, my policy

Evans

Bellon

Matthews

2016

Research and Practice in Intellectual and Developmental Disabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Community access services are designed for people with disabilities to gain and use their abilities to enjoy their full potential for social independence. This research explored the extent to which the voices of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and their families and informal primary carers have contributed to Australian community access services policy in the twenty-first century. The research aimed to explore whether the voices of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and their families are present in Australian community access services policy; if community access services policies influence practice with regard to community participation and community inclusion; and what can be learnt from community access services policy and practice across Australia. A critical discourse analysis of Australian publicly available community access services extant texts, published between 2000 and 2014, was performed. The written evidence (n D 42) included strategic and operational policies and discussion papers. The voices of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and their families or informal primary carers were evident in 16 out of the 42 documents included in the study. Three key themes emerged that illustrate how policy and practice influenced community participation and community inclusion, including: "eligibility", "design and implementation", and "evaluation" of community access services. Discourse analysis highlighted inequity inherent in the language used in the documents studied, which continues to define and treat people with disabilities as a homogenous group to be managed separately. Findings from this study will contribute to strengthening community inclusion of people with disabilities by focusing on the inclusion of their voices in policies related to community participation and community access within Australia.

show abstract

“…The argument that personalisation should be normatively assessed with reference to its impact on social justice has been made by a variety of academics, critics and campaigners (Duffy 2010;Ferguson, 2012). Iain Ferguson (2012: 57) argues that the theory of justice elaborated by Nancy…”

Section: Personalisation Marketisation and Social Justicementioning

confidence: 99%

What Justice, What Autonomy? The Ethical Constraints upon Personalisation

Owens

Mladenov

Cribb

2016

Ethics and Social Welfare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article considers the ethical dimensions of attempts to 'personalise' health and social care services in the UK. Personalisation is identified as closely related to efforts to introduce elements of neoliberal marketisation into public service provision, particularly through the introduction of consumer choice for services users. We consider two areas of ethical concern surrounding personalisation: its contribution to social justice agendas and the enhancement of service users' autonomy. While personalisation in general, and consumer choice in particular, has been presented as positively contributing to both social justice and autonomy, we critically revaluate these claims. We draw on the work of Nancy Fraser and relational theories of autonomy to highlight the ethical complexities of personalisation and the potentially negative effects that the extension of consumer choice may have on promoting social justice and supporting substantive forms of autonomy.We suggest that understanding and negotiating these complexities imposes ethical constraints on the ways in which, and extent to which, health and social care services can be defensibly personalised.

show abstract

The Citizenship Theory of social justice: exploring the meaning of personalisation for social workers

Cited by 66 publications

References 5 publications

Personalisation, social justice and social work: a reply to Simon Duffy

Personalisation, social justice and social work: a reply to Simon Duffy

A critical discourse analysis of the voices of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities within Australian community access service policies and practice: my voice, my policy

What Justice, What Autonomy? The Ethical Constraints upon Personalisation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About