Anti-social behaviour: voices from the front line

Subverting Social Policy on the Front Line: Agencies of Resistance in the Delivery of Services

“…However, we want to argue that these categories have a more significant analytical use in helping to develop an understanding of the subtle and complex dynamics that often characterize service delivery contexts, and therefore in explaining how and why in certain contexts the outcomes of service delivery are at variance with policy prescriptions and expectations. Such dynamics are illustrated in analyses by Judy Nixon and Sadie Parr of their evaluation of the initial group of Family Intervention Projects (FIPs) developed in England (Nixon and Parr 2006; Parr and Nixon 2009). FIPS were established as a result of a perceived need to respond to a small number of families exhibiting serious and persistent ASB, who were homeless or at risk of eviction from social housing as a result of this behaviour and who presented a range of other needs and problems, including those related to child care.…”

“…2008: 9). The initial projects were implemented in the context of official policy discourse that emphasized the requirement for a strong enforcement approach toward families deemed to be irresponsible and morally deficient (Nixon and Parr 2006). However, Parr and Nixon (2009) show how the FIP workers developed a form of resistant agency as they attempted to reconcile the demands of national policy for a controlling and disciplining response to the specific behavioural characteristics of the families with their own assessment and interpretation of the wide range of personal and social needs of those families.…”

Deconstructing `problem' researchers and `problem' families: A rejoinder to Garrett

“…2 Interestingly while Garrett professes to focus on the 'unreported' in our work he fails to refer to any of our scholarly work in which we have consistently critiqued the ever more punitive sanctions introduced to deal with anti-social behaviour: e.g. Hunter and Nixon (2001), Hunter (2003Hunter ( , 2006, Hunter et al (2005), Nixon and Parr (2006), Flint and Nixon (2006), Nixon et al (2006c) and Parr (2006). 3 We are well aware and unafraid of the wrath that findings the government dislikes can bring down on researchers as comments from David Blunkett about our earlier work illustrate (see further The Observer, 1999).…”

Integrating critical realist and feminist methodologies: ethical and analytical dilemmas

“…Like social constructionism, critical realism acknowledges that social scientific knowledge is historically and culturally situated but it offers the possibility of being able to judge between competing theories on the basis of their merits as explanations about the social world (Lopez and Potter, 2001). Indeed, many academics, myself included, have not been able to avoid measuring dominant analyses of ASB against alternatives (Nixon and Parr, 2006). It is driven by the central claim that it is unwise and erroneous to abandon the search for 'truth' in social science which in turn enables authoritative claims to be made about how we might initiate change (Layder, 1998).…”

“…I and my colleagues have consequently published work that has tried to give a platform for the demonised 'other', the 'neighbours from hell', to have their voices heard (Hunter et al, 2010., Parr, 2011., Nixon and Parr, 2006. Indeed, women who have told us their stories have often resisted and contested the dominant demonising analysis apparent within official discourses.…”