Support and Autonomy: Social Workers’ Approaches in Dutch Shelters for Female Survivors of Domestic Violence

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-written article that addresses an important point in social work ethics and social work practice in women's shelters.

The discussion section might be strengthened by including the concept of 'informed decision-making' with respect to all of the potential options a woman may have regarding the question of return/don't return. This would alter some of the ideas presented around active/passive intervention.

The reality that support is needed regardless of what decision a woman would make, including support if returning to her partner, is an important one to consider. Support is not always provided in many countries and would potentially aid in keeping the woman safe while also allowing for what many women actually say they want---an end to the abuse but not necessarily to the relationship. 

I also think that within the North American context, feminist ideologies have resulted in few services to actually support women in returning, as the article indicates is available in Rotterdam. Consideration of impacts of feminist ideology on ethical questions and tensions might also be of value. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your feedback. Please see the attachment for our reactions.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see attached detailed review.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your feedback. Please see the attachment for our reactions.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing some of the concerns raised. The paper is improved but some minor and major revisions should be made as follows:

• In the introduction, p. 1, lines 30-32, the authors note a singular 'common reason' to return to an abusive partner. On pages 3-4, the authors offer a more elaborate an accurate presentation of the complexity of leaving, returning, staying. This makes the singular reason of 'emotional attachment' erroneous and biased. Minor revision (either delete the sentence, say you will elaborate on the details later and delete the one common reason, or make a more generic statement like there are many reasons… which we address later).
• Does the Code of Ethics or Nussbaum’s approach identify 'hands-off' and 'interventionist approaches' or 'passive' and 'active'? The authors ask how social workers navigate autonomy and support as derived from their code of Ethics, therefore they should draw on the correct phraseology from the correct source to make clear that they are conceptualizing these aspects of autonomy. I still find the source confusing, particularly since qualitative research ought to be used to enrich, unpack, or challenge a concept, in this case, the concept of autonomy. I view this as an important, moderate revision to the entire paper; it coincides with the lack of clear research question and design choice that are consistent with specific designs in qualitative research methods.
• On this same point, I don't find that replacing passive with hands-off or active with interventionist truly addresses the original concerns. I note that the authors view these new terms as less dichotomous - I am not so sure. Please revisit and decide.
• Page 2, lines 53-66, the authors note migrant background, first, second generation, non-western culture, cultural expectations, later 'non-European migration background' etc. What facet of identity, exactly, did the authors want to capture? For example (only) what does 'Turkish' mean vis-a-vis culture? Kurdish? Armenian? etc. This way of categorizing remains unclear, maybe because of the complex concept of culture and the simplistic categories. This calls for more of a major revision. This impacts many sections of the manuscript.
• Related to the above concern, given that the sample/respondents were social workers, representing many origins according to the authors’ chart, Section 4.1.2 seems to be written from a 'western' perspective. This seems very odd to me. Did any of the social work respondents reflect of their women clients through their own cultural identities? Somehow, this section reproduces 'othering' the women victims of IPV while the facets of identity of the social workers are concealed and presented as if mainstream white dominant. It is as if the actual respondents in the study are culture-less. Can the authors revisit this approach? This calls for more of a major revision, impacting the way the manuscript is written across sections.
• The original manuscript identified a broader study. This has yet to be clarified, i.e., this research is part of a broader study that asked "this specific question" based on these specific sources of data". In this manuscript, we look specifically at "these data from this research question". This needs to be revised accordingly. I view this as a more minor, easy revision.
• "Qualitative" or quantitative is not a design. What was the original design? Phenomenology? Grounded theory? Ethnography? etc? This remains weak. I view this as a straightforward, minor revision.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is, for the most part excellent. A few little grammatical errors that an editor will address.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing much of the feedback. There are a three items that warrant your attention - please take the time to sort this out properly. 1) Please rewrite the methodology sections so that it is clear to the reader the distinctions between the larger study, the research questions, data collection sources, participants etc. Then, once this is clear, now tell the reader about this study - what questions formed this study? who participated? what were the sources of data you consulted etc. This approach is much clearer. 2) A narrative approach should be directly reflected in your research question - I suggest you revisit how you frame your research question for this study in such a way as to be consistent with the aims of narrative research. 3) Lack of clarity about culture, nationality, ethnicity etc. remain. I understand that the social workers self-identified and you wish to honor that, but if you did not unpack how their own identities shaped their practices in relation to autonomy, then (a) do not assume that being raised in the Netherlands or being exposed to Dutch social work norms that these took precedence. Please delete this assumption (p. 8, 371-379). Instead, address this a a limitation of your study. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

We have received and read your comments on our article “Support and Autonomy: Social Workers’ Approaches in Dutch Shelters for Female Survivors of Domestic Violence”. We appreciate that you find this version to be an improvement. We thank you for your feedback and would like to let you know that we have reflected on your comments and have revised the paper to strengthen the argument and address them. Please, find the revisions highlighted in the document in yellow.

1. You have suggested that we should “rewrite the methodology sections so that it is clear to the reader the distinctions between the larger study, the research questions, data collection sources, participants, etc.” Only once this is clear, we should “tell the reader about this study - what questions formed this study? who participated? what were the sources of data you consulted, etc.”.

Reaction: Thank you for this comment. Following your feedback, we have implemented the necessary revisions and restructured the methodology section. Additionally, we have thoroughly reviewed the content to ensure that there is no repetition between the broader study and this specific study: lines 297 – 394.

2. Additionally, your suggestion involved reframing the research question for this study to align with the aims of narrative research.

Reaction: We appreciate and agree with your feedback. The research question has been changed to (lines 103 – 105): “How do social workers say they navigate the contradictory approaches to autonomy and support when working with women considering returning to an abusive relationship?”

 

3. Lastly, you note that the lack of clarity regarding culture, nationality, ethnicity, and other aspects remains. You suggest deleting assumptions made in this article, and instead addressing them as a limitation of the study.

Reaction: Following your feedback, we have deleted the lines in the methodology and addressed it as a limitation. Lines 726 – 733: “This research has some important limitations. For instance, one limitation of this study is the lack of clarity regarding the influence of culture, nationality, and ethnicity of the social workers on their interventions, and how these self-chosen identities differ, intersect, and interrelate with each other. Although the study acknowledges the importance of respecting the social workers' self-identified backgrounds, it did not sufficiently explore how their identities shaped their approach to autonomy in practice. Future research could delve deeper into this aspect to provide a more comprehensive understanding of identity and intervention in social work”.

 

We thank you for your feedback.