Perpetrator programmes for partner violence: A rejoinder to Respect.

John Archer, Louise Dixon, Nicola Graham Kevan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)


Purpose. To reply to the comments made by Debbonaire and Todd (2012) in relation to our critique of Respect’s Position Statement.
Method. We examined their reply in relation to our original article and to the wider research literature.
Results. We show that Debbonaire and Todd’s reply is largely a series of assertions, for which little or no supporting evidence is offered. Their argument is first that we are misplaced in criticizing their Position Statement, and second that the main points of the statement are defendable. We indicate why our criticisms of the statement still stand.
Conclusions. We argue that Respect have not countered our overall criticism of their position that intimate partner violence (IPV) can only be addressed as a gendered issue, that is as a consequence of patriarchal values enacted at the individual level. Instead we advocate a gender-inclusive approach applying a knowledge base derived from robust empirical research on IPV and more widely from research on human aggression.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)225-232
JournalLegal and Criminological Psychology
Publication statusAccepted/In press - 2013


Dive into the research topics of 'Perpetrator programmes for partner violence: A rejoinder to Respect.'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this