ORCID Profile
0000-0002-4114-1251
Current Organisations
RMIT University
,
La Trobe University
,
RMIT University City Campus
,
Victoria University
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 07-08-2023
DOI: 10.1002/AJS4.280
Abstract: In 2022, a new Federal Labor government introduced an NDIA Act amendment and initiatives that indicate a reorientation to partnership working and integration of co‐design principles. “Partnership working” reflects collaborative aspirations where parties commit to trust, shared goals and respect for erse knowledges and experiences. The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) espouses a partnership approach and rights‐based values, yet the neoliberal emphasis on in idual choice and marketisation within a social insurance model can privilege certain voices and produce adversarial processes and dynamics. Our focus group research with disability leaders, family carers and disability service professionals explored experiences in the NDIS planning phase with a focus on the extent to which partnership principles operated in practice. Our findings suggest embedded paradoxes time and resources are required to build the trust and relationships central to interpersonal partnerships between in iduals, carers and services but are undermined by organisational and structural factors such as workload pressures, administrative burden and adversarial practices produced in a cost containment context. Tensions in partnership working must also negotiate carers' workload and responsibilities with the autonomy of people with disability. We argue that partnership working is difficult to achieve where structural and systemic limitations and assumptions influence everyday practices. Partnership must operate from empowerment and relational, rather than transactional, principles if genuine participatory and inclusive practice is to be achieved.
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 05-2020
Abstract: The dynamics of inclusion and exclusion for people with disabilities and the places in which they live are being challenged in Australia with the transition to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. This paper reports on the experiences of a place-based and participatory action research project in regional Tasmania which sought to co-create citizenship opportunities with co-researchers living with disability. We report on our experience of negotiating this ambitious and emergent project through the uncertain and shifting terrain of the contemporary neoliberal policy and service context. We highlight the rich gains as well as the significant relational, contextual and procedural challenges of operationalising and staying true to bottom up and strengths-based community development principles. Key learnings relate to risks of creating liminal spaces for community action, about power and authority, and about the skills, resources and labour needed to unearth and mobilise in idual and community strengths. We argue that there remains a significant tension between the aspirations of collective action and contemporary services and policy structures that reproduce liminality, silent positioning and place denial. This research challenges traditional disability centric notions of inclusion and place and has implications for the NDIS, for policies at risk of reproducing disabling dynamics, for service innovation and collaboration and for all social workers and others working to develop more inclusive communities.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 13-10-2020
DOI: 10.1002/AJS4.139
Abstract: We show how policy discourses construct consumer choice, performance measurement and quality standards as key technologies in the marketisation of disability services and aged care in Australia. The emergence of performance outcome measurement and increased consumer access to these through erse consumer facing and interactive platforms enables the state to “govern at a distance” through the management and shaping of outcome indicators rather than delivery of services. The state does this by creating market competition and establishing outcomes which reflect the construction people using services as informed and rational consumers rather than citizens. This construction and operationalisation frame marketisation as a rational solution to broken systems, assume choice is unproblematic and ignore erse capacities to access and use information, resource differentials and contextual variables such as market maturity and service availability. The benign marketisation of human services thus discriminates against those who are already marginalised and disadvantaged unless equity strategies are clearly in place.
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Date: 2023
No related grants have been discovered for Christina David.