However, the discussion so far though appears to be based on language and the inability of researcher and practitioner to see the world in the same manner. I agree with Ms. Miller that the study as it is described does nothing to frame the purpose and results in a non victim blaming manner. It is easy for someone to draw the conclusion that rape is the result of a woman who self-blames and is unable to be assertive. So do researchers have a responsibility to simply report the research eschewing obfuscation including political/social concerns or do they need to place their research in the context of the field and it social/political perspectives? I think this is one of the great divides between practitioners and researchers. The researcher is supposed to present the facts and how they were obtained in a clean, precise and unbiased manner. The practitioner exists in a socio-political environment advocating for change and human rights. That practitioner view is often critical of the researcher’s work when it did not address the research in context.

So, if I am a victim advocate working with sexual assault survivors is this research study of value? Of course it is. It tells me that self-blame and ultimately training in assertiveness in the presence of self-blame is perhaps an important piece of the helping response and certainly can fit well into a strength based approach. Could the researchers have presented the research with language that is more palatable to the field. Yes. Discussion sections and introductions are not result sections and bound by the same tradition of simply reporting the facts. Discussion and introduction sections of any article should place the research into the context of the field when that research has application to the field. Researchers also need to be more pragmatic about describing the limitations of their research even though that may not promote an editor or reviewer to think the article is the best thing since sliced bread. Too often in my opinion is a peer-review/publication perspective that they only consumers are other academic peer researchers.

Perhaps more research would be read by practitioners if researchers were more knowledgeable of and sensitive to the consumers who stand the most to gain from the knowledged produced.

A wide range of topics will follow, including family violence, sexual violence, juvenile justice, restorative justice, parental alienation misuse in family courts, child abuse and maltreatment, teen dating violence, the dynamics of stalking and many others.

We hope many of you will join us here to learn and dialogue on the “tools of our trade.”