Respect response to Dixon et al. (2012) ‘Perpetrator programmes for partner violence: Are they based on ideology or evidence?’

Purpose. This article is a commentary on Dixon, Archer, & Graham‐Kevan's (2012) critique of the Respect position statement on gender, which concluded by calling for abandoning either Respect or the Respect accreditation system. Methods. The article starts by providing some factual information about Respect and about the accreditation system mentioned in Dixon et al . It then picks up on five specific aspects of the discussion: research notions, prevalence, homicide, the relevance of gender to work on intimate partner violence, and our work to support male victims. Results. Dixon et al . critique one document in order to call for the abandonment of a system of accreditation which is not connected to that document. Dixon et al . ignored other relevant research (such as that on partner homicide) and practice evidence that contradicts their assertions. This includes ignoring the existence of Respect's work with male victims, including running the male victims helpline. Conclusions. Respect work is informed by knowledge and experience from research and practice. There is substantial evidence from research to support the position statement on gender. The accreditation standard and system of accreditation was established before the position statement was written and is not included. Respect provides valuable services for male victims and for male and female perpetrators.