Deconstructing `problem' researchers and `problem' families: A rejoinder to Garrett

In a recent article in this journal Paul Michael Garrett presents an ill-informed, selective and distorted view of our work on Intensive Family Support Projects (IFSPs) which provide specialist and intensive support to families at risk of eviction. In constructing a critique of IFSPs Garrett draws extensively on interim study findings mistakenly concluding that we are `docile' researchers lacking in critical reflexivity. In this response, we first challenge the way in which he crudely constructs IFSPs as state disciplinary mechanisms reflecting a lack of a nuanced understanding of the multiplicity of ways in which the `conduct of conduct' is performed. Secondly, we explore his use of a `disciplining gaze' to undermine the validity of both the study findings and our role as independent researchers. Finally, reflecting some of the contradictions inherent in the formation of women as gendered welfare subjects we strongly refute the allegation that our approach was gender blind and outline the various ways in which lone parent women resisted being constructed as the `anti-social other'.