Difference between revisions of "Arminen2004a"
SaulAlbert (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Ilkka Arminen; |Title=On the weakness of institutional rules: The case of addiction group therapy |Tag(s)=EMCA; Addiction; Therapy; Ins...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Ilkka Arminen; | + | |Author(s)=Ilkka Arminen; |
| − | |Title=On the weakness of institutional rules: | + | |Title=On the weakness of institutional rules: the case of addiction group therapy |
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Addiction; Therapy; Institutional talk; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Addiction; Therapy; Institutional talk; addiction treatment; conversation analysis; institutional interaction; peer group therapy; rule use; |
|Key=Arminen2004a | |Key=Arminen2004a | ||
|Year=2004 | |Year=2004 | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Volume=15 | |Volume=15 | ||
|Number=6 | |Number=6 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=683–704 |
| + | |URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0957926504046500 | ||
| + | |DOI=10.1177/0957926504046500 | ||
| + | |Abstract=This article discusses how new clients in an addiction therapy in-patient clinic are instructed about the rules for group therapy. Only rarely are the rules presented without any modification. In most cases, rules are rephrased, enriched through contextual knowledge or interpreted via the patients’ common sense. However, there is a systematic distinction between the majority of rules, which are ‘modifiable,’ and a few rules that are, without exception, presented without further modification. The patients’ persisting orientation to this distinction between ‘modifiable rules’ and ‘non-negotiable rules’ articulates a difference between basic moral rules and institutionally distinct rules that apply in that setting only. These setting-specific constraints become accountable in terms of the parties’ common sense competence, thus emphasizing that institutional practices do not take place in a vacuum: the parties’ common sense competence makes possible, but also sets limits on, the therapy process itself. This may also partially explain the paradoxical finding that very different types of addiction treatment seem to achieve almost the same results. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 04:35, 1 November 2019
| Arminen2004a | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Arminen2004a |
| Author(s) | Ilkka Arminen |
| Title | On the weakness of institutional rules: the case of addiction group therapy |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Addiction, Therapy, Institutional talk, addiction treatment, conversation analysis, institutional interaction, peer group therapy, rule use |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2004 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Discourse & Society |
| Volume | 15 |
| Number | 6 |
| Pages | 683–704 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/0957926504046500 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This article discusses how new clients in an addiction therapy in-patient clinic are instructed about the rules for group therapy. Only rarely are the rules presented without any modification. In most cases, rules are rephrased, enriched through contextual knowledge or interpreted via the patients’ common sense. However, there is a systematic distinction between the majority of rules, which are ‘modifiable,’ and a few rules that are, without exception, presented without further modification. The patients’ persisting orientation to this distinction between ‘modifiable rules’ and ‘non-negotiable rules’ articulates a difference between basic moral rules and institutionally distinct rules that apply in that setting only. These setting-specific constraints become accountable in terms of the parties’ common sense competence, thus emphasizing that institutional practices do not take place in a vacuum: the parties’ common sense competence makes possible, but also sets limits on, the therapy process itself. This may also partially explain the paradoxical finding that very different types of addiction treatment seem to achieve almost the same results.
Notes
