Difference between revisions of "Matarese2014"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m
 
Line 2: Line 2:
 
|BibType=ARTICLE
 
|BibType=ARTICLE
 
|Author(s)=Maureen T. Matarese; Carolus van Nijnatten
 
|Author(s)=Maureen T. Matarese; Carolus van Nijnatten
|Title=Making a Case for Client Insistence in Social Work Interaction
+
|Title=Making a case for client insistence in social work interaction
 
|Tag(s)=Institutional interaction; Preference;
 
|Tag(s)=Institutional interaction; Preference;
 
|Key=Matarese2014
 
|Key=Matarese2014
 
|Year=2014
 
|Year=2014
 +
|Language=English
 
|Journal=Discourse Processes
 
|Journal=Discourse Processes
 
|Volume=52
 
|Volume=52

Latest revision as of 09:30, 9 December 2019

Matarese2014
BibType ARTICLE
Key Matarese2014
Author(s) Maureen T. Matarese, Carolus van Nijnatten
Title Making a case for client insistence in social work interaction
Editor(s)
Tag(s) Institutional interaction, Preference
Publisher
Year 2014
Language English
City
Month
Journal Discourse Processes
Volume 52
Number 8
Pages 670–688
URL Link
DOI 10.1080/0163853X.2014.979974
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

It has been argued that the goals of the institution can shape the talk therein. What happens when a client consistently invokes topics and role identities that are outside the parameters of the institution, insisting on his or her own goals and gaining and maintaining a control of the floor usually expected of practitioners? Client power is often characterized as resistance to the practitioner or the institution. However, we argue that at times client power should viewed rather as “client insistence.” This article seeks to describe client insistence in its own right by analyzing several caseworker–client interactions within a single client case. Using a combination of discourse analysis and ethnographic methods, we examine the features of insistence in caseworker–client interaction, including client topic initiation and control, preference structure, and affiliation. We also describe features of the discourse more broadly, such as the content of the talk and the role-identity categories generated through talk. In so doing, we describe some features of client insistence, heretofore unexamined in these terms; propose a new way to talk about client power in institutional talk; and explain what functions such actions may have in social work interaction. We argue that the client uses insistence to develop a courageous lifestyle that seeks an authentic self-attitude by taking control of the interaction and asserting his role as a father and as an autonomous individual over his role as a homeless client at the shelter.

Notes