Valkeapaa-etal2018
Valkeapaa-etal2018 | |
---|---|
BibType | ARTICLE |
Key | Valkeapaa-etal2018 |
Author(s) | Taina Valkeapää, Kimiko Tanaka, Camilla Lindholm, Elina Weiste, Melisa Stevanovic |
Title | Interaction, Ideology, and Practice in Mental Health Rehabilitation |
Editor(s) | |
Tag(s) | EMCA, Rehabilitation, Professional ideology, Joint decision-making, Conversation analysis, Social interaction |
Publisher | Springer |
Year | 2018 |
Language | English |
City | |
Month | |
Journal | Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation and Mental Health |
Volume | 6 |
Number | 1 |
Pages | 9-23 |
URL | |
DOI | https://doi.org/10.1007/s40737-018-0131-3 |
ISBN | |
Organization | |
Institution | |
School | |
Type | |
Edition | |
Series | |
Howpublished | |
Book title | |
Chapter |
Abstract
This paper investigates how two ideologies of mental health rehabilitation—recovery ideol- ogy and communal approach—are realized in interactional practices associated with psychosocial rehabilitation. More spesifically, the paper discusses employee selection in the context of the Clubhouse-created Transitional Employment (TE) programme, which offers employment opportunities for rehabilitants. The paper describes how joint decisions are established during the moment-by-moment interactional processes at the Clubhouse. Drawing from the data set of 29 video-recorded rehabilitation group meetings, and Conversation Analysis as a method, the paper analyzes two questions: (1) How do the participants talk about the decision-making process associated with the TE on a ‘‘meta’’ level? And (2) how are the TE employees actually selected in the turn-by-turn sequential unfolding of interaction? When discussing the TE employee selection procedure on a ‘‘meta’’ level, the values of recovery ideology focusing on client empowerment and self-determination are prevalent. Also, the central ideals of the communal approach—openness and collaboration—are defended as decision-making guidelines. However, in the meetings where decisions on the TE employees are concretely made, there is a mismatch between the two ideological approaches to rehabilitation and the actual practices observable in the relevant interactional encounters.
Notes