Showing papers in "Clinical Sociology Review in 1985"

Sociologists as Mediators: Clinical Sociology in Action

Abstract: Clinical sociology is receiving increasing attention at the undergraduate and graduate level and among practicing sociologists Much has been written about how the undergraduate and/or graduate curriculum can be modified to respond to the demands for a more applied or clinical approach Little, however, has been written about how a department might involve its current and future faculty in a clinical program. One program which has successfully integrated a strong liberal arts based program with an active clinical emphasis is the University of Arkansas at Little Rock'sHumanist as Mediator program This program is instructive in that it has achieved a high level of programmatic success and at the same time enjoys the support of participating faculty. This program is discussed as a prototype for those interested in initiating or enhancing a clinical sociology program for faculty Clinical sociology is receiving increasing attention at the undergraduate and graduate level and among practicing sociologists. In light of the changes which have occurred among potential employers of sociology graduates, changes among students and changes in opportunity for Ph.D. and M.A. graduates in sociology, the modifications under way in the discipline are not surprising. The increasing 'interest in applied and clinical sociology is a rational response to the changes going on in our society and among both undergraduate and graduate students. Much has been written about how the undergraduate and/or graduate curriculum can be modified to respond to the demands for a more applied or clinical approach (Freeman and Rossi, 1984; Miller, 1983; Teaching Sociology, 1983). Little, however, has been written about how a department might involve its current and future faculty in a clinical program. As Howery points out (1984), it is especially important for a department, as a collective, to develop programs which are supportive of the department's mission. I am not arguing against individuals involving themselves in applied Correspondence to. John S. Miller, Associate Dean, College of Liberal Arts, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 33rd and University, Little Rock, AR 72204

Sociotherapy with Marital Couples: Incorporating Dramaturgical and Social Construction Elements of Marital Interaction

Abstract: This article represents an exercise in the translation of accepted sociological concepts into specific principles to be included in a larger framework referred to as sociotherapy. Sociotherapy is presented as a specific branch or subfield of clinical sociology. Although the concepts presented may be generalized to other areas of sociotherapy, the specific focus of the paper is sociotherapy with marital couples. Two dynamics involved in marital conflict and dissolution are described by employing the social constructionist position of Berger and Luckmann and the dramaturgical perspective of Goffman. The process by which couples jointly construct their marital world of reality is discussed, as is the process by which each spouse gains access to the \"backstage\" area of the other. The implications of both processes for the existence of marital conflict are outlined and suggestions made for effectively employing the resulting insights in undertaking sociotherapy with couples Even a terse perusal of the literature within the nascent area of clinical sociology reveals an interventionist approach committed to the application of generally accepted aspects of sociological knowledge. This interventionism is directed Correspondence to: Nathan Church, Department of Sociology, North Texas State University, Denton, TX 76203. The author would like to acknowledge the suggestions and comments made by the editor, anonymous reviewers, and Leonard Benson, which were helpful in revising an earlier form of this

Clinical Sociology and the Acculturation Specialty

Abstract: The sudden arrival of 125,000 Cuban refugees created the need for "acculturation specialists" who could ease the transition of these Hispanic refugees, many of whom suffered from mental disabilities or other stigmas From the perspective of clinical sociology, acculturation should involve "empowerment " Culture brokers will encounter service dilemmas, factors which contravene the humanistic goal of empowerment of members of a psychiatric population What course is proper when empowerment of a client might subvert program goals? Should concise information on the welfare system be provided to clients who might use it to abscond and establish another pattern of dependency? Should acculturation be directed toward the American mainstream culture, or toward the growing Hispanic culture? When placing a client in the community, should prospective sponsors be informed of every psychosocial problem a client has had, or kept in the dark? What is to be done with the man who has just committed assault and now seems truly sorry? When, if ever, should the collectivity be mobilized to repress undesired behavior? The acculturation specialty has most of the qualities which distinguish clinical sociology Emphasis on "empowerment" of clients structures the inevitable jurisdictional conflict with social workers in terms of philosophical opposition or revision of behavior modification Acculturation, the process of adapting to another culture, involves the mutual influence of different cultures in close contact The acculturation specialist has the clinical role of mediating difficult intercultural transitions, helping to bridge the gap between two potentially incompatible culture patterns The acculturation Correspondence to: Fred Hoffman, Scientific Analysis Corporation, P O Box 26642, Los Angeles,

Intergroup Relations in Applied Research: Respondent Participation as a Clinical Intervention

Abstract: Little attention has been paid to the clinical aspects of relationships between groups involved in applied research. This article reports on how naturally appearing community groups with a vested interest in the outcome of a research study were involved in the research, thus strengthening their own sense of involvement At the same time, the willingness of the researchers to involve community groups in an open process strengthened the research Clinical sociology, by any other name, is an established concern of applied social research. Applied research is clinical to the extent that it deals with behavioral problems related to the collection of valid information and to the extent that it is part of a change-oriented process (Alderfer and Brown, 1975; Argyris, 1970; Leitko and Peterson, 1982). The clinical focus within applied research has been mostly at the individual level. Concern has focused on psychological defenses to information giving (Argyris, 1970), cognitive abilities relevant to information recall (Webb et al, 1966), researcher-respondent relationships (Bailey, 1982:189-91), and the impact of research on respondents (Bonacich, 1970; Kelman, 1967). Less attention has been paid to clinical aspects of group and intergroup relations within applied research settings. While the role of groups in information gathering and change processes has not been totally overlooked, only limited Correspondence to. Thomas A. Leitko, Division of Social Science, Alfred University, Alfred, NY

Clinical Research Interviewing in Sociology

Abstract: This paper explores the interpenetration of clinical and research interviewing processes in research interviews The data are interviews with 17 women diagnosed as schizophrenic, and with their husbands, over the period 1957-1961. The interviews began with the first week of admission to Napa state hospital, and ended up to two years after discharge. The respondents were in a situation of medical uncertainty and marital disruption. They utilized both the form and the content of the research interviews in a therapeutic manner, seeking advice, opinions and information from the interviewers. The interviewers, as they had been trained to do, attempted to resist their respondents' demands, not always successfully. With the entry of Clinical Sociology into Sociology's ever-widening range of subspecialities, the issue of the interpenetration of clinical and research interests in interviewing and field research has become increasingly salient. This paper is concerned with the clinical implications of research interviews, a theme which is represented only sparsely in the existing literature (e.g., Laslett and Rapoport, 1975; Rubin, 1976). With the development of internships in behavior-changing programs for clinical and other applied sociologists, the problem has also been analyzed "the other way around" as it were, with reference to the insertion of research agendas into clinical field placements (e.g., Vogler, 1982). The data upon which this paper is based are 15,000 pages of interviews Revision of a paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Sociological Association, San Antonio, August 1984 Grateful thanks to Barry Glassner, Barbara Laslett and Robin Vogler for comments on an earlier draft. Correspondence to: Carol A B Warren, Social Science Research Institute, University of Southern California, University Park, Los Angeles, CA 90089

Societal Influences on Sexual Dysfunctions: The Clinical Sociologist as Sex Educator

Abstract: The traditional psychoanalytic approach to sexual dysfunctions deemphasizes societal factors as contributing to sexual dysfunctions The new approach to sex therapy, which has developed since 1970, emphasizes a diversity of factors, including societal factors. Sex education—following sex therapy—has now begun to recognize the area of sexual dysfunctions as a valid topic. Knowledge and understanding of the societal factors which directly or indirectly contribute to sexual dysfunctions can help people to change or better react to these factors. The clinical sociologist as a sex educator can and should make a major contribution to the prevention and correction of sexual

"In the Best Interest of the Child": Official Court Reports as an Artifact of Negotiated Reality in Children's Assessment Centers

Abstract: This paper deals with the way in which official court reports are constructed at a Children's Reception and Assessment Centre in London, England. These reports and their recommendations serve as a key resource for the court in helping the magistrate to decide what is "in the best interest of the child." The work deals with the unequal distribution of status and power between the agency and the parents of Assessment Centre children. The analysis demonstrates how, in the case of serious differences between the agency and the parent regarding what is in the child's best interest, the agency's status and power advantage are used to convince the court that the agency and not the parent has the authoritative version of what is in the best interest of the child. This is done by invoking a series of strategic written maneuvers in constructing the official court report, such that the agency's version of reality is understood by any intelligent reader to be the correct one, and the parents' version of reality, as it appears in the report, the discredited one. Governmental authorities and parents often have widely divergent views of the appropriate care of children perceived by the authorities to be neglected or dependent. After a child is placed in the legal custody of a child welfare agency, the courts are often called upon to make lasting decisions about the future of the child. Correspondence to: Jerry Jacobs, Department of Sociology, Syracuse University, 500 University Place, Syracuse, NY 13210. IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD 89 A six-month participant-observation study of children's reception and assessment centers in London, England, found that child care officers invoke one of eight different recommendations. In any individual case one of these is selected and passed on to the court magistrate in an effort to assist and guide him in acting "in the best interest of the child." The recommendations are: 1. Return the child to his/her parents, subject to certain constraints imposed by the court, and monitored by the field social worker. 2. Place the child in a long-term care facility. 3. Place the child in a foster home. 4. Place the child in a boarding school. 5. Place the child in a special therapeutic setting. 6. Place the child in a training school. 7. Place children 18 or over in a "hostel." 8. Leave the child in the care of the reception and assessment center for relatively long periods of time. This paper will be concerned with one reception and assessment center (referred to in the text as Oxford) and how the agency and staff decided which of these options to choose. The "gloss" on this process was that the decision was the outcome of the assessment (Garfinkel, 1967). The following is an outline of this process: 1. A "remand" or "care order" must be acquired from the courts. 2. A field social worker is assigned to the case. 3. A professional meeting is called. 4. A family meeting is initiated. 5. The child is given a battery of psychological tests. 6. The staff discusses the daily progress of the child at "handover time." 7. Teachers report on the child's progress in school. 8. Case conferences are initiated involving the staff, psychiatric consultants, field social worker, and parents. 9. A staff conference (or conferences) is called, where reports from all relevant parties are considered and a final assessment is made. 10. The "placement officer" assesses the availability of real options for placement. 11. The recommendations are forwarded to the court. 12. The recommendations may be accepted by the parents or contested in court. 13. There is a final outcome and the child is "placed." These 13 steps are generally subsumed under four main stages: 1) Staff Meeting; 2) Family Meeting; 3) Report Construction; and 4) Case Conference 90 CLINICAL SOCIOLOGY REVIEW/1985 (final conference). Let us now consider in some detail how this scenario is played out. While the study is based upon the author's participant-observation of staff meetings, inhouse and outside social events, tape-recorded interviews with residential child care officers (CCO's) and an analysis of official case records, this paper will restrict itself to the question of report construction. This in turn will bear upon the resolution of competing claims and realities (Lyman and Scott, 1970) of the agency staff, the children they care for and their parents. In this respect, the agency has a distinct advantage. In cases of parent-agency disputes regarding what is in the best interests of the child, magistrates tend to accept the agency's version of reality as the authoritative one. There are three primary reasons for this: First is the battery of professional expertise the agency is able to muster to legitimate its claims. For example, there are the professional reports of the child care officers, school teachers, field social workers, and psychiatric and psychological consultants. This "scientific" evidence is weighted against the "uninformed' ' lay opinions of the poorly educated, and frequently unemployed parents. Second, should these differences result in a court battle, the parents are, of course, provided legal assistance. However, such assistance comes at the level of public defender and is far from "the best that money can buy." Add to this the court's predisposition to accept the agency's recommendations and the fact that the magistrate (as well as the agency) cannot know on the basis of past experience what is in the best interest of the child. (The data that longitudinal studies could provide regarding the effects of agency or court recommendations upon the child are conspicuously absent.) We can readily see how outcomes are badly weighted against the parents. Third, in England, unlike the United States, these evaluations take place in one officially designated place—children's reception and assessment centers. One does not shop for favorable evaluations or opinions the way one might in this country. This feature also tends to favor the agency's claims in legal disputes. CONSTRUCTING REPORTS I will consider in the following discussion and analysis, how the consultants with their "scientific" outlook, and the court and family with their lay or "commonsense" perspective succeed or fail to reach some agreement regarding the child's problems. This is done through an analysis of the assessment team's final report to the court, which is comprised of three parts: 1) the psychiatric report; 2) the psychologist's report (based primarily upon the results of a battery of psychological tests); and 3) the "house report" of the residential child care officers. These reports inform as much by what they do not say as what they do. IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD 91 The author's analysis will provide alternative ways of interpreting the content and show how the consultants sought to construct matters so that the court would accept their version of reality over competing versions. The entire text is given in order to allow the reader to follow the detailed process analysis to its conclusion. The court report was prepared by the consulting psychiatrist. The analysis is based on my observations and conversations with the participants.

Six Problem-Soving Contexts for Intervention Decision Making

Abstract: Six different organizational problem-confrontations present the Clinical Sociologist with a variety of intervention challenges. We identify these contexts as: Entropy Prevention, Creative Downsizing, Compliance with Regulations, Choosing Preferred Futures, Creating Conditions for Innovation, Facilitating Dissemination of Successful Practices. Several intervention strategies are presented, and some typical traps to avoid are identified. Some generic interventions that are needed in all six contexts are summarized. Making appropriate, effective intervention decisions is one of the major professional challenges of every clinical sociologist. Good decisions are based on several acts of conceptual integration. First, there is the challenge of multisystem thinking, i.e., to integrate data about the client at the level of individual, group, and organizational dynamics and interactions with the environment. Not all, but most, diagnostic analysis requires integrating data from these four levels of systems. The second challenge of integration is to synthesize and utilize relevant interdisciplinary concepts. If the concepts of Freud, Lewin, Mead, and Parsons stay fragmented in our thinking, we can hardly make creative, diagnostic multisystem judgments. The third challenge is to integrate our diagnostic thinking about "what's going on" within our client system with planned change theory about readiness for and resistance to change, considering the frameworks of Lewin, Beckhard, Tannenbaum, Bennis, Shephard, Lippitt, Blake, Weisbord, and others. Fourth comes the critical reflective action of scanning one's own repertoire Correspondence to: Ronald Lippitt, 1916 Cambridge Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Developing Organization Consulting Skills in Clinical Sociology

Abstract: This teaching note reports on how participation in a seminar on Community Involvement helped the author learn important organizational consultant skills, while helping an organization in trouble recognize structural sources of its difficulties. This teaching note reports on a practicuum experience in the development of organization consulting skills. It will discuss the practicuum experience in the three major contexts in which they took place: 1) the formal classroom experience of the seminar; 2) the recipient of services, the XYZ corporation; and 3) the intermediary between the classroom and the recipient of services, the United Way/United Black Fund Management Services Corporation. This paper describes how the practicuum experience allowed me to serve as a consultant to a corporation, and what I learned from that experience. The Clinical Sociology Course The Community Involvement Seminar at Georgetown University is a practicuum experience in clinical sociology designed to last for one or two semesters. The emphasis of the seminar changes from semester to semester and has included: counseling and crisis intervention, community organizing, program administration, and social program evaluation. The primary purpose of the seminar during the Spring 1983 semester was to provide intervention skill experience in organization consulting and in other forms of community involvement for undergraduate and graduate students in sociology who are developing their skills in social intervention. The Spring 1983 Community Involvement Seminar syllabus stated: "This semester students will read about and discuss intervention skills at the following levels: interpersonal, organizational, interorganizational and Correspondence to: Ray Kirshak, Department of Sociology, The American University, 4400 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20016.

Social Problem as Affliction and Social Problem as Hazard

Abstract: Social problem as affliction and social problem as hazard represent two related but differing foci of sociological concern and intervention. Social problem as affliction refers to the personal problem which is largely social in nature. Intervention is concerned with helping the afflicted person with his or her problem. Social problem as hazard refers to the collective social problem posed by a social condition responsible for increased likelihood of personal problems and ills. Intervention is concerned with dealing with the collective problem. The concept of social problem can be an important tool in the creation and utilization of knowledge useful in reducing suffering and increasing well-being. However, especially in the context of developing and utilizing knowledge for sociological intervention, it is useful to distinguish between social problem as affliction and social problem as hazard. Social Problem as Affliction The use of the term social problem to refer to a personal problem that is social in nature appears to be rather recent. Thus, in the title of a 1978 article on the classification of the presenting problems of clients referred to social workers (Fitzgerald, 1978), the term "social problem" is in quotes to indicate that it is not being used in a usual sense. Correspondence to: Berthold Brenner, Center for Epidemiologic Studies, National Institute of Mental Health, Room 18-105, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857.