Multi-voiced assessment in a mental health final statement
-
Kirsi Günther
Kirsi Günther is a PhD student in the field of social work in the School of Social Sciences and Humanities at University of Tampere. Her research interests are especially in clienthood, institutional practices in social work, and text studies.
Abstract
The focus of this article is on the records written during an intensive assessment and rehabilitation course targeted at young adults suffering from severe mental health issues. The ability of the clients to cope with everyday life is assessed during the rehabilitation course and the final statement compiled by the keyworker includes the combined results of the assessments of each client. Using intertextual analysis, I examine these final statements and utilize the concepts of voice and direct and indirect reported speech. I ask how and what kinds of voices are used in final statement to assess the clients’ progress during the course and to define the future development tasks for them. Firstly, it is shown that the final statements are multi-voiced texts. They are persuasive statements about the clients’ development stories and descriptions of how the rehabilitation course practitioners have helped the client. Secondly, the analysis shows how voice and client knowledge are present in the final statement. The voices of assessment build the argument dialogically and highlight temporality, and in this way they produce a convincing description of the mental health client’s current ability to function and progress on the rehabilitation course.
About the author
Kirsi Günther is a PhD student in the field of social work in the School of Social Sciences and Humanities at University of Tampere. Her research interests are especially in clienthood, institutional practices in social work, and text studies.
Acknowledgment
This article is part of the research project “Responsibilization of professionals and service users in mental health practices” funded by the Academy of Finland. I would like to acknowledge the important contributions to the text by the project group members Kirsi Juhila, Suvi Raitakari, and Sirpa Saario.
References
Allen, Graham. 2000. Intertextuality. The new critical idiom. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203131039Search in Google Scholar
Bakhtin, M. M. 1981. The dialogic imagination. Four essays. MichaelHolquist (ed.), Caryl Emerson & Michael Holquist (trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Search in Google Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1984. Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Search in Google Scholar
Coker, Elisabeth M. 2003. Narrative strategies in medical discourse: Constructing the psychiatric “case” in a non-western setting. Social Science & Medicine57(5). 905–916.10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00459-8Search in Google Scholar
Cook-Gumperz, Jenny & Lawrence Messerman. 1999. Local identities and institutional practices. Constructing the record of professional collaboration. In SrikantSarangi & CeliaRoberts (eds.), Talk, work and institutional order: Discourse in medical, mediation and management settings, 145–181. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110208375.2.145Search in Google Scholar
Cott, Cheryl A. 2004. Client-centred rehabilitation: Client perspectives. Disability and Rehabilitation26(24). 1411–1422.10.1080/09638280400000237Search in Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Search in Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1995. Media discourse. London: Arnold.Search in Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 2003. Analysis discourse. Textual analysis for social research. London & New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203697078Search in Google Scholar
Günther, Kirsi. 2012. Asiakassuunnitelmien ammatilliset kehykset. Mielenterveyskuntoutus asiakassuunnitelmien kuvaamana [Professional frames in documents. Mental health rehabilitation as described in client plans]. Janus20(1). 15–31.Search in Google Scholar
Heikkinen, Vesa. 1999. Ideologinen merkitys. Kriittisen tekstintutkimuksen teoriassa ja käytännössä [Ideological meaning in the theory and practice of critical text analysis]. Helsinki: SKS.Search in Google Scholar
Heikkinen, Vesa. 2000. Tekstuaalinen pirunnyrkki [The textual burr puzzle). In VesaHeikkinen, PirjoHiidenmaa & UllaTiililä (eds.), Teksti työnä, virka kielenä (Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskuksen julkaisuja 116), 63–115. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.Search in Google Scholar
Hiidenmaa, Pirjo. 2008. Lingvistinen tekstintutkimus [Text analysis of linguistic]. In KariSajavaara & ArjaPiirainen-Marsh (eds.), Kieli, diskurssi & yhteisö. Soveltavan kielentutkimuksen teoriaa ja käytäntöä, 161–190. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylän yliopistopaino.Search in Google Scholar
Holt, Elizabeth. 1996. Reporting talk: The use of direct reported speech in conservation. Research on Language and Social Interaction29(3). 219–245.10.1207/s15327973rlsi2903_2Search in Google Scholar
Iedema, Rick. 2003. The medical record as organizing discourse. Document Design4(11). 64–84.10.1075/dd.4.1.07iedSearch in Google Scholar
Juhila, Kirsi, KirsiGünther & SuviRaitakari. 2014a. Negotiating mental health rehabilitation plans: Joint future talk and clashing time talk in professional client interaction. Time & Society (OnlineFirst). http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0961463X14523925 (accessed 12 September 2014).10.1177/0961463X14523925Search in Google Scholar
Juhila, Kirsi, SirpaSaario, KirsiGünther & SuviRaitakari. 2014b. Reported client–practitioner conversations as assessment in mental health practitioners’ talk. Text & Talk34(1). 69–88.10.1515/text-2013-0038Search in Google Scholar
Koskela, Merja. 2013. Same, same, but different: Intertextual and interdiscursive features of communication strategy texts. Discourse & Communication7(4). 389–407.Search in Google Scholar
Kristeva, Julia. 1980. Desire in language: A semiotic approach to literature and art. New York: Columbia University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lemke, Jay. 2004. Intertextuality and educational research. In NoraShuart-Faris & DavidBloome (eds.), Uses of intertextuality in classroom and educational research, 3–6. Greenwich: IAP.Search in Google Scholar
Makkonen-Craig, Henna. 2005. Toimittajan läsnäolo sanomalehtitekstissä: Näkökulmia suomen kielen dialogisiin passiivilauseisiin [Journalistic presence in Finnish newspaper texts: Perspectives to dialogical passive sentences]. Helsinki: SKS.Search in Google Scholar
Mäntynen, Anne. 2005. Referointi tekstilajipiirteenä. Esimerkkinä kielijutut [Summary in feature of genre. Example of language use]. In MarkkuHaakana & JyrkiKalliokoski (eds.), Referointi ja moniäänisyys, 258–281. Helsinki: SKS.Search in Google Scholar
O’Rourke, Liz. 2010. Recording in social work. Not just an administrative task. Bristol: Policy Press.10.2307/j.ctt1t897kwSearch in Google Scholar
Pälli, Pekka. 2009. Strategia merkitysneuvotteluna: Strategiakeskustelun ja -tekstin vuorovaikutuksesta. Puhe ja kieli [Talk and language] 29(2). 75–88.Search in Google Scholar
Pälli, Pekka, EeroVaara & VirpiSorsa. 2009. Strategy as text and discursive practice: A genre-based approach to strategizing in city administration. Discourse & Communication3(3). 303–317.10.1177/1750481309337206Search in Google Scholar
Perelman, Chaïm & LucieOlbrechts-Tyteca. 1971. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Search in Google Scholar
Potter, Jonathan. 1996. Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London: Sage.10.4135/9781446222119Search in Google Scholar
Roose, Rudi, AndreMottart, NeleDejonckheere, Carolvan Nijnatten & MariaDe Bie. 2009. Participatory social work and report writing. Child & Family Social Work14(3). 322–330.10.1111/j.1365-2206.2008.00599.xSearch in Google Scholar
Solin, Anna. 2004. Intertextuality as mediation: On the analysis of intertextual relations in public discourse. Text24(2). 267–296.10.1515/text.2004.010Search in Google Scholar
Spafford, Marlee M., Catherine F.Schryer & LoreleiLingard. 2008. The rhetoric of patient voice: Reported talk with patients in referral and consultation letters. Communication & Medicine5(2). 183–194.10.1558/cam.v5i2.183Search in Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 2006. Intertextuality in interaction: Reframing family arguments in public and private. Text & Talk26(4/5). 597–617.10.1515/TEXT.2006.024Search in Google Scholar
Volosinov, Valentin. 1990 [1929. Kielen dialogisuus. Marxismi ja kielifilosofia [The dialogicality of language. Marxism and the philosophy of language]. Vastapaino: Tampere.Search in Google Scholar
©2014 by De Gruyter Mouton
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Multi-voiced assessment in a mental health final statement
- The use of key in projecting face-threatening acts in televised political debate
- Balancing multiple roles through consensus: making revisions in haircutting sessions
- What is meant by hybridity? An investigation of hybridity and related terms in genre studies
- Moves and steps to sell a paper: a cross-cultural genre analysis of applied linguistics conference abstracts
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Multi-voiced assessment in a mental health final statement
- The use of key in projecting face-threatening acts in televised political debate
- Balancing multiple roles through consensus: making revisions in haircutting sessions
- What is meant by hybridity? An investigation of hybridity and related terms in genre studies
- Moves and steps to sell a paper: a cross-cultural genre analysis of applied linguistics conference abstracts
