Changing the Definition of the Situation

Views:
 
Category: Entertainment
     
 

Presentation Description

No description available.

Comments

Presentation Transcript

Changing the Definition of the Situation:Toward a Theory of Sociological Intervention : 

Changing the Definition of the Situation:Toward a Theory of Sociological Intervention Roger A. Straus 1984 Reprinted from the Clinical Sociology Review

Slide 2: 

CLINICAL SOCIOLOGY REVIEW, Vol. 2, 1984 Changing the Definition of the Situation:Toward a Theory of Sociological InterventionRoger A. Straus ABSTRACT The sociological intervention is identified as (1) directed at the operationaldefinition of the situation and (2) taking into account the multiple, interacting layersof social participation framing human predicaments and their resolution. These arefurther differentiated, employing case examples, in terms of mode of attack —direct, indirect, or cooperative — and level of social context at which the interventionis directed — the personal, group, organizational, or social world being describedhere as "quantum'' levels of interest. While others may conduct such interventions,the sociological intervention is characterized as the special domain of the clinicalsociologist. Sociology, unlike medicine or psychology, has never sought to maintain thestrong disciplinary boundaries typical of "a specialty." Rather, in its historicalposture of a generalizing social science encompassing the subject areas of theother social/behavioral disciplines, sociology has freely disseminated to others its findings, concepts, and methods while maintaining only a marginal interest in "applied" work. Consequently, while our subterranean tradition of clinical sociology reemerged around 1978, we have found it difficult to specify exactly the special contribution or expertise of the sociological practitioner. To limit the domain of clinical sociology to what self-identified clinicalsociologists do or have done would, if anything, be counterproductive, as Lee(1973) and others have argued. As one who has been intimately concerned with the problem of defining our field for some years now, I believe we are ready to move beyond presentation of the variety of roles enacted by clinicalsociologists (cf. Straus 1979a) to tease out the underlying logic of approachcharacterizing the specifically sociological intervention.In this paper, then, I shall state my findings that, on the basis of analyzingthe published and unpublished literature of the field, the sociological interven- 51

Slide 3: 

52 CLINICAL SOCIOLOGY REVIEW/1984 tion may be characterized as (1) directed at the operational definition of the situation, in such a way as to (2) take into account the multiple, interacting layers of social participation framing human problems and predicaments and their resolution. Contemporary practitioners of clinical sociology almost universally characterize themselves as humanists in Lee's sense of the term (1973). While extrinsic to my general definition, this value orientation is useful when differentiating clinical sociological practice from more conventional "applied social science" (Lee 1978). Our interventions are aimed at empowering clients instead of simply adjusting them to the "realities of life." Rather than adopt the expert's role of prescribing a better or more appropriate reality for the client, we strive to minimize interference with the client's worlds and values; rather than serve the needs of "the system," we attempt to serve the needs of the human beings comprising the social unit or system in question (Straus 1982). Operational Definition of the Situation Translation of social theory, concept, and method into practice necessitates both theoretical eclecticism and some reworking of our usual formulations. Thomas's "definition of the situation" (1931) is usually understood phenomenologically to mean that whatever a person or group believes or accepts to be so is real in its consequences. While it is important to deal with socially constructed realities at this intrapersonal level, since they form the basis upon which conduct will be constructed by human actors (Blumer 1969), redefinition of internalized meanings and cognitive maps is mainly a concern of sociological counselors working with individuals and primary groups (Straus 1982). Most sociological interventions are more concerned with the manifestation of these "realities" in patterns of conduct and joint conduct being enacted by the individuals, groups, and/or systems under scrutiny. Thomas's statement of the principle was somewhat ambiguous about the nature of the definition of the situation, but was clear about the dialectical relationship between the individual's definition and the definition of the situation presented by others. These concepts are neatly summarized in Sarbin's (1976) characterization of the dramaturgical perspective holding that actors not only respond to situations, but also mold and create them....The interactions of participants define the situation. The units of interest are not individuals, not organisms, not assemblages of traits, but interacting persons in identifiable contexts.

Slide 4: 

52 CLINICAL SOCIOLOGY REVIEW/1984 tion may be characterized as (1) directed at the operational definition of the situation, in such a way as to (2) take into account the multiple, interacting layers of social participation framing human problems and predicaments and their resolution. Contemporary practitioners of clinical sociology almost universally characterize themselves as humanists in Lee's sense of the term (1973). While extrinsic to my general definition, this value orientation is useful when differentiating clinical sociological practice from more conventional "applied social science" (Lee 1978). Our interventions are aimed at empowering clients instead of simply adjusting them to the "realities of life." Rather than adopt the expert's role of prescribing a better or more appropriate reality for the client, we strive to minimize interference with the client's worlds and values; rather than serve the needs of "the system," we attempt to serve the needs of the human beings comprising the social unit or system in question (Straus 1982). Operational Definition of the Situation Translation of social theory, concept, and method into practice necessitates both theoretical eclecticism and some reworking of our usual formulations. Thomas's "definition of the situation" (1931) is usually understood phenomenologically to mean that whatever a person or group believes or accepts to be so is real in its consequences. While it is important to deal with socially constructed realities at this intrapersonal level, since they form the basis upon which conduct will be constructed by human actors (Blumer 1969), redefinition of internalized meanings and cognitive maps is mainly a concern of sociological counselors working with individuals and primary groups (Straus 1982). Most sociological interventions are more concerned with the manifestation of these "realities" in patterns of conduct and joint conduct being enacted by the individuals, groups, and/or systems under scrutiny. Thomas's statement of the principle was somewhat ambiguous about the nature of the definition of the situation, but was clear about the dialectical relationship between the individual's definition and the definition of the situation presented by others. These concepts are neatly summarized in Sarbin's (1976) characterization of the dramaturgical perspective holding that actors not only respond to situations, but also mold and create them....The interactions of participants define the situation. The units of interest are not individuals, not organisms, not assemblages of traits, but interacting persons in identifiable contexts.

Slide 5: 

CHANGING THE DEFINITION OF THE SITUATION 53 It is the pattern of these interactions that corresponds to the operational definition of the situation and that is the target of sociological intervention. Levels of Social Context Both the original statement of definition of the situation and its dramaturgical operationalization are clear about the situated nature of conduct. They are not so clear about the complex and many-tiered nature of social ecologies and about how human behavior is situationally organized with respect to a subject's concrete location within that total social context. However, clinical sociologists are sensitive to the implications of how "social systems" at every level influence ongoing action. This sensitivity is then translated into practical actions designed to mitigate negative interlevel influences and/or to use these dynamics strategically to guide and stabilize positive change. As Freedman and Rosenfeld have put it (1983), the clinical sociologist uses a paradigm of "the integration of levels of focus" incorporating both "macro" and "micro" viewpoints. Thus, the characteristic sociological intervention combines multiple foci: "the group member, the groups to which the person belongs or desires to belong or not belong, organizations, committees, subcultures, culture, and society." In this paper it is necessary to adopt a typology of the various levels of social context; clearly, how one slices the social continuum represents a pragmatic choice relative to one's purpose. For example, Parsons (1951) selected a scheme appropriate to his theory of social action, while Lofland (1976) utilized an entirely different model of "human systems." As my purpose here is to describe sociological intervention generically, we will look at just four "quantum levels" of social participation: persons, groups, organizations, and worlds. The first two of these correspond to general usage. Persons are social actors defining themselves in conduct; for our purposes, they are their acts. The routinized patterns of conduct colloquially referred to as "one's act" are framed by (that is, organized in terms of) the culture of the worlds in which persons participate and the roles they play in the various groups in which they are involved. Each level of social structure is viewed as the emergent pattern of routinized conduct representing a dialectical synthesis between the next "higher" and "lower" levels. Groups, then, would be conceptualized as persons with more or less routinized social relations or roles. The actual role structure of the group operationally defines that group. As groups necessarily establish at least tacit patterns of relationship with other groups, they inevitably become tied into any number of formal or informal organizations. A special usage of organizations is employed here: this level of organized, identifiable intergroup relations is most often termed that of "social systems"

Slide 6: 

54 CLINICAL SOCIOLOGY REVIEW/1984 (Znaniecki 1934). However, since any interacting set of persons can be considered to form a "social system," and their relations can be analyzed in terms of systems theory (von Bertalanffy 1968), it seems best to employ another term for this structural level. Organizations, then, may range up through wider and wider scales of intergroup relations from "formal organizations," corporations, and associations to communities and governments. The operational definition of organizations consists of their institutions, meaning the routinized patterns of social relations often simply referred to as their "organization.“ The highest level of social context in this typology is the social world. This usage is adapted and expanded from Lofland's definition: "Complexly interrelated sets of encounters, roles, groups, and organizations seen by participants as forming a larger whole are often and properly thought of as 'worlds,' as in the phrases the business world,' 'the academic world,' the sports world'"(1976:29). In the sense employed here, a world is operationally defined by its culture, primarily the nonmaterial culture of norms, values, folkways, mores, language, and technology differentiating its participants from members of other social worlds. Those who share a subculture by definition share a world; larger-scale worlds might include the entire society, the civilization of which it is a part, and, possibly, Spaceship Earth itself. The Sociological Intervention If we identify the operational definition with the target of intervention, this scheme generates the following taxonomy of sociological intervention:1 Level of Intervention Target of Participation Persons Conduct Groups Role Structure Organizations Institutions Worlds Culture The intervention itself will, in one way or another, involve a strategy of redefining the situation. At the personal level, for example, sociological counseling might involve reconstruction of the client's assumptive realities and/or social-behavioral tactics specifically designed to change his or her conduct in everyday life (Straus 1979b). Unlike more conventional "psychological" or "psychosocial" counseling, only minimal attention would be placed upon intrapsychic constructs such as defense mechanisms or personality traits. On the other hand, integration of levels of focus leads the sociologist to approach a person's difficulties at this personal level as social problems intimately tied to cultural and subcultural factors, location in history

Slide 7: 

CHANGING THE DEFINITION OF THE SITUATION 55 and society, reference groups, family dynamics, and the social construction of reality. Straus (1979b) has shown how, for example, obesity can be managed through a specifically sociological intervention. Modes of Intervention Interventions may be organized in terms of three different modes: the direct, indirect, and cooperative. These represent different strategies for attacking a problem. In real life, interventions generally combine one or more modes, but it remains valuable to consider them as ideal types when thinking about and planning change projects. By "direct mode" I refer to the commonsensical approach of attacking a problem head-on. One might assess a troubled organization, devise a strategy of intervention, and then guide management in implementing the suggested changes. Since this requires the change agent to take the role of expert or "doctor," it tends to conflict with humanist values and is therefore more typical of the social engineering approach than sociological intervention. On the other hand, while the direct mode can provoke resistance and socialize clients to rely upon external authority and "expert" guidance, it remains an invaluable tool in the sociologist's kitbag. In fact, it is often expedient or even necessary to take an initially authoritarian role prior to weaning the client to a position of self Management (Straus 1977). Indirect interventions enable one to avoid problems of resistance and dependency by employing tactics of indirection and/or indirect attack. The former was pioneered by noted hypnotherapist Milton V. Erickson (1980), who developed the strategy of "indirect suggestion." The approach has been popularized in consulting circles as "neurolinguistic programming" and has been adapted to social science-based interventions by those affiliated with the Mental Research Institute in Palo Alto (Watzlawick, Weakland, and Fisch 1967). In family therapy, for example, indirect tactics might involve getting family members to cooperate with the identified problem behavior of a child, so as to get the parents to stop doing whatever they have been "doing about it," thus blocking perpetuation of an operational definition aggravating or maintaining the family system's problem (Fisch, Weakland, and Segal 1982). Indirect attack is more typical of sociological intervention as practiced by clinical sociologists; the problem is resolved by directing redefinition efforts at higher and/or lower levels of social participation than that at which the identified problem lies. Cheek and Baker (1977) found that subject resistance and ethical problems associated with resocialization programs for prison inmates could be avoided by organizing "self-control training" programs for inmates. This created the latent function of reducing recidivism — the identified problem — which occurs at the organizational level of the criminal justice system.

Slide 8: 

56 CLINICAL SOCIOLOGY REVIEW/1984 Cooperative intervention tends to be favored in principle by clinical sociologists. In this mode the client's active participation in the change process becomes the key feature of the intervention (Lippitt and Lippitt 1978). Those who will be affected by the intervention are helped to participate in or even take primary responsibility for making decisions about and implementing the redefinition process; the role of the sociologist becomes, more than anything else, that of a facilitator (Glass 1981). The cooperative mode may also be employed in social research to increase the study's clinical value (Leitko and Peterson 1982). Jaques's "social analysis" techniques (1982) might typify the "pure" cooperative intervention. However, in many cases (as when the situation is highly politicized and marked by considerable power differentials) the facilitator role may prove too cumbersome or simply impractical. A pure cooperative approach may also not fit the sociologist's personal strengths or style; in such cases, a mixed-mode approach will be followed. In practice, the principle of eclecticism extends beyond theory to mode. Cases of actual sociological intervention generally display considerable theoretical eclecticism, an admixture of modal strategies, and elements of indirect approach designed to take advantage of the integration of levels of focus. In any case, the change agent can only benefit from clarifying the modes of intervention being employed. The Personal Level I will now flesh out these principles by discussing a variety of sociological interventions that show how these practices relate to the taxonomy. Direct intervention at the personal level, while the logical beginning point, is the most difficult to differentiate from the conventional practices of psychotherapy and counseling, but subtle — and highly significant — differences can be seen. Even though most practitioners working at this level are associated with the microsociological paradigm of the Chicago School, they focus upon the person as member of society and not just as "an individual" with private problems. They employ a social perspective in analysis and design of intervention that focuses upon (1) the client's actual conduct in everyday life; (2) the internalized sociocultural realities that frame and organize that conduct; and (3) the relationship between these realities, the person's conduct, and his or her situation in terms of the various levels of social context (Powers 1979a, b; Straus 1979b). Sociological interventions, whether direct or indirect, may often take clearly social forms, as in directing clients to appropriate community support networks to reinforce their definitions of the situation, or to peer selfhelp groups to help them reconstruct their realities outside of a therapy framework (Glassner and Freedman 1979; Straus 1982).

Slide 9: 

CHANGING THE DEFINITION OF THE SITUATION 57 Indirect approaches more clearly illustrate the special features of a sociological approach at this level. Coombs (1980) describes a drug and alcohol abuse prevention program offering a dramatic alternative to conventional asocial models which seek to scare youths away from experimentation or to treat identified users on the presumption that only sick, deviant, or deficient personalities become abusers. His approach is aimed at individuals who are in a marginal position and are likely to adopt substance-abusing identities — generally those of junior-high-school age. Coombs intervenes by working with the family groups of identified marginal youth so as to enhance family solidarity, keep the family as the youth's primary reference group (rather than drug-abusing peers), and remedy deficits in family skills such as communication, doing things together, or working as a group. Thus, the goal of defining the subject's conduct in a prosocial direction is accomplished indirectly, through what Coombs calls "family strengthening." In this kind of program, the indirect attack becomes the sociologist's primary tactic. Minimal attention is given to substance abuse itself or to correcting antisocial behavior; these are dealt with through indirect intervention at the group level. The Group Level Interventions at the group level are primarily directed at role structure, taking into account such factors as authority relationships, consensus regarding roles and their boundaries, degree of involvement in roles, role strain or conflict, informal versus formal realities, and the degree to which the operational definition of the group facilitates or hinders attainment of its collective purposes (see Capelle 1979). A nonsocial approach at this level can certainly be found in the practice of many marital therapists or business consultants, but such an approach becomes difficult to justify given the manifestly systemic nature of the social group, in which the whole is conspicuously more than the sum of its individual parts. A direct sociological intervention might be exemplified by William Foote Whyte's solution to a restaurant chain's problems of inefficiency, worker dissatisfaction, and high turnover. He found that there were problems in the role structure of these restaurants. Waitresses, who were women, were placed in a position of giving orders to the higher-status cooks, who were male: those of relatively lower status were giving orders to their nominal superiors, a problem compounded by a violation of gender roles then current in American culture. Whyte's solution was to resolve role strain by a simple mechanical expedient: employment of rotating metal bands with clips on them — known as "spindles" — which allowed waitresses to post their oders in systematic fashion without having to convey them verbally to the male cooks. The changes incurred by this intervention were so dramatic that something of the sort has

Slide 10: 

58 CLINICAL SOCIOLOGY REVIEW/1984 become standard throughout the industry. Note how this intervention related the role structure of the group to the broader norms governing conduct in the general society. Cooperative intervention at this level is illustrated by Kleymeyer's organization of the "Program for Humanization of Health Care in the University Hospital" at Cali, Colombia (1979). The sociologist was initially recruited as part of a quantitatively oriented research team investigating the causes behind disuse of outpatient services. He trained some of their native interviewers to conduct field observations of service delivery in their spare time. Evaluating their reports, he found that the public considered services dehumanizing, anxiety provoking, and alienating. He was then invited by the hospital's leadership to devise strategies to mitigate this situation. Recognizing the potential problems for an outsider in trying to impose change from above, Kleymeyer chose to adopt the role of costrategist, instigator, and facilitator of change. He allowed the politically savvy head of human relations for the hospital to do the actual moving and shaking. In selecting, designing, evaluating, and fine tuning innovations, he drew upon key hospital personnel, client interviews, professionals on the scene, and workers' forums that had been developed early in the change project, so that intervention was permitted to take a locally generated and self-directing course. These innovations included courses in human relations and first aid for hospital staff, workers' forums, creation of an in-house position of "patients' representative," material incentives for humane and competent treatment, and other changes involving training personnel in necessary role skills, redefining existing roles, or developing new patterns of social relations. By this strategy, Kleymeyer sought to establish a permanent, self-perpetuating, participatory institutional structure that would outlive his contractually limited tenure in the hospital setting. The Organizational Level Strategies at the organizational level represent, for the most part, an elaboration of group-level tactics. However, redefinition is primarily aimed at the institutionalized patterns of relations between groups rather than role relations within the group. Direct tactics, although often too straightforward, can be effective. For example, Trist (1981) describes an intervention in the Norwegian shipping industry. Onboard facilities were redesigned to promote a sense of community among the various crew and officer groups who must live together under isolated conditions twenty-four hours a day over extended periods of time. Redefinition of the shipboard environment to facilitate this new pattern of social releations included creating common recreation rooms and dining halls

Slide 11: 

CHANGING THE DEFINITION OF THE SITUATION 59 where all ranks and ratings could mingle (normally each group ate and socialized independently in status-graded facilities); integrating deck and engine room crew; and reducing status differentials between officers and crew. An example of indirect approach has been described by Freedman and Rosenfeld (1983), who were invited by the New Jersey Division of Mental Health and Hospitals to assist in the implementation of mandated changes aimed at humanization of services and expediting the release of clients to their local communities. Their initial assignment involved implementing a new standardized record-keeping system for the six state hospitals. It soon became obvious, however, that there was no real agreement, even among leadership, as to precisely what was desired or how to go about doing it. Furthermore, true implementation of the new policies would require significant redefinition of roles, relations between various groups within the hospital system, and even meanings of basic terms such as case management or team approach. To forestall conflict and yet implement these major redefinitions, they devised an indirect strategy centered on the introduction of the new form. As is usual in such organizations, a training program was instituted concerning the use of this form. In this case, however, both the design of the form itself and that of the training program were deliberately organized to have the latent function of redefining roles, institutions, and the culture of this system. Thus, an ostensibly limited and innocuous innovation — a new record-keeping technology — was used as an indirect strategy for organization-scale change. Cooperative strategies at this level have long been a staple of sociological practice (Shostak 1966; Jaques 1982). However, this kind of approach has only recently been extended to areas such as the management of social impacts from government or industrial development projects. "Social Impact Management" (Preister and Kent 1984), for example, brings members of communities to be affected by large-scale projects into the process of negotiating and working out a mutually acceptable plan to deal with issues and manage potential impacts that will be compatible with or actually benefit those affected by the proposed development. Special care is taken to identify and involve community networks and to mitigate impacts at all levels of the local context so as to maintain the integrity of community life and organization. The World Level At the highest scale we are considering, that of social worlds, sociological interventions can take even more complex forms. For Lee (1979) the direct approach at this most macrosocial level is identified with humanistically framed, change-oriented research; he views the sociological clinician as seeking to understand through first-hand materials how socially organized situations actually function and how they can be influenced; he then suggests practical

Slide 12: 

60 CLINICAL SOCIOLOGY REVIEW/1984 strategies for modifying or coping with problematic social realities, trends, and developments. His work has included the study of propaganda in our society with the goal of sensitizing the broad public to the problem and generating the necessary consciousness to defend them from this kind of manipulation. Significantly, his major work on the subject was published in 1952, during the rise of the cold war mentality and rapid expansion of the advertising profession. Clearly his intent was to generate cultural defenses against the manipulation of society by elites. California's "Friends Can Be Good Medicine" campaign is a good example of a world-scale intervention combining both indirect and cooperative modes. By devoting a small fraction of its annual mental health budget to this preventive intervention, the state hoped to combat rising demands upon its health and mental health systems. Its strategy was based upon the copious recent literature documenting the inverse relationship between involvement in primary groups and the rates of incidence of mental and physical health problems (see Hunter 1982 for a summary of the literature). Its plan was to bring about a change in culture by raising the general consciousness regarding the direct personal benefits of developing and maintaining social support networks (Hunter 1982). This strategy therefore incorporated both indirect and direct attack. Delivery utilized a cooperative approach. The consulting firm hired for the campaign developed printed training and information materials, audiovisual training films, and a series of radio and television spots stressing the message that "friends can be good medicine." Ten paid coordinators then recruited volunteer regional coordinators (I was one) from county agencies and networks. After a trainers' workshop, these volunteers then recruited and trained community-level leaders from education, the churches, business, government, and other local networks to deliver workshops and set up local events during the month of June 1982. The entire state was to be saturated by community-based consciousness-raising events supported by a media blitz — all at minimal cost to the state. This was the first statewide mental health prevention program to date. This campaign, designed exclusively by psychologists and "applied behavioral scientists," illustrates as well some of the pitfalls stemming from exclusion of sociologists from organizing and implementing sociological intervention. In this case, the "cultural approach" historically associated with clinical sociology (Wirth 1931) would have had dramatic impact. Instead, the beautifully designed and printed workbooks stressed the interests of "hip" humanistic psychologists — alternative life styles, consciousness-raising groups, and new games. They were also written so as to require a high level of literacy and intellectual orientation. In effect, they might have been designed to be rejected by rural, working-class, and poor people; businessmen; and con

Slide 13: 

CHANGING THE DEFINITION OF THE SITUATION 61 servatives: most of the population, in fact. The materials also evidenced no awareness on the part of their producers of the long-term macrosocial changes underlying the disruption of traditional support networks and primary group structures, leaving the impression that alienation from significant others was a purely individual matter, entirely correctable by personal action. Between-Levels Intervention It is important to point out that the model presented here can also be used to typify interventions targeted at interpersonal, intergroup, interorganization, and interworld problems. In essence, between-level interventions operate at the next level upscale. An interpersonal problem would be treated as a blockage, misalignment, or other difficulty at the group level. In solving such a problem, one helps those concerned to work out joint definitions of the situation by clarifying their respective roles and statuses. Intervention might involve improving communications, resolving contradictions in participants' definitions of the situation, or creating entirely new, mutually acceptable definitions, including recognition of their de facto status as a group. Except that our model typifies interworld collectivities simply as higher-scale social worlds, the same logic is followed at the higher levels of between-levels intervention. Conclusion It has been my concern in this paper to tease out the generic logic and structure of sociological interventions. By presenting this within a taxonomic framework, I have sought to sensitize the practitioner to the special features of the sociological approach and also to move a discussion of the substance of clinical sociology up to a more concrete and hence manageable level. Implicit in the foregoing is the premise that many or most problems encountered in social life, from the personal to the societal levels, can best be understood and dealt with as social problems. They cry out for sociological intervention, which is defined here as reconstructing the operational definition of the situation with reference to the multiple, interacting layers of social context framing any particular case. Clinical sociology is not identical with sociological intervention, for both sociologists and nonsociologists can and do engage in this form of work. However, it becomes apparent that the clinical sociologist is best qualified to practice sociological intervention because the approach lies squarely in the domain carved out by sociological training, sociological tradition, and the special sensitivities Inculcated only by immersion in a specifically sociological perspective.

Slide 14: 

62 CLINICAL SOCIOLOGY REVIEW/1984 NOTES 1. Those specializing in sociological counseling or therapy at the personal level might wish to discriminate a still more micro-scale intervention: the intrapersonal. Here, the client's phenomenological definitions of the situation as manifested in cognitive, psychomotor, and/or psychosomatic self-interactions become the target for change (Straus 1983). However, these are still analyzed within the context of a social problem framed by culture and group participation and managed similarly to intervention at the molar "personal" level. REFERENCES Blumer, Herbert. 1969 Symbolic Interaction: Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice- Hall. Capelle, Ronald G. 1979 Changing Human Systems. Toronto: International Human Systems Institute. Cheek, Frances E., and James C. Baker. 1977 "Self-control training for inmates," Psychological Reports 41:559-68. Coombs, Robert H. 1980 "Family strengthening to redirect drug-prone youth." Presentation at the Pacific Sociological Association meetings, Anaheim, California. Erickson, Milton V. 1980 The Collected Papers of Milton Erickson, Edited By E. Rossi. New York: Irvington. Fisch, Richard, John H. Weakland, and Lynn Segal. 1982 The Tactics of Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Freedman, Jonathan A., and Pincus Rosenfeld. 1983 "Clinical sociology: the system as client." Paper presented at the joint meetings of the Eastern Sociological Society and Clinical Sociology Association, Baltimore, Md. Glass, John. 1981 "Facilitating change in human systems." Paper presented at the Southern Sociological Society meetings, Louisville, Kentucky. Glassner, Barry, and Jonathan A. Freedman. 1979 Clinical Sociology. New York: Longman. Hunter, Lisa. 1982 "Friends can be good medicine; resource guide." Sacramento: California State Dept. of Mental Health, Mental Health Promotion Branch. Jaques, Elliott. 1982 "The method of social analysis in social change and social research," Clinical Sociology Review 1:50-58. Kleymeyer, Charles D. 1979 "Putting field methods to work," American Behavioral Scientist 22, no. 4:589-608. Lee, Alfred McClung. 1952 How to Understand Propaganda. New York: Rinehart. 1973 Toward Humanist Sociology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. 1978 Sociology for Whom? New York: Oxford University Press. 1979 "The services of clinical sociology," American Behavioral Scientist 22, no. 4:487-512.

Slide 15: 

CHANGING THE DEFINITION OF THE SITUATION 63 Leitko, Thomas, and Steven Peterson. 1982 "Social exchange in research: toward a "New Deal,'" Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 18, no.4:447-62. Lippitt, Ronald, and Gordon Lippitt. 1978 The Consulting Process in Action. La Jolla, Cal.: University Associates. Lofland, John. 1976 Doing Social Life. New York: Wiley-Interscience. Parsons, Talcott. 1951 The Social System. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press. Powers, Suzanne. 1979a “The role of clinical sociologist in a multispecialty health facility," American Behavioral Scientist 22, no. 4:543-56. 1979b "Clinical sociological treatment of a chronic slasher," Case Analysis 1, no. 3:169-79. Preister, Kevin, and James Kent. "Clinical sociology and social impact: from assessment to management," Clinical Sociology Review, 2. Sarbin, Theodore. "Hypnosis: the dramaturgical perspective." Paper presented at the meetings of The Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. Shostak, Arthur D., ed. Case Studies in Social Problems and Directed Social Change. Homewood, Ill.: The Dorsey Press. Straus, Roger A. 1977 "The life change process." Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of California-Davis. 1979a "Clinical sociology." Edited by Straus. Special issue of American Behavioral Scientist, 22 no. 4. 1979b "Doing clinical sociology in behavioral counseling: a model weight management program," Case Analysis 1, no. 3:181-201. 1982 "Clinical sociology on the one-to-one level: a social behavioral approach to counseling," Clinical Sociology Review 1:59-74. 1983 "The potential of symbolic interactionism: thinking, feeling, imagining, and holistic social psychology." Unpublished paper. Thomas, W. I. 1931 The Unadjusted Girl. Boston: Little, Brown. Trist, E. "The evaluation of socio-technical systems." Occasional Working Paper No. Z, Ontario Quality of Working Life Center. Toronto: Ministry of Labor. Watzlawick, Paul, John H. Weakland, and Richard Fisch. 1967 Change: Principles of Problem Formation and Problem Resolution. New York: Norton. Wirth, Louis. 1931 "Clinical sociology," American Journal of Sociology 37:49-660. Reprinted in Clinical Sociology Review 1:7-22. von Bertalanffy, Ludwig. 1968 General Systems Theory. New York: George Braziller. Znaniecki, Florian. 1934 The Method of Sociology. New York: Farrar and Rinehart.

authorStream Live Help