Full Product Details
Author: Michelle O'Reilly ,
Jessica Nina Lester
Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
Imprint: Palgrave Macmillan
Edition: 1st ed. 2016
Dimensions:
Width: 15.50cm
, Height: 4.40cm
, Length: 23.50cm
Weight: 1.274kg
ISBN: 9781137496843
ISBN 10: 1137496843
Pages: 704
Publication Date: 22 April 2016
Audience:
Professional and scholarly
,
Professional & Vocational
Format: Hardback
Publisher's Status: Active
Availability: Manufactured on demand
We will order this item for you from a manufactured on demand supplier.
Reviews
“The 700 plus page handbook is a well-organised, easy to navigate and relevant guide. … This is an excellent addition to the handbook, acting as an abstract for the chapter as well as addressing the clear implications of the research. … As someone with a qualitative background but with a limited understanding of conversation analysis, this handbook was a good exposure to the variety of uses of discourse and conversation analysis in the field of mental health.” (Lucas Shelemy, The Journal of Critical Psychology, Counselling and Psychotherapy, Vol 18 (2), June, 2018)
Ian Parker, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK This book locates itself in a significant field of research that challenges mainstream medical approaches to distress, and provides an alternative way of thinking about clinical practice. The challenge to psychiatry, clinical psychology and psychotherapy is here not only from 'outside' those mainstream practices, bringing in concepts and methodologies from academic research, but also 'inside' the field, enabling practitioners to rethink assumptions and find new ways of carrying out their work. As a 'Handbook' it provides an inclusive and wide-ranging survey of debates from with the broad 'social constructionist' approach and empirical examples from studies of language ranging from conversation analysis to discourse analysis. It is then clearly a 'handbook' that should be purchased by academic libraries and by professional training institutions. The proposal provides a window onto new research, and includes emerging sub-fields of study. It engages with recent scholarship. There is reference to the work of Georgaca in the proposal, and this author has produced (in some papers with Avdi) some exhaustive meta-analyses of work on mental health, psychotherapy, discourse and narrative. I wonder whether this author might be approach to contribute, or, perhaps as a better option, that some of those reviews that form the background to the studies to be described in this handbook could be included as well. There is, of course, a risk of the 'shelf-life' of any handbook being limited, but in this case, as well as being a 'new field', the social constructionist study of clinical and therapeutic diagnosis and interaction is now an established field, and it is time for the 'stock-taking' that such a handbook would enable. The structure and rationale for the chapters is well presented and plausible. One advantage of a handbook of this kind is that it will be a resource for undergraduates as well as postgraduates and researchers in the field. It is possible it might be adopted, but I would anticipate rather that it will be necessary for libraries on academic courses (and in professional training organisations) to hold a copy of the book for reference and student study. It does not 'compete' with other texts but would complement some of the existing volumes that survey the fields of discourse analysis and those concerned with qualitative research in mental health. In both cases, chapters by leading practitioners in those fields are included in this volume. Good. I recommend that Palgrave publish this book as it stands or after minor revisions. Ronald Chenail, Nova Southeastern University, USA Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal. I have used the suggested questions to organize my review and recommendations. General 1) In your own words, please provide a short outline of the project The editors propose the Handbook of Adult Mental Health: Discourse and Conversation Studies as both a basic and applied research text in which the authors present their conversational and discursive analysis theories and results to help readers better understand how adults and those professionals trained to understand and treat them construct their worlds. Although the editors do not emphasize this point, I also think the project presents a useful and possibly disruptive view of adult mental health providing a needed alternative to the contemporary diagnostic manuals depicting adult mental health today in more pathological terms. 2) Of the different product categories outlined above, which do you feel this proposal best fits and why? I think the handbook category is the most fitting one for this proposed work because the editors are clearly presenting 'an up-to-date survey of the state of the discipline including contributions on the most important concepts, empirical research and emerging and cutting edge areas.' Proposal 3) Does this proposal offer a useful and/or original contribution to the field? Is it addressing any new/emerging areas? Yes, I think so. Their embracing of social construction, performative, and discursive frameworks present both a useful and emergent approach to this topic. Building an empirical argument as to the value of these traditionally deemed alternative research approaches is another valuable contribution of this proposed work. 4) Does it adequately engage with recent scholarship? Does it take existing scholarship forward? Yes, it does. The list of authors includes a who's who in these areas of research and theory construction. By collecting these authors' work in one volume, the editors are not only providing a convenient resource, but they are also creating a synergistic environment that will stimulate new research and thinking in the world of adult mental health. Typically one would have to collect a number of existing texts to gain the wealth of insights represented in the proposed work. 5) What are the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal? You may wish to consider structure, organisation, coherence and presentation of material; scope, coverage and breadth of appeal or degree of specialisation; whether there are any obvious omissions; timeliness and likely shelf-life of the research; what proportion of the work, if any, will require substantial re-working? Are any suggested improvements fundamental to the project's success or discretionary matters which might be addressed after the project has been accepted? Overall I like the focus and format of the handbook. There is a logical, narrative flow to the work which I think will help readers navigate the material is a coherent manner. Adult mental health is a broad area to cover and I think the array of chapters address this diversity quite well. Having said that, I did notice some relational/family therapy approaches missing such as the work of Karl Tomm and his colleagues as well as the dialogical work of Peter Rober, Jaakko Seikkula, and Glen Larner. Since the work is being proposed as a handbook, I was hoping to see some more basic chapters on conversation and discourse analysis. I know handbook editors often take a position that such a volume is for advanced thinkers in the field, but in order for students and beginning researchers to make better sense and use of the work, I think an introductory chapter or two would help readers better appreciate and understand the more advanced works in the rest of the handbook. Maybe something from Jonathan Potter and Margaret Wetherell or Tom Strong and David Pare might seem suitable. I like the notion of practice-based evidence so the editors might also include a chapter illustrating ways in which practicing clinicians could begin to not only apply this knowledge to their work, but also introduce this type of research into their own practice. Such a 'how to' chapter might be a valuable addition. 6) Do you feel the author/editor is suitably qualified to produce a high quality book on this topic? Yes, I am quite familiar with their work and think they have the depth and breadth of knowledge in this area to produce the work. Their abilities to do so can be clearly seen in their recruitment of this fine stable of authors and cultivation of these proposed chapters. I think the editors will also help their chapter contributors be a bit more sensitive to cultural issues than I currently see reflected in the chapter summaries. 7) If you are aware that the book is being considered for inclusion in a specific series, please comment on its suitability for that series. I am not aware of this work being considered for any such series. Market and Competition 8) Who would you anticipate the main readership of this book to be (in terms of field and level)? I think the editors have identified the main readers for this work. I see this work as an advanced one making it quite suitable for faculty and professors working in research settings and clinical graduate programs. I teach in a graduate family therapy program and I can see using the book in the research courses I teach. 9) Would this title be suitable for the student market as a core text? If so, would you adopt/recommend this book for any courses you teach? Yes, I would think this would work well for graduate students in a variety of clinical fields. As I wrote above, I would consider using this book with my PhD in family Therapy students. 10) Is this book likely to have interdisciplinary and/or international appeal? Yes, I see the work as being interdisciplinary in focus so faculty, researchers, and graduate students in psychology, psychiatry, psychiatric/mental health nursing, counselling, social work, family therapy, and clinically-focused social sciences would all find the work of value. I would also include any qualitative researcher studying adult mental health and clinical practice because the chapters would be rich in ideas for studying these populations qualitatively. I think the authors are quite international in background and orientation so their work will have a strong international appeal. 11) Would this title be suitable/essential reading for a practitioner or policymakers market? If so, please let us know if there are any organisations, institutions or professional networks that would be interested in the work. I would think any of the clinical practitioner organizations such as the APAs, AAMFT, ACA, and so forth would be good choices with whom to market this book. 12) How does this proposal compare to the main competing titles in this area in terms of quality of writing and content? I don't think there are any significant contemporary competitors to this work. There are books that address parts of the handbook's areas such as Locke and Strong (2012), McNab and Partridge (2014), and Tomm, St. George, Wulff, and Strong (2014), but in cases of these other works, their focus is a bit narrower than the one proposed in this text. Locke, A., & Strong, T. (Eds.). (2012). Discursive perspectives in therapeutic practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McNab, S., & Partridge, K. (Eds.). (2014). Creative positions in adult mental health: Outside in-inside out. London, UK: Karnac. Tomm, K., St. George, S., Wulff, D., & Strong, T. (Eds.). (2014). Patterns in interpersonal interactions: Inviting relational understandings for therapeutic change. New York, NY: Routledge. Recommendation 13) Would you recommend: a) we publish this book as it stands or after minor revisions b) revising the proposal and resubmitting c) rejecting the proposal I recommend publishing their book. I made some suggestions above for some possible changes, but otherwise, I think the text will make a fine contribution to this emerging perspective on adults and mental health issues and treatment. Elizabeth McDermott, Lancaster University, UK General 1) In your own words, please provide a short outline of the project This is an exciting, new and most welcome proposal, which brings together in a comprehensive and rigorous manner a substantial critique of the dominance of biomedical and psychiatric perspectives on mental health. It does not remain at the level of critique but provides an alternative theoretical framework in which to think about mental health, this framework centres on social constructionism. At the heart of the social constructionist critique is the notion that psychiatric labels, categories and diagnostic tools and criteria do not describe existing entities but are produced through specific historical, cultural and social circumstances. A good example of this is homosexuality where in the past a person could be labelled as mentally ill by virtue of their sexual and/or gender non-conformity. The removal of homosexuality from psychiatric classification in the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1973 demonstrates the social and historical influences on what is considered mental 'disorder'. The editors have produced a proposal which is at the very cutting edge of thinking about 'what is madness?' bringing to the fore the role of language as performative of thinking, doing and understanding mental health. The individual contributors, by drawing on both theoretical and empirical work in the field, are able to demonstrated the power of words in the constitution and subjectivication of those diagnosed with mental illness, and remind us of the role mental illness diagnoses have in defining social 'deviance' and social norms. 2) Of the different product categories outlined above, which do you feel this proposal best fits and why? This is a Handbook which is both original and provides an authoritative overview of social constructionist perspectives on adult mental health. I cannot think of another book of this nature with a focus on language, discourse, meaning and interaction. 3) Does this proposal offer a useful and/or original contribution to the field? Is it addressing any new/emerging areas? br/>The proposal most definitely has the potential to make a major contribution to the field. Mental health has always from its very inception been a contested discipline but the dominance of biomedicine has obscured different ways of thinking about mental health and wellbeing. This Handbook with the focus on language and discourse challenges in an innovative way our over-reliance on psycho-pathologising labels that categorize some emotions and behaviours as abnormal and some people as deviant. This is a new and emerging seam of thought which is crucial to deepening and widening our understanding of human beings 'disordered' thoughts, feelings and behaviours. 4) Does it adequately engage with recent scholarship? Does it take existing scholarship forward? This is cutting edge work that through a focus on language, discourse, meaning and interaction is pushing the boundaries of scholarship on the subject of mental health. The book as a whole draws heavily on current scholarship utilising, for example, theories such as Foucault's work on discourse and governmentality which has been very influential in the field. 5) What are the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal? You may wish to consider structure, organisation, coherence and presentation of material; scope, coverage and breadth of appeal or degree of specialisation; whether there are any obvious omissions; timeliness and likely shelf-life of the research; what proportion of the work, if any, will require substantial re-working? Are any suggested improvements fundamental to the project's success or discretionary matters which might be addressed after the project has been accepted? Overall, this is an excellently organised volume with clear aims and foci that are sustained throughout the individual chapters. It is well structured and organised and where there may be need for clarification with some of the chapter contributions I have indicated these in a list below. The major strengths are the innovative and cutting edge approach to understanding mental health. It provides a comprehensive and rigorous critique of biomedical and psychiatric perspectives on mental health and provides an alternative theoretical framework of social constructionism. The focus on language, discourse, meaning and interaction is unique and will make a major contribution to furthering scholarship in the field. The scope of the contributions is very good because it includes academics of various levels and practitioners, and a wide range of mental health conditions. The weakness in the volume as a whole is the lack of discussion of inequality. The social constructionist tradition includes an understanding that powerful discourses position people unequally. This is not reflected in the proposal. There are entrenched patterns of mental health inequality. Some examples include: the gendered diagnosis of depression; persistent inequalities in mental health treatment i.e. people who are professional and educated (middle class) are more likely to be offered talking therapies rather than pharmaceutical intervention; Black and minority ethic people are more likely to experience 'containment' due to their mental health problems; young people are less likely than adults to ask for help for their mental health problems; and lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people have higher rates of suicide and self harm than their heterosexual contemporaries. In other words, we are not all equal within the dominant biomedical mental health system. Furthermore, people diagnosed with mental health problems experience stigma and inequalities in many aspects of life e.g. education, employment. My one other concern is repetition across the chapters. I think the editors will need to ensure that they give the contributors guidelines regarding explanations about discourse, power, language and meaning, otherwise these will be repeated in each chapter. The individual author may need to outline their approach, but they do not, for example, need to explain what discourse is. Chapters that require clarification: * Chapter four is very unclear, the abstract is confused and needs re-writing. * Chapter eight is methodologically vague about the use of Foucauldian discourse analysis which has a quite specific focus on power. The author needs to ensure a Foucauldian discourse analysis is the correct way to describe their analytical strategy. * Chapter eleven - the use of 'foreign' is inappropriate, 'foreign' to whom? Please remove. * Chapter twelve - This abstract is not framed through a social constructionist perspective, it is closer to behavioural type models. The authors are interested in the interaction between patient and clinician in the application of the label as a distinct entity. The problem of diagnosis is reduced to the issue of professional delivery rather that the contested nature of of mental illness and the meaning which may arise through the interaction between patients experiences and clinician perspectives. * Chapter thirty - An excellent abstract but I am wondering if the authors aim to use discourse analysis and conversation analysis may be too much, and it would be better to focus on one allowing more room for an in-depth analysis 6) Do you feel the author/editor is suitably qualified to produce a high quality book on this topic? I feel very confident that the two editors will produce a high quality handbook. 7) If you are aware that the book is being considered for inclusion in a specific series, please comment on its suitability for that series. Market and Competition 8) Who would you anticipate the main readership of this book to be (in terms of field and level)? Academics, researchers, post-graduates, clinicians and practitioners, policy-makers, in psychiatry and medicine, psychology, sociology, public health, 9) Would this title be suitable for the student market as a core text? If so, would you adopt/recommend this book for any courses you teach? This is not suitable as core text. Student use would be at the level of postgraduate. I would recommend this book to PhD students that I currently supervise. 10) Is this book likely to have interdisciplinary and/or international appeal? This book would have an international and interdisciplinary appeal. The individual chapters have an international focus and the issues are of global importance. The World Health Organisation has a major focus on reducing the burden of mental health. This is an interdisciplinary handbook and would therefore appeal across psychiatry and medicine, clinical psychology, sociology, social psychology, discourse studies, nursing, public health etc. 11) Would this title be suitable/essential reading for a practitioner or policymakers market? If so, please let us know if there are any organisations, institutions or professional networks that would be interested in the work. 12) How does this proposal compare to the main competing titles in this area in terms of quality of writing and content? This is a unique and original proposal so it is difficult to compare it to similar volumes. I would say the quality and content are comparable to other Handbooks such as Mental Illness (Sage, I think) Recommendation 13) Would you recommend: a) we publish this book as it stands or after minor revisions
The 700 plus page handbook is a well-organised, easy to navigate and relevant guide. ... This is an excellent addition to the handbook, acting as an abstract for the chapter as well as addressing the clear implications of the research. ... As someone with a qualitative background but with a limited understanding of conversation analysis, this handbook was a good exposure to the variety of uses of discourse and conversation analysis in the field of mental health. (Lucas Shelemy, The Journal of Critical Psychology, Counselling and Psychotherapy, Vol 18 (2), June, 2018)
Author Information
Michelle O'Reilly is Senior Lecturer at the University of Leicester, Greenwood Institute of Child Health, UK. She specialises in discourse and conversation analysis of child mental health interactions. Michelle has a particular interest in childhood autism and has published books and papers in both mental health and autism. Jessica Nina Lester is Assistant Professor at Indiana University, Bloomington, USA. She teaches research methods courses, including discourse analysis. Her research is focused on the study and development of qualitative methodologies, with much of her work positioned at the intersection of discourse studies and disability studies.
