Business Finance
Chapter 7 Socialization Processes Questions

Question Description

I need support with this Communications question so I can learn better.

Read Chapter 7: “Socialization Processess” and answer Discussion Questions 1 and 2 (p. 136). Also, read Salmon & Faris (2006) and Yeganeh & Kolb (2009) and write a 1-page summary for ONE article.

Please use APA style in refrcing.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

r The Association for Family Therapy 2006. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. Journal of Family Therapy (2006) 28: 272–292 0163-4445 (print); 1467-6427 (online) Multi-agency collaboration, multiple levels of meaning: social constructionism and the CMM model as tools to further our understanding Gill Salmona and Jeff Farisb This study explores the discourse emerging when professionals from a child and adolescent mental health service meet with professionals from other agencies to discuss cases. The study is timely, given the current political contextual forces pushing agencies to work together which run alongside an expanding literature acknowledging the obstacles to achieving this. A thematic analysis identified nine themes, defined according to their discourse type, including single agency discourse, case complexity discourse and multi-agency discourse. In this paper, the usefulness of the coordinated management of meaning model (CMM) is examined as an additional tool which may be used in data analysis to help understand the discourse within multi-agency meetings. The two approaches to data analysis are complementary to each other, with both allowing for different layers of context and complexity to emerge from the data. Introduction The majority of documents relating to the development of services for children and families including child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) published in recent years highlight the importance of multi-agency collaboration (e.g. NHS HAS, 1995; Department of Health, 1997; House of Commons Health Select Committee, 1997; Audit Commission, 1999). It is the view of Miller and Ahmad (2000) that multi-agency collaboration is an efficient way to deliver highquality services and to ensure their effectiveness in being responsive to service user needs. a Senior Lecturer in Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Welsh Institute for Health and Social Care, University of Glamorgan, Glyntaff Campus, Pontypridd, South Wales CF37 1DL. E-mail: b Senior Lecturer in Psychotherapy, The Family Institute, School of Care Science, University of Glamorgan and Consultant Psychotherapist in Private Practice. r 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2006 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice Multi-agency collaboration, multiple levels of meaning 273 The Children’s National Service Framework (NSF) in England also recognizes that multi-agency partnerships are essential to delivering coordinated services especially for children who are disabled, have mental health problems or who are otherwise in special circumstances (Department for Health, Department for Education and Skills, 2004). These ideas are progressed in the government Green Paper Every Child Matters (DfES, 2003), in which it is proposed that, in the long term, key services for children and young people are integrated as part of Children’s Trusts. A literature describing successful attempts to form multi-agency collaborations in respect of services for children is beginning to emerge, although there is still little written about the more conceptual issues. Salmon (2004) provides a comprehensive overview of these issues in relation to children’s services with particular emphasis on CAMHS. A number of authors (e.g. Kopser et al., 1994; Henneman et al., 1995; Marino and Kahnoski, 1998; Akhavin et al.,1999) suggest that effective communication is an important factor common to successful collaborations. Another factor which has been identified as pivotal to the success or failure of multi-agency collaborations is the presence or absence of a common language across agencies (Bruner et al., 1992; Ranade, 1998; Miller and Ahmad, 2000). In studying the difficulties encountered by social workers when attempting to support children in need, the Dartington Social Research Unit concluded that the communication between professionals working for different agencies was a major issue. In particular they noted that when professionals talk about children they may use the same words as each other but have a different understanding as to the underlying meaning (DSRU, 1998). In line with this, Bruner et al. (1992) recommend that at an early stage of collaboration, participating agencies explore terms, definitions and operational language, and come to a consensus on their meaning in the light of their shared goals. While the importance of effective communication is recognized, what actually constitutes effective communication is a moot point. To consider communication across multi-agency contexts as a commodity that can simply be made more effective is to ignore different levels of context let alone assuming that all these contexts operate at the same level of logical type. Agendas at different levels of a network of services may compete for improving effectiveness of communication. For example, fund-holders and commissioners of services have agendas at the level of expenditure in relation to certain outcomes at a broader r 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2006 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice 274 Gill Salmon and Jeff Faris level than the case-specific agendas of clinicians. What counts as ‘effective’ may be as varied as the agendas. Construction of meaning is contingent upon management of multiple levels of context (Pearce and Cronen, 1980; Anderson and Goolishian, 1986; Cecchin and Fruggeri, 1986; Imber Black, 1986; Campbell et al., 1994). These agendas operate at different levels of abstraction such that in one set of circumstances low waiting lists may result in cessation of funding while in another it may be considered a laudable target. In another example, empty beds in an inpatient CAMHS facility, resulting from an effective preventive service strategy, may ultimately result in the closure of the facility because not enough beds have been used. This closure would effectively undermine the infrastructure of the preventive service set up to offset the necessity for hospital admissions in the first place. Multi-agency collaboration and systems theory When the concept of collaboration is viewed from the perspective of systems theory, the idea that the whole is more than the sum of its parts reinforces the value of collaborative practice. Briggs has proposed a model for viewing interdisciplinary collaboration which integrates systems theory. The model differs from others proposed in that it takes account of the complexity of teams functioning within the broad context of a community (Briggs, 1997a, 1997b, 1999). She states: ‘With one professional’s expertise, important information can be obtained. When many professionals representing different disciplinary perspectives integrate their voices, the observations, understanding and insights attained are richer and deeper’ (Briggs, 1999, p. 365). Systemically trained professionals attempting to work with children and families will be aware of the importance of seeing their clients as functioning within wider communities, social networks and professional systems. The larger policy and political issues surrounding the services which a professional can provide and the interlocking and interrelated nature of the systems which provide services cannot be ignored (Briggs, 1999). The central feature of Briggs’ (1999) systemic model for viewing interdisciplinary collaboration is that of professionals having a common purpose. This is said to be derived from a sense of shared meaning or belonging, with mutual values, beliefs and goals. According to Briggs (1999), shared meaning usually evolves gradually as professionals begin to recognize where their beliefs and biases overlap r 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2006 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice Multi-agency collaboration, multiple levels of meaning 275 with others. Individuals who work together in teams may formalize shared meanings or have a common purpose, whereas those who work separately may have to seek out other individuals who share beliefs, values and common practice methods. Professionals coming together across team or agency boundaries or from different departments within a service will not necessarily have developed such a shared worldview. A key feature here is not so much that a group conform to the same set of ideas or beliefs but that they have evolved a baseline shared set of assumptions within which it becomes possible to manage differences of viewpoint including strongly held differences (Speed, 2004). Briggs (1999) comments on the importance of the concept of dialogue in deepening group discussions and allowing for collective thinking and a pool of common meaning to be created. Jargon, she states, often poses a significant barrier to effective communication between interdisciplinary groups of professionals. She suggests that each professional commit to reducing jargon and remember to translate terms and phrases that are unique to a particular discipline. We consider that, even when terminology is clarified, terms of reference may still remain unclear. Here we wish to draw a distinction between denotative meaning as per a dictionary definition and connotative meaning which contains emotional response, social meaning and symbolic association. The importance of language and dialogue is, of course, also central to social constructionist theory which, alongside the concepts of constructivism and postmodernism, has lead to fundamental theoretical shifts in systems thinking over the past twenty years. Social constructionism Mary Gergen (2002) defines social constructionism as a metatheoretical position that describes how our sense of ‘reality’, as we know it, is achieved. Social interaction of all kinds and particularly language is of great interest to social constructionists. The goings-on between people in the course of their everyday lives are seen as practices during which shared versions of knowledge are constructed. The possibility of alternative constructions of the self and others’ ‘events’ in one’s world, through language, is fundamental to this social constructionist view (Burr, 1995). Social constructionist premises include an emphasis on context and interpersonal processes in creating joint actions and mutually constructed meanings, strategic interaction, an acknowledgement r 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2006 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice 276 Gill Salmon and Jeff Faris of the importance of power and of the exchange of ideas or feedback (Dallos and Draper, 2000). Consistent with Briggs (1999), Anderson and Goolishan (1988, 1992) see meaning and understanding as socially constructed, and argue that they are not arrived at in the absence of a communicative action or a meaning-generating (dialogical) conversation. Coordinated management of meaning (CMM) Developing on from the ideas of Bateson (1972) and social constructionist theory, Pearce and Cronen (1980) and Cronen et al. (1982a) proposed the coordinated management of meaning (CMM) model as a way of conceptualizing a hierarchical organization of meanings such that the more abstract contextualizes and defines the less abstract. Having found that people co-construct their own social realities, these authors offer a framework that attends to the general and specific contexts of meaning and behaviour. The authors of CMM have endeavoured to construct a template for analysing the interaction between frames of reference or contexts (i.e. all those features of a situation that make a difference to participants in deciding between alternative courses of action or making alternative interpretations). For example, Cronen and Pearce (1985) typically employ the following five embedded levels of context in relation to the analysis of families: 1 2 3 4 5 Speech acts; Episodes; Relationship; Life-scripting; Family myths. Adaptations to the hierarchical framework have been suggested: for example, adding a sixth level of sociocultural norms (including the legal system and legislation) and by modifying the model to take account of socially constructed meanings in the life of a therapist as a professional as well as a private person (Lindsey, 1993). It may be useful or indeed highly relevant to include further levels such as economic, community and political contexts as well as ecology. The number and nature of the levels of context is not fixed and there is an implicit hierarchy of organization of meanings whereby the more abstract levels of context will tend to define lower levels. Drawing upon Wittgenstein’s (1953) idea of a ‘language game’ and r 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2006 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice Multi-agency collaboration, multiple levels of meaning 277 Bateson’s (1972) idea of ‘punctuation’ as the ability to discriminate the start and end of an episode or a change from one episode to another, Cronen proposes that the episode is the basic unit of social analysis insofar as human beings organize activities into episodes or contexts with distinctive rules for understanding what is required or accepted action (Cronen, 1995). An episodic emphasis is also a good correction for the tendency to carelessly generalize from particular kinds of episodes to the exclusion of others. This has particular significance for the study outlined in this paper. The counting of a number of acts or even the quantity of episodes within which these acts occur will not inform us of the import of such acts nor of their significance. It is the contextual relevance that is essential to understanding the reciprocal interaction between meaning and actions. A social constructionist viewpoint on research The phrase ‘empirical research’ means literally to be ‘guided by experience’ and thus the aim of good empirical research is to reflect the world as it is. Empirical scientists try to keep a dispassionate distance between themselves and their subjects so that they can experience the world directly and not allow biases to cloud their observations. Kenneth Gergen (1999) argues, however, that research is rarely carried out for no reason and the researcher’s biases will enter into the research at every point, from the words selected to frame the problem to the description of the subjects’ actions. We do not construct our interpretations in isolation but against a backdrop of shared understandings, practices, languages and so on (Schwandt, 2000). Most social constructionist approaches treat dialogue and discourse as the central organizing principle of construction. For social constructionists, interview data used in research must be interpreted carefully and tentatively, with a willingness to reflect upon the possible contributions of the researcher and the research community to the outcomes (Gergen, 2002). This concept of reflexivity requires researchers to become aware of their feelings and biases, their history, values and assumptions, and to scrutinize them closely (King, 1996). According to Gergen and Gergen (1991), the foremost feature of reflexivity is probably an attempt to redress the power inequalities between the researcher and the researched in order to construct meaning and to achieve an expansion of understanding. r 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2006 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice 278 Gill Salmon and Jeff Faris Social constructionism and the CMM model in particular as a potential framework for discourse analysis CMM is an important theory of human communication for two reasons. First, it deals with an important social process: the way in which individuals achieve, through their interactions with each other, some degree of mutual understanding to reach a mutually desirable end. Second, work involving CMM theory has a notable record of success in research and practical application (Philipsen, 1995). CMM theory has been applied to a variety of different situations: family communication (Harris, 1980), organizational communication (Harris and Cronen, 1979) and intercultural communication (Stanback and Pearce, 1980). Caroline Lindsey (1993) has also adapted the CMM model to explore contexts which are significant to both professionals and families in the reconstruction of ‘the family’. Thus the CMM theory has shown itself to be a useful tool to highlight the complexities of human action and meets with accepted standards of empirical verification (Cronen et al., 1982b). As a new field of research begins to open up in the arena of multiagency collaboration, the authors hypothesize that ideas stemming from systems theory and practice and in particular social constructionism and the CMM model might be informative in the development of appropriate research methodologies. In this study, the authors sought to examine the quality of discourse in some episodes of inter-agency multi-professional dialogue using both a thematic analysis as well as the CMM model to see if these two approaches are complementary and additive to each other in furthering the understanding of multi-agency collaboration within a CAMHS context. Methodology This was a clinical qualitative research study whereby the first author (GS) set out to study ways of working within a CAMH team of which she was a part. The research aims were partly derived from the existing literature on multi-agency collaboration but, in line with qualitative research methodology, also evolved as the data were collected and analysed. The aims were: 1 To explore the discourse that emerges when professionals from a specialist CAMHS meet with professionals from other agencies to discuss cases; r 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2006 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice Multi-agency collaboration, multiple levels of meaning 279 2 To do a pilot study using CMM as a framework within social constructionist theory to help understand the discourse that emerges. Data collection At the time of the research, a number of professionals within the specialist CAMHS were offering consultation to groups or individuals from other agencies. In addition, alongside regular in-house team meetings, liaison meetings between the team and other agencies involved with children occurred which provided a forum for joint case discussion and planning. Ethics approval and participant consent was sought and granted to audio-tape, transcribe and further analyse the eight meetings listed: 1 Two consecutive consultation meetings with a small group of professionals who work with looked-after children; 2 Two separate consultation meetings about specific cases with social workers; 3 Two consecutive liaison meetings with teachers from a school; 4 Two ‘in-house’ meetings of the specialist CAMHS team: one during which new referrals to the service were discussed, the other during which currently open cases were discussed. Data analysis using the thematic analysis framework Data were analysed initially using a thematic analysis framework. There are differing descriptions of thematic analysis in the literature but all have as an essential principle the identification of increasing levels of abstraction in the data (Leininger, 1985; Aronson, 1994; Gantley, 1999). The eight transcripts were first checked for accuracy and anonymity was maintained by removing identifying data. All data were then coded into categories. Categories were grouped into themes. To increase the validity of the findings, a collaborative approach was taken whereby a clinical colleague of similar professional background and training as well as a research consultant with a special interest in qualitative techniques looked in detail at one of the transcripts and met to discuss emerging categories with the researcher (GS). The clinical colleague then went on to ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Final Answer

Hello. Find the answer attached.

Question 1 on Socialization Processes
a) When I was a child, I wanted to be an accountant.
b) My aspirations are realistic since I was competent in mathematical computation.
c) My aspirations have changed from my research on the nature of the work on the
Question 2 on Socialization Processes
a) I work for The Npd Group Inc., a marketing company located in the U.S.
b) Useful stages of socialization process utilization
A Summary on Mindfulness and Experiential Learning
a) Definition of Mindfulness
b) Definition of Experiential Learning




Name of Student
Institution Affiliation



Chapter 7: “Socialization Processes”
Question 1
When I was a child, I wanted to be an accountant. Thus, my aspiration of being an
accountant was realistic because I was good at mathematics, and my parents used to leave me in
their shop to help in selling and e...

MrMark (19758)
Carnegie Mellon University

Top quality work from this tutor! I’ll be back!

It’s my second time using SP and the work has been great back to back :) The one and only resource on the Interwebs for the work that needs to be done!

Thanks, good work

Similar Questions
Related Tags