‘Chronic criminal disease: An SRV-based critique of drug addiction services’ by Susanne Hartfiel
The above December 2006 article published in The SRV Journal applied the construct of relevance, potency and model coherency to addiction services. The article is based on the author’s study of two methadone programs in two German cities. The analysis of assumptions (one of the elements of model coherency as it was laid out by Wolfensberger) and of the likely implications of these assumptions for human service is very instructive. Note also that the author ties in the concept of social roles to model coherency, a point briefly made in my last post.
Marc Tumeinski
A query at this point: what is your sense of the connection between the assumptions element and mindsets & expectations?
Thanks for the question Jane. A few very, very basic points come to mind and then let’s see where the discussion takes us. I look forward to your further thoughts, and encourage others to join in the discussion with questions, points and examples.
The assumptions element is part of the SRV theme of model coherency, and mindsets and expectancies is another of the 10 themes of SRV. Wolfensberger made it clear that the themes were intended to be helpful in teaching SRV, that they were more ‘themes for’ SRV in that sense than ‘themes of’ SRV. In other words, many of the themes overlap and reinforce each other.
In longer ‘SRV 10’ workshops, we make the point explicitly that the theme of mindsets and expectancies is related to other themes such as imagery; model coherency; the developmental model; and role expectancies and role circularities.
• Our fundamental assumptions, mindsets and expectancies can vary in terms of how conscious we are of them.
• Some assumptions, mindsets and expectancies may (appear to) be more rooted in empirical realities, while others may (appear to) be rooted in trans-empirical or supra-empirical realities. This is a broader point we make early on in longer, leadership level SRV 10 workshops, and come back to at several points during the workshop.
• Individually as well as communally, we may hold assumptions, and have mindsets and expectancies, concerning realities such as human nature, the process of social valuation, what people need, the good things of life, stereotypes, how service should be provided, what makes a service ‘good,’ and so on.
• From my perspective, one of the big points that seems important to examine is the connections between the assumptions, mindsets and expectancies of a single server, and the assumptions, mindsets and expectancies of an entire formal or informal service effort, program, agency, etc. How are these connected? How might they shape or influence one another? What happens when these come into conflict or disagreement? And so on.
I look forward to continuing the online discussion,
Marc
Thanks for this Marc. I too link assumptions, mindsets etc, but I just wanted to check.
One of the reasons I ask is because in a recent workshop where I taught the MC framework, I noticed that a particular mindset of some of the participants made it difficult for them to get into the ‘groove’ of MC thinking. Thought I’d share.
The mindset related to the habit of utilising technocratic (and non-programmatic) processes in the FIRST instance. It was seen, for example, when they were asked to identify the needs of someone in a scenario. Their minds took them to answers such as ‘well, first we need to call a meeting, and we might need to do an assessment, and then do a planning meeting, and then we’ll be able to tell them what services they should go to.’ It was fascinating. I mention this not to be disparaging, but rather just sharing what I think of as a mindset (not sure if you’d agree): technocratic thinking-habits without any content. An understanding of MC gives people the CONTENT of these conversations and meetings. Ya reckon?