FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W250953680> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W250953680 abstract "I congratulate Clark for his spirited reply to my article Court-Ordered versus Voluntary Clients: Problem Differences and Readiness for Change (July 1996, pp. 417-422). However, I wish he had focused more on the merits and shortcomings of the research rather than merely indulging his pique at selected observations regarding problems in therapeutic jurisprudence. Skipping the research only to engage in value-driven diatribe is too common in the social work field and usually does more harm than good. Let's revisit the results of the study: The relationship between referral source and readiness for change . . . demonstrates a definitive tendency for voluntary clients to express much more engagement in the change process but does not support the common sentiment that court-ordered clients are unable or unwilling to change. . . . Over one-quarter . . . of the court-ordered clients were either thinking about changing (contemplating), actively engaged in doing something about the problem (participating), or trying to maintain previous gains in dealing with a problem (maintaining). Overgeneralizing and stereotyping certain client groups . . . increases the risk, in this case, of underestimating the potential of some court-ordered clients to willingly work on their problems. (p. 420) I also included practice suggestions that can help clinicians constructively engage involuntary clients rather than dismiss them as hard to reach. Cynical? Pessimistic? Hardly. My research interest in social work with involuntary clients was inspired by the practice wisdom of many clinician colleagues who felt that court-ordered clients were not attractive candidates for psychotherapy. Over the course of my 15 years of experience with voluntary and involuntary clients, both children and adults (shoplifters, drug abusers, mentally ill people, sex offenders, and murderers, to name a few), in both public and private practice, I was the frequent and gracious recipient of these cast-offs. My practice wisdom told me that voluntary versus involuntary is not a particularly telling factor with respect to readiness or potential for change. This observation lead to my research interest in this area. As I waded through the jumble of metaphors and misattributed quotes (purity and cleansing are apparently Clark's preoccupation, not mine), two themes emerged that echo current social work debates and are of deep concern to me: (1) the pattern of selectively attending only to evidence that supports one's contentions about practice effectiveness, avoiding (or suppressing) disconfirmatory evidence and failing to place positive findings in a broader policy context, and (2) the aggravation of a phony dichotomy between what frontline practitioners do versus what university-based colleagues do. To illustrate the first item, I refer to Clark's noncritical reference to Gendreau's (1996) optimistic conclusions about the efficacy of court-ordered treatments. Although Gendreau did a fine job of emphasizing the effectiveness of community-based behavioral approaches (which I wholeheartedly endorse and agree comport well with the strengths perspective), Harland (1996b), the editor of the volume that includes Gendreau's analysis, characterizes his assessment as couched in terms of general principles, blending his interpretation of the published research results with more clinically-based - and . . . perhaps ideologically tinted judgments about what does and does not appear to reduce recidivism (p. xvii). In the same volume, Cullen, Wright, and Applegate (1996) and Palmer (1996) were more equivocal in their conclusions about court-ordered treatments overall. In the context of the overall goals of therapeutic jurisprudence, Petersilia (1996) later concluded, Corrections research, for the most part, remains badly flawed (p. …" @default.
• W250953680 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W250953680 creator A5083628628 @default.
• W250953680 date "1997-03-01" @default.
• W250953680 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W250953680 title "Reply to Withstanding 'Friendly Fire': A Frontline Reply to O'Hare" @default.
• W250953680 doi "https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/42.2.203" @default.
• W250953680 hasPublicationYear "1997" @default.
• W250953680 type Work @default.
• W250953680 sameAs 250953680 @default.
• W250953680 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W250953680 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W250953680 hasAuthorship W250953680A5083628628 @default.
• W250953680 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W250953680 hasConcept C119857082 @default.
• W250953680 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W250953680 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W250953680 hasConcept C159110408 @default.
• W250953680 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W250953680 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W250953680 hasConcept C2776135927 @default.
• W250953680 hasConcept C2776291640 @default.
• W250953680 hasConcept C2777363581 @default.
• W250953680 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W250953680 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W250953680 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W250953680 hasConcept C9992130 @default.
• W250953680 hasConceptScore W250953680C111472728 @default.
• W250953680 hasConceptScore W250953680C119857082 @default.
• W250953680 hasConceptScore W250953680C138885662 @default.
• W250953680 hasConceptScore W250953680C15744967 @default.
• W250953680 hasConceptScore W250953680C159110408 @default.
• W250953680 hasConceptScore W250953680C17744445 @default.
• W250953680 hasConceptScore W250953680C199539241 @default.
• W250953680 hasConceptScore W250953680C2776135927 @default.
• W250953680 hasConceptScore W250953680C2776291640 @default.
• W250953680 hasConceptScore W250953680C2777363581 @default.
• W250953680 hasConceptScore W250953680C41008148 @default.
• W250953680 hasConceptScore W250953680C71924100 @default.
• W250953680 hasConceptScore W250953680C77805123 @default.
• W250953680 hasConceptScore W250953680C9992130 @default.
• W250953680 hasLocation W2509536801 @default.
• W250953680 hasOpenAccess W250953680 @default.
• W250953680 hasPrimaryLocation W2509536801 @default.
• W250953680 hasRelatedWork W1581261571 @default.
• W250953680 hasRelatedWork W1988720969 @default.
• W250953680 hasRelatedWork W2014301698 @default.
• W250953680 hasRelatedWork W2016507600 @default.
• W250953680 hasRelatedWork W2111529204 @default.
• W250953680 hasRelatedWork W2117806517 @default.
• W250953680 hasRelatedWork W216896681 @default.
• W250953680 hasRelatedWork W2482723148 @default.
• W250953680 hasRelatedWork W2497846448 @default.
• W250953680 hasRelatedWork W252427879 @default.
• W250953680 hasRelatedWork W2565282581 @default.
• W250953680 hasRelatedWork W2591101560 @default.
• W250953680 hasRelatedWork W2599486787 @default.
• W250953680 hasRelatedWork W2610990835 @default.
• W250953680 hasRelatedWork W3084369515 @default.
• W250953680 hasRelatedWork W310984944 @default.
• W250953680 hasRelatedWork W44051810 @default.
• W250953680 hasRelatedWork W177262170 @default.
• W250953680 hasRelatedWork W2183416346 @default.
• W250953680 hasRelatedWork W262681100 @default.
• W250953680 isParatext "false" @default.
• W250953680 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W250953680 magId "250953680" @default.
• W250953680 workType "article" @default.