Reported client–practitioner conversations as assessment in mental health practitioners' talk

Abstract

The aim of the study is to show how reported client-practitioner conversations function as assessments. The setting of the study is a rehabilitation course targeted at young adults. The data consist of informal backstage meetings among the practitioners, which do not have an officially stated or recognized task of assessment making. However, the study demonstrates that the meeting talk is rich in reported client-practitioner conversations with a dimension of assessment.The located assessment functions of reported conversations and the accompanied meeting talk are: 1) making negative and positive portraits of clients, 2) treating clients' voices as selfevaluative and influential, 3) presenting practitioners' own past talk as problematic and creating self-advice for future conversations. By making reported conversations visible as everyday assessment practices, the article challenges the one-sided view of assessment as a separate and 2 formal professional practice, which is conducted with standardized tools such as psychological and social ability tests.

Causal accounts as a consequential device in categorizing mental health and substance abuse problems

“…But the professionals' and clients' views may just as well differ on 'what the case at hand is', and this often causes difficulties in the client-practitioner relationship, even the client's exclusion from the services. (see also Juhila et al 2014a and2014b. ) In current research and practice, 21 shared understanding, client involvement and decision-making are stressed as pivotal to effective and ethical treatment and rehabilitation (e.g.…”

Boundary work in inter-agency and interprofessional client transitions

“…The detailed examination of the contrasts showed that they are constructed by what we identify as "day-to-day evidence". We define day-to-day evidence as mundane observations which are founded on professionals' informal assessments on clients (Juhila, Saario, Gunther, & Raitakari, 2014b). Day-to-day evidence includes perceptions of clients' condition and daily functioning that professionals collect when spending considerable time with clients during the intensive 3-month period.…”

A Review of Research on Direct Reported Speech

“…As Xin (2010) indicates that reported speech needs to be studied for its communicative functions and effects in contextualized discourses, many studies have analyzed the uses of DRS in various settings. For instance, it can help establish speaker's topics , provide evidence from authoritative sources (Myers, 1999;Juhila & Jokinen, 2014), emphasize personal opinions in group discussions (Myers, 1999), and tactically build up self images or other's portraits in political debates (Kuo, 2001) and social work conversations (Juhila & Jokinen, 2014). Some studies on DRS use mixed methods with pragmatic theories.…”