Advertisement

Human Studies

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 57–85 | Cite as

The Group Home Workplace and the Work of Know-How

  • Jack Levinson
Article

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the everyday practice of authority and knowledge in a group home for adults with intellectual disability. Based on fieldwork, the group home is understood as a workplace, which provides a model of organizational participation as a dilemma of freedom rather than a problem of power. Three kinds of work are observed in the everyday ‘know-how’ of counselors and residents. First, Michael Lipsky’s concept of “street-level bureaucracy” is used to understand the inherently indeterminate and conflictual nature of counselor work. Second, the competent participation of residents is also organized as work, often explicitly, as the work they must do to “become more independent.” The group home is therefore understood as a setting of governmentality because it reflects the indirect practice of authority characteristic of contemporary liberal societies. Finally, the ethnomethodological insight about the accomplished character of local order is the basis for the observation of everyday life itself as a third kind of work.

Keywords

disability ethnomethodology governmentality group home social service work 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Angrosino, M. (1997). Opportunity House: Ethnographic Stories of Mental Retardation. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Angrosino, M. (1992). Metaphors of Stigma: How Deinstitutionalized Mentally Retarded Adults See Themselves. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 21: 171–199.Google Scholar
  3. Attewell, P. (1992). Skill and Occupational Changes in U.S. Manufacturing. In P. Adler (Ed.), Technology and the Future of Work. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Attewell, P. (1990). What is Skill? Work and Occupations 17: 422–448.Google Scholar
  5. Attewell, P. (1986). Imperialism Within Complex Organizations. Sociological Theory 4: 115–125.Google Scholar
  6. Barnes, C. and Oliver, M. (1995). Disability Rights: Rhetoric and Reality in the UK. Disability & Society 10: 111–116.Google Scholar
  7. Bercovici, S.M. (1983). Barriers to Normalization: The Restrictive Management of Retarded Persons. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
  8. Baistow, K. (1994–1995). Liberation and Regulation? Some Paradoxes of Empowerment. Critical Social Policy. Issue 42.Google Scholar
  9. Baker, C. (1984). The ‘Search for adultness’: Membership Work in Adolescent Talk. Human Studies 7: 301–323.Google Scholar
  10. Blau, P. (1963). The Dynamics of Bureaucracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cicourel, A. (1974). Cognitive Sociology: Language and Meaning in Social Interaction. Hammondsworth: Penguin Education.Google Scholar
  12. Copp, M. (1998). Adult ‘Adolescents’: Social Control of Sexuality and Adulthood in People with Developmental Disabilities. Sociological Analysis 1: 113–135.Google Scholar
  13. Cruikshank, B. (1999). The Will to Empower: Democratic Citizens and Other Subjects. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Cushman, P. (1991). Ideology Obscured: Political Uses of the Self in Daniel Stern’s Infant. American Psychologist 46: 206–219.Google Scholar
  15. Dean, M. (1999). Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  16. Dean, M. (1995). Governing the Unemployed Self in an Active Society. Economy and Society. 24: 559–583.Google Scholar
  17. Dudley, J. R. (1983). Living With Stigma: The Plight of the People Who We Label Mentally Retarded. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
  18. Foster, S. B. (1987). The Politics of Caring. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  19. Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell and P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Garfinkel, H. (1967/1984). Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  21. Garfinkel, H. (1986). Ethnomethodological Studies of Work. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  22. Garfinkel, H. and Sacks, H. (1970). On Formal Structures of Practical Action. In J.C. KcKinney and E. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical Sociology. East Norwalk: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  23. Garfinkel, H. and Wieder, D.L. (1992). Two Incommensurable, Asymmetrical Alternate Technologies of Social Analysis. In G. Watson and R. Seiler (Eds.), Text in Context: Contributions to Ethnomethodology. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  24. Gillman, M., Heyman, B. and Swain, J. (2000). What’s in a Name? The Implications of Diagnosis for People with Learning Difficulties. Disability and Society 15: 389–409.Google Scholar
  25. Gluckman, M. (1956). Foreward. In V. Turner (Eds.), Schism and Continuity in an African Society. Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Gluckman, M. (1967). Introduction. In A.L. Epstein (Ed.), The Craft of Social Anthropology. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  27. Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  28. Goode, D. (1994). A World Without Words: The Social Construction of Children Born Deaf and Blind. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Gouldner, A. (1954). Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hacking, I. (1999). The Social Construction of What? Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Hacking, I. (1986). Making Up People. In T. Heller, M. Sosna, and D. Wellberry (Eds.), Reconstructing Individualism. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Hawes, J. (1991). The Children’s Rights Movement: A History of Advocacy and Protection. Boston: Twayne Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. Johnson, K. (1998). Deinstitutionalizing Women: An Ethnographic Study of Institutional Closure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Kliewer, C. and Drake, S. (1998). Disability, Eugenics and the Current Ideology of Segregation: A Modern Tale. Disability and Society 13: 95–111.Google Scholar
  35. Juravich, T. (1985). Chaos on the Shop Floor: A Worker’s View of Quality, Productivity, and Management. Philadephia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Katz, S. (2000). Busy bodies: Activity, Aging, and the Management of Everyday Life. Journal of Aging Studies 14: 135–170.Google Scholar
  37. Kusterer, K. (1978). Workplace Knowhow: The Important Working Knowledge of Unskilled Workers. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  38. Lipsky, M. (1979). Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  39. Lynch, M. (1993). Scientific Practice and Ordinary Action: Ethnomethodology and Social Studies of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Merton, R. (1957). Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  41. Miller, G. (1994). Toward Ethnographies of Institutional Discourse. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 3: 281–308.Google Scholar
  42. Mitchell, J.C. (1983). Case and Situation Analysis. The Sociological Review 31: 187–211.Google Scholar
  43. Postman, N. (1982). The Disappearance of Childhood. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  44. Robillard, A. (1999). Meaning of a Disability: The Lived Experience of Paralysis. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Rose, N. (1998). Governing Risky Individuals: The Role of Psychiatry in New Regimes of Control. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 5: 177–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rose, N. (1999). Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Rose, N. (1996). Inventing Our Selves: Psychology, Power and Personhood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Sacks, H. (1992a). Lectures on Conversation, Volume 1. (Ed.) G. Jefferson. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  49. Sacks, H. (1992b). Lectures on Conversation, Volume 2. (Ed.) G. Jefferson. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  50. Sacks, H. (1987). On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation. In G. Button and J. Lee (Eds.), Talk and Social Organization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Sacks, H. (1975). Everyone Has to Lie. In M. Sanches and B.G. Blount (Eds.), Sociocultural Dimensions of Language Use. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  52. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. and Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking in Conversation. Language 50: 696–735.Google Scholar
  53. Schegloff, E. (1982). Discourse as an Interactional Accomplishment: Some Uses of ‘Uh-huh’ and Other Things That Come Between Sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Schegloff, E. and Sacks, H. (1974). Opening up Closings. In R. Turn (Ed.), Ethnomethodology. Hammondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  55. Schutz, A. (1970). On Phenomenology and Social Relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  56. Selznick, P. (1948). Foundations of the Theory of Organizations. American Sociological Review. 13: 25–35.Google Scholar
  57. Silverman, D. (1998). Harvey Sacks: Social Science and Conversation Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Simpson, M. (1995). The Sociology of ‘Competence’ in Learning Disability Services. Social Work and Social Sciences Review 6: 85–97.Google Scholar
  59. Taylor, S. (2001). The Continuum and Current Controversies in the USA. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability 26: 15–33.Google Scholar
  60. Taylor, S., Bogdan, R. and Lutfiyya, Z. (1995). (Eds.), The Variety of Community Experience: Qualitative Studies of Family and Community Integration. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
  61. Van Velsen, J. (1967). The Extended-case Method and Situational Analysis. In A.L Epstein (Ed.), The Craft of Social Anthropology. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  62. Wolfensberger, W. (1989). Human Service Policies: The Rhetoric Versus The Reality. In L. Barton (Ed.), Disability and Dependency. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  63. Wrigley, J. (1989). Do Young Children Need Intellectual Stimulation? Experts’ Advice to Parents, 1900–1985. History of Education Quarterly 29: 41–75.Google Scholar
  64. Yeatman, A. (1998). Interpreting Contemporary Contractualism. In M. Dean and B. Hindess (Eds.), Governing Australia: Studies in Contemporary Rationalities of Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Zuboff, S. (1988). In the Age of Smart Machines: The Future of Work and Power. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyQueens CollegeNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations