Psychiatric Quarterly

, Volume 86, Issue 2, pp 269–283 | Cite as

Meanings Associated with the Core Component of Clubhouse Life: The Work-Ordered Day

Original Paper

Abstract

Despite the clubhouse model’s 60-year existence internationally, the central nature of its core program, the “work-ordered day” (WOH) (Beard et al. in Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal 5:47–53, 1982), is not well understood; hence, the primary focus of the present study was to explore members’ experiences of the nature and meaning of the WOH. The study drew on qualitative interview data collected in 2009–2013 through open-ended questions and probes with 102 members and 24 staff from 5 Clubhouse International-certified clubhouses (2 US and 3 Finnish). Participant observation supplemented the interviews and all data were analyzed using a grounded theory approach (Charmaz in Rethinking methods in psychology, 1995; Glaser and Strauss in The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research, 1967). Two major themes clustered around: (a) WOH in service of autonomy (things to do, sense of accomplishment, respite, development of occupational skills) and (b) WOH in service of relationships (receiving support; collaboration; and making contributions to the clubhouse community). Clubhouse members appeared to experience the WOH as meaningful because it helps them, as its best, reconstruct a life, develop their occupational self and skill sets, and experientially learn and live what parallels a good life in the general community. It appears that these experiences, interconnecting with the fundamental human needs for autonomy and relationship, point to wellbeing and recovery as part of personal growth. These findings can guide clubhouse daily practice in assessing members’ psychosocial strengths and needs pertaining to recovery. Future research should elaborate on influences of sources of meaning, including work designs and the contributions of everyday socio-cultural interactive and reciprocal processes to these meanings.

Keywords

Psychiatric recovery Clubhouse model Work-ordered day Work Autonomy Relationships 

Notes

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5). Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Harding CM, Brooks GW, Ashikaga T, et al.: The Vermont longitudinal study of persons with severe mental illness, I: Methodology, study sample, and overall status 32 years later. American Journal of Psychiatry 144(6):718–720, 1987.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Harding CM, Brooks GW, Ashikaga T, et al.: The Vermont longitudinal study of persons with severe mental illness, II: Long-term outcome of subjects who retrospectively met DSM-III criteria for schizophrenia. American Journal of Psychiatry 144(6):727–735, 1987.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Davidson L, Harding C, Spaniol L: Recovery from severe mental illnesses: Research evidence and implications for practice (Vol. 1). Boston, Center for Psychiatric Rehabilitation, Boston University, 2005.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Deegan PE: The importance of personal medicine: A qualitative study of resilience in people with psychiatric disabilities. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 33(66):29–35, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Edward K, Welch A, Chater K: The phenomenon of resilience as described by adults who have experienced mental illness. Journal of Advanced Nursing 14:587–595, 2008.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Corrigan PW, Salzer M, Ralph RO, et al.: Examining the factor structure of the recovery assessment scale. Schizophrenia Bulletin 30(4):1035–1041, 2004.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Corrigan PW, Calabrese JD, Diwan SE, et al.: Some recovery processes in mutual-help groups for persons with mental illness; I: Qualitative analysis of program materials and testimonies. Community Mental Health Journal 30(4):287–301, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Corrigan PW, Slopen NAM, Gracia G, et al.: Some recovery processes in mutual-help groups for persons with mental illness; II: Qualitative analysis of participant interviews. Community Mental Health Journal 41(6):721–735, 2005.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davidson L, Borg M, Marin I, et al.: Processes of recovery in serious mental illness: Findings from a multinational study. American Journal of Psychiatric Rehabilitation 8:177–201, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Farone DW: Schizophrenia, community integration, and recovery: Implications for social work practice. Social Work in Mental Health 4(4):21–35, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Doyle A, Dudek K, Lanoir J: Fountain House. New York, Columbia University Press, 2013.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Clubhouse International: International Standards for Clubhouse Programs. 2014. http://www.iccd.org. Accessed 13 Oct 2014.
  13. 13.
    Hänninen E: Choices for recovery: Community-based rehabilitation and the Clubhouse Model as means to mental health reforms. Helsinki, National Institute for Health and Welfare, 2012.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Beard J, Propst R, Mulamud T: The Fountain House model of psychiatric rehabilitation. Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal 5(1):47–53, 1982.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Beard J, Goertzel V, Pearce AJ: The effectiveness of activity group therapy with chronically regressed adult schizophrenics. The International Journal of Group Psychotherapy 8(2):123–136, 1958.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Anderson SB: We are not alone: Fountain House and the development of clubhouse culture. New York, Fountain House, Inc, 1998.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Macias C, Rodican CF, Hargreaves WA, et al.: Supported employment outcomes of a randomized controlled trial of ACT and Clubhouse Models. Psychiatric Services 57(10): 1406–1415, 2006.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McKay C, Johnsen M, Stein R: Employment outcomes in Massachusetts clubhouses. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 29(1):25–33, 2005.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hietala O: Fluid orientations and multiple meanings: Three complementary modes of membership at Clubhouse. In T. Craig (Chair): The 2nd International Clubhouse Research Symposium at Ersta Sköndal högskola/Ersta Sköndal University College, Stockholm, Sweden, 2013.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Carolan M, Onaga E, Pernice-Duca F, et al.: A place to be: The role of clubhouses in facilitating social support. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 35(2):125–132, 2011.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Biegel D, Pernica-Duca F, Chang CW, et al.: Correlates of peer support in a Clubhouse setting. Community Mental Health Journal 49(3):249–259, 2013; doi:10, 1007/s10597-012-9502-5.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Coniglio FD, Hancock N, Ellis LA: Peer support within clubhouse: A grounded theory study. Community Mental Health Journal 48(2):153–160, 2012.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Karlsson M: Fountain House. In: Borkman T, Karlsson M, Munn-Giddings C, Smith L (Eds.): Self-help and mental health: Case studies of mental health self-help organizations in US, England and Sweden. Stockholm, Sköndalsinstitutes Research Department, 2005, pp. 95–106.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Norman C: The Fountain House movement, an alternative rehabilitation model for people with mental health problems, members’ descriptions of what works. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences 20:184–192, 2006.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tanaka K: Clubhouse peer support among individuals with psychiatric illness. International Journal of Self Help and Self Care 7(2):131–149, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Riessman F: The “helper” therapy principle. Social Work 10:27–32, 1965.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fetterman DM: Ethnography. New York, Sage Publications, 1998.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Charmaz K: Grounded theory. In Smith JA, Harrè R, Van Langenhove L (Eds): Rethinking methods in psychology. New York, Sage Publications, 1995.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Charmaz K: Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. New York, Sage Publications, 2014.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Glaser BG, Strauss AL: The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. New York, Sage Publications, 1967.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Marx K: Capital: A critique of political economy. Volume 1: The process of capitalist production. Translated from the third German edition by Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling. Edited by Engels, F. NY: International Publishers, 1867.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Weber M: The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism, transl. Talcott Parsons. London, G. Allen & Unwin, Ltd, 1930.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bizubu AL, Davidson L: Stigma-busting, compeer, and the psychology student: A pilot study on the impact of contact with a person who has a mental illness. The Humanistic Psychologist 39(4):312–323, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Davidson L, Mezzina R, Rowe M, et al.: “A life in the community”: Italian mental health reform and recovery. Journal of Mental Health 19(5):436–443, 2010.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    College of Occupational Therapists: Recovering ordinary lives: the strategy for occupational therapy in mental health services 2007–2017, Literature review. London, COT, 2006.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Devlin C, Burnside L, Akrovd L: Mental health vocational rehabilitation: An overview of occupational therapy service provision in Northern Ireland. The British Journal of Occupational Therapy 69(7):334–338, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Young J, Passmore A: What is the occupational therapy role in enabling mental health consumer participation in volunteer work? Australian Occupational Therapy Journal 54(1):66–69, 2007.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kaplan K, Salzer MS, Brusilovskiy E: Community participation as a predictor of recovery-oriented outcomes among emerging and mature adults with mental illnesses. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 35(3):219–229, 2012.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rosso BD, Dekas KH, Wrzesniewski A: On the meaning of work: A theoretical integration and review. Research in Organizational Behavior 30:91–127, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Blatt S: A fundamental polarity in psychoanalysis: Implications for personality development, psychopathology, and therapeutic processes. Psychoanalytic Inquiry 26(4):494–520, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Blatt SJ, Shahar G, Zuroff DC: Anaclitic (sociotropic) and introjective (autonomous) dimensions. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training 38(4):449–454, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Luyten P, Blatt S: Interpersonal relatedness and self-definition in normal and disrupted personality development: Retrospect and prospect. American Psychologist 68(3):172–183, 2013.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Pernice-Duca F, Markman B, Chateauvert H: Recovery in the Clubhouse environment: Applying ecological and social cognitive theories. International Journal of Self-Help and Self-Care 7(2):151–165, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Stansfeld SA, Shipley MJ, Head J, et al.: Work Characteristics and personal social support as determinants of subjective well-being. PLoS One, 8(11):e81115, 2013.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Marywood University School of Social Work & Administrative StudiesScrantonUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychiatryYale University School of MedicineNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations