Change search
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Konflikten som inte blir av: argumentation och kommunikation i LVM-förhandlingar
Umeå University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Social Welfare.
2004 In: Forskningsrapporter: Bilagedelen i LVM-utredningens betänkande Tvång och förändring, 2004, 61-126 p.Chapter in book (Other academic) Published
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2004. 61-126 p.
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-5374OAI: diva2:144871
Available from: 2006-10-05 Created: 2006-10-05Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. Terapeutens rätt: rättslig och terapeutisk logik i domstolsförhandlingar
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Terapeutens rätt: rättslig och terapeutisk logik i domstolsförhandlingar
2006 (Swedish)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

In this dissertation, I explore a quite unique legal situation, namely administrative court hearings relating to coercive interventions: the Care of Young Persons Act (LVU), Care of Abusers (Special Provisions) Act (LVM), and the Compulsory Psychiatric Care Act (LPT). There are three central participatory roles in the court hearings: The official party is the authority who files the application for coercive intervention – either a chief psychiatrist or a social welfare board (typically represented by a social worker or sometimes a lawyer assisted by a social worker), whereas the citizen party is the person about whom the application is brought. The citizen party is represented by a legal representative. The professionals represent two different logics: therapeutic and judicial.

The purpose of this dissertation has been to study the tension between therapeutic and judicial logic in court hearings relating to compulsory care. With theoretical concepts from Scott (1995) and Wetherell & Potter (1998), it is possible to say that the therapeutic and judicial logics are built up by institutional elements that are communicated through interpretative repertoires. Three questions are central:

1. How do professional participators handle the different role expectations embedded in therapeutic and judicial logic? In this case, I am particularly interested in role conflicts faced by social workers and psychiatrists.

2. How do different institutional elements (regulative, normative/cognitive) play out in the court hearings?

3. To what extent can these court hearings be considered a scrutinizing order of discourse, where the arguments of official party are subjected to critical examination?

In my analysis I am inspired by both critical discourse analysis and organizational theory, more precisely, new institutionalism. These two perspectives provide useful insights and make it possible to combine the micro- and macro levels in the analysis. Data for the analysis consist of 43 court hearings and 31 interviews, gathered from two different county administrative courts in Sweden. All written documents used and produced by the courts are also part of our data.

The dissertation consists of five studies that indicate that the court hearings hardly can be described as a scrutinising order of discourse. In spite of this, the court constantly finds that the legal criteria for coercive intervention are satisfied. Neither the official party nor the legal representative argue according to a judicial logic. Instead, therapeutic logic dominates the order of discourse. When the arguments for compulsory care are therapeutic, they are not explicitly related to the criteria in the law. In my interpretation, the reason why the conflict between therapeutic and judicial logic is not realised can be found in the existence of a logic of normalisation. This ideological logic of normalisation can be found in most of the institutions in the Swedish society and are built on the idea of traditional welfare norms.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Umeå: Socialt arbete, 2006. 97 (258) p.
Studier i socialt arbete vid Umeå universitet : avhandlings- och skriftserie, ISSN 0283-300X ; 52
Key words: court hearing, social worker, new institutionalism., psychiatrist, legal representative, compulsory care, therapeutic law, therapeutic jurisprudence, normalisation, communication, discourse analysis
urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-882 (URN)91-7264-184-3 (ISBN)
Public defence
2006-10-27, Hörsal C, Samhällsvetarhuset, Umeå universitet, Umeå, 13:15
Available from: 2006-10-05 Created: 2006-10-05Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

By organisation
Social Welfare

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

Total: 46 hits
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link