A Social Constructionist Approach to Therapy with Couples with a Chronic Illness

2017 ◽  
pp. 99-118
Author(s):  
Joan D. Atwood ◽  
Laura Jean Dreher
2021 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 100545
Author(s):  
Flávio Notomi Kanazawa ◽  
Marina Lourenção ◽  
Jorge Henrique Caldeira de Oliveira ◽  
Janaina de Moura Engracia Giraldi

2017 ◽  
pp. 123-146
Author(s):  
Robert Blundo ◽  
Roberta R. Greene ◽  
Paul Gallant

2002 ◽  
Vol 172 ◽  
pp. 1065-1103
Author(s):  
Andrew Kipnis

Many of the faults of this book may be intuited from the title. The author too often writes as if there is a singular entity called “the Chinese Character” whose cornerstone are “the Chinese Face Practices.” Though claiming that his use of a “social constructionist” approach allows him to rise above ahistorical and orientalist approaches, the author rarely does so. For example, his history of the Chinese face practices consists of ten pages that cover the Shang dynasty to the present.


2011 ◽  
Vol 77 (3) ◽  
pp. 367-384 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dimitris Anastasiou ◽  
James M. Kauffman

2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 361-371 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary S. Marshall

Governance is central to our current understanding of public administration and policy. Mark Bevirʼs work provides governance studies solid epistemological grounding through a social constructionist approach which gives rise to a decentered theory of governance. This article explains decentered theory by examining the entrepreneurial subject as an artifact of neo-liberal governance. In doing so, it explores the key concepts that give shape to decentered theory.


Hypatia ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 554-571 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cara E. Jones

Disability scholars have critiqued medical models that pathologize disability as an individual flaw that needs treatment, rehabilitation, and cure, favoring instead a social‐constructionist approach that likens disability to other identity categories such as gender, race, class, and sexuality. However, the emphasis on social constructionism has left chronic illness and pain largely untheorized. This article argues that feminist disability studies (FDS) must attend to the common, chronic gynecological condition endometriosis (endo) when theorizing pain. Endo is particularly important for FDS analysis because the highly feminized and sexualized nature of endo pain is a major source of disability. Because medical treatments of endo enhance fertility rather than provide pain relief, those with endo must not only have access to medical services to manage their pain, but also demand better medical management of their pain as well as disability accommodations for their pain. Thus, I propose a pain‐centric model of disability that politicizes pain through social‐constructionist and medical models of disability by attending to the lived experiences of pain.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document