Search results

In a recent report the author wrote about a service user, the author was challenged by the service user’s advocate in respect of the author’s use of the term “sexual fetish”. The author was informed of the advocate’s fears in respect of people involved in the service user’s future care and support needs feeling uncomfortable and possibly stigmatising someone having a sexual fetish. Consequently, the author was asked to change their wording from “sexual fetish” to “sensory need”. The purpose of this study/paper aims to highlight best practice regarding the most appropriate wording for individuals with sexual fetishes.

A review of the available evidence was ascertained.

A review of British Psychological Society guidelines and recent research highlights that what were once called “perversions” must be destigmatised, which will not be achieved if people continue to sweep the term fetish under the metaphorical carpet.

It is the author’s sincere hope that use of the term “sexual fetish” embraces and normalises people’s sexual fetish and results in heightened awareness and de-stigmatisation of what is essentially a reference to an element of the wonderful and pleasurable world of sexual behaviour.

The purpose of this paper is to determine the effectiveness of an adapted compassion-focused therapy (CFT) group treatment programme for individuals with an intellectual disability (ID), specifically aimed to help address maladaptive conceptualisations of masculinity.

Outcome measurements were competed at pre- and post-group and the effectiveness of the intervention were assessed using a Wilcoxon signed ranks test.

Findings demonstrated that the treatment group showed significant differences in their “gender role conflict” subscales including the Success, Power, Control and “Restrictive Affectionate Behavior Between Men” subscales; however, no significant differences were found on the Restrictive Emotionality or Conflicts Between Work and Leisure subscales. Furthermore, no significant differences were found on participants psychological well-being, psychological distress, anxiety, self-compassion or quality of life measures.

Limitations include that a lack of qualitative information regarding outcomes, a lack of control group and a small number of participants may have impacted the outcome of the research.

The Men’s Masculinity group had a positive impact on the participant’s sense of success, power and control, so it could be considered that this group enabled participants to feel more powerful and in control of their difficulties which is associated with the “drive” system of CFT.

Overall, this study adds to the small but growing literature that supports using CFT groups as a stand-alone psychological intervention when working with people with an ID.

The purpose of this paper is to determine the effectiveness of an adapted dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT) treatment programme for individuals with an intellectual disability, via completion of a service evaluation.

Outcome measurements were competed at pre-, post- and 12 months follow-up, and the effectiveness of the intervention was assessed using a Friedman analysis.

Findings demonstrated that the treatment group showed significant differences in their “psychological distress” scores, but no significant differences were found in their “psychological well-being”, “anxiety” or “quality of life” (WHO-QOL) scores over time.

Overall, the current study adds to the small but growing literature that supports using the skills training group part of DBT as a stand-alone psychological intervention when working with people with an intellectual disability.

This chapter explores institution as a religious phenomenon. Institutional logics are organized around relatively stable congeries of objects, subjects, and practices. Institutional substances, the most general object of an institutional field, are immanent in the practices that organize an institutional field, values never exhausted by those practices, and practices premised on a practical belief in that substance. Like religion, an institution's practices are ontologically rational, that is, tied to a substance indexed by the conjunction of a practice and a name. Institutional substances are not loosely coupled, ceremonial, legitimating exteriors, but unquestioned, constitutive interiors, the sacred core of each field, unobservable, but socially real.

In this monograph the author discusses the problems in constructing a logical and ethical‐empirical foundation so that relevant social values may be studied by the scientific method. Part One is concerned with the difficulties posed by the prevailing methodology. Part Two presents a new research programme based on the simultaneous equilibrium versus disequilibrium approach in conjunction with Wittgenstein's logic and the current research in ethics.

It is possible to say that an expert in any field of knowledge can be expected to know particular things and techniques. This can be said of a stone mason, a physicist or a midwife. The expertise consists of a notional core of knowledge and skills (i.e. applied knowledge). Such expertise arguably can be found in other experts in the same field, although there will be idiosyncrasies of approach and valuation and quite probably divergencies in what is considered “right” and “wrong”.

The Bureau of Economics in the Federal Trade Commission has a three-part role in the Agency and the strength of its functions changed over time depending on the preferences and ideology of the FTC’s leaders, developments in the field of economics, and the tenor of the times. The over-riding current role is to provide well considered, unbiased economic advice regarding antitrust and consumer protection law enforcement cases to the legal staff and the Commission. The second role, which long ago was primary, is to provide reports on investigations of various industries to the public and public officials. This role was more recently called research or “policy R&D”. A third role is to advocate for competition and markets both domestically and internationally. As a practical matter, the provision of economic advice to the FTC and to the legal staff has required that the economists wear “two hats,” helping the legal staff investigate cases and provide evidence to support law enforcement cases while also providing advice to the legal bureaus and to the Commission on which cases to pursue (thus providing “a second set of eyes” to evaluate cases). There is sometimes a tension in those functions because building a case is not the same as evaluating a case. Economists and the Bureau of Economics have provided such services to the FTC for over 100 years proving that a sub-organization can survive while playing roles that sometimes conflict. Such a life is not, however, always easy or fun.

The purpose of the paper is to provide a critical reply to Robert Lingard's close reading of a previously published paper of the present author's, “Meaning, truth, and information.”

The approach adopted in this paper is an examination of Lingard's argument and counter‐points, employing (primarily) logical and rhetorical analysis of his claims.

While some of Lingard's criticisms are legitimate and must be admitted, many have to be subjected to rebuttal on the basis of misreading, logical error, and discursive misapprehension of points made in the original article.

Since the present paper is a reply to another author's work, originality is constrained by the arguments and claims made by that author. That said, additional analysis is added to the matters of meaning, truth, and information in an effort to clarify and expand upon the essence of the original article.