Search results

In this chapter, an overview of the trauma-informed approach is described. The background and context to trauma, its impact on the person, and organisational responses are considered. More specifically, I distinguish between trauma specific and non-specific organisations by defining the characteristic of each. This chapter sets the tone for the remainder of the book by introducing a conceptual model for both specific and non-specific trauma organisations. In order to do this, I outline the differential components that are deemed necessary for organisations to be trauma-responsive; in doing so, I introduce the Trauma Ecology Model to the literature, outlining its various components.

The aim of this article is an analysis of the links between race and psychotic illness, psychiatric diagnosis and treatment, as well as psychiatric, police and prison violence against people with mental health problems. The analysis focuses on Black men who are more frequently diagnosed with schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders and who face more brutal treatment than other people with such diagnoses. We have adopted a multidisciplinary approach which draws insights from psychiatry, psychology, and sociology and challenges the biologistic interpretation of “mental illness.” We take into account the United States and Britain – two countries with large Black minorities and an established tradition of research on these groups. Among the crucial findings of this study are the facts that racial bias and stereotypes heavily influence the way Black men with a diagnosis of psychotic illness are treated by the psychiatric system, police and prison staff, and that the dominant approach to psychosis masks the connections between racism and mental health.

McCloskey's model of medieval English agriculture shapes the debate over the origins and persistence of the open fields. This essay deconstructs McCloskey's often-cited analysis and demonstrates that McCloskey's assumptions contradict her conclusions. McCloskey's claims concerning the costs of various methods of mitigating risk are inconsistent with her vision of autarkic villages where scattering protected peasants from adverse agricultural shocks. Instead, McCloskey's claims corroborate an alternative markets-plus-morals view of medieval English villages. Correcting McCloskey's erroneous inferences resurrects long forgotten explanations for the persistence of the open fields and suggests a new agenda for the study of medieval English agriculture.