Search

The advent of post-industrialism in western societies saw social theorists pay greater attention to the blurring of traditional work and life conceptual categories and the growing role of service professions. Further, much of the theorisation around the human service professions has focussed on occupational stress and professional burnout. This focus on the challenges to worker health has limited considerations of how human service professionals can thrive, and not just survive, in demanding employment contexts. In response, the paper considers the 'lifeworld' as a conceptual resource that can encourage new ways of thinking about the work of human service professionals, as well as reworks this resource using the concept of affect to expand consideration of the interconnected, inter-subjective, bodily and emotive nature of human service work. The paper concludes by presenting a heuristic tool that can make these concepts more accessible to professional discourses and can facilitate their use within collaborative research with the human service professions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the growth of the World Wide Web has conic a proliferation of online reference sources. Some of these are electronic versions of already existing paper sources, while others have no paper counterpart. Many of the best reference resources found of the Web are subscription-based, but a surprising number of quality resources are available free. The vastness of the Web makes it difficult to provide a comprehensive and exhaustive survey of all the resources that are currently available. This article attempts to identify sonic of the most significant resources across the social sciences. it includes six disciplines: anthropology, communications, history, political science, and sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There have been comparative discussions about Thorstein Veblen and Max Weber before, but not quite from the most appropriate viewpoint. The present paper treats them as theorists of action, in social and economic analysis, and this perspective yields some interesting new findings. Both theorists are to be taken as participants in the great Methodenstreit in economics, 100 years ago, and it is Veblen who suggests a more radical solution to this dispute, he suggests its final abolishment. The main difference between Veblen and Weber is in their respective appreciations of the role of psychology in social analysis. Weber does not think it important, but in so thinking he misses the viewpoint of evolutionary psychology that Veblen endorses. Accordingly, both of these classical thinkers are to be considered as theorists of action, but so that it is Veblen who proffers a more general theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We welcome Forshaw's reply to our paper because it opens up debate about psychology and its relationship with the development of an emancipatory disability studies. In our paper we aimed to: (1) raise possibilities for disability studies researchers' engagement with psychology (rather than psychology colonizing disability studies); (2) trace some of the epistemological journeys we underwent in carrying out disability research and community psychology research; (3) consider these possibilities and journeys in relation to previous literature on emancipatory disability research. Forshaw's reply appears to ignore aims (2) and (3) and instead focuses on the ways in which we (mis)represent psychology. He suggests that we: present an inaccurate account of qualitative research in contemporary psychology; make a divisive argument for a 'breakaway group' of community psychologists; epistemologically contradict ourselves because of our concern with 'reality' and social constructionism; argue for only adopting participatory action research; not least, adopt 'simplistic' and 'outdated' views of psychology. We will respond to these criticisms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]