Roumeliotis Filip, Carlsson Frida, Erkenfelt Linn Johansson, Wallander Lisa
Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Nordisk Alkohol Nark. 2021 Feb;38(1):3-21. doi: 10.1177/1455072520969496. Epub 2020 Nov 24.
The aims of this article were to examine the various meanings ascribed by three stakeholder groups - social workers, journalists and individuals with previous experience of problematic drinking - to four widely used terms in the alcohol field - alcoholism, alcohol dependence, alcohol misuse and risky drinking - and to examine how variations in the definitions of these terms correspond to specific pragmatic needs arising within different practices.
We conducted focus-group interviews with 15 individuals from the above-mentioned stakeholder groups. We identified three practices, we identified three practices which shaped the meanings ascribed to the four terms denoting problematic drinking.
The results showed that the meanings ascribed to the four terms were both fixed and fluid. For the individuals with previous experience of problematic drinking, the four terms had fixed meanings, and their definition of the term "alcoholism" as denoting a disease, for example, was vital to the practice through which they sought to come to an understanding of themselves ("practice of self"). The social workers and the journalists on the other hand saw the four terms as being context dependent - as fluid and imprecise. This allowed them to establish trustful communicative relationships with informants and clients ("practice of trustful communication"), and to control the communicative process and successfully navigate between different administrative systems ("practice of administration").
Since the meanings ascribed to the examined terms denoting problematic drinking are shaped within varying practices, confusion regarding the actual meaning of a given term could be avoided by referring to the practical context in which it is used.
本文旨在探讨三个利益相关者群体——社会工作者、记者以及有酗酒问题既往经历的个人——赋予酒精领域四个广泛使用的术语(酗酒、酒精依赖、酒精滥用和危险饮酒)的不同含义,并考察这些术语定义的变化如何对应不同实践中产生的特定实际需求。
我们对上述利益相关者群体中的15人进行了焦点小组访谈。我们确定了三种实践,这三种实践塑造了赋予表示酗酒问题的四个术语的含义。
结果表明,赋予这四个术语的含义既有固定性又有流动性。对于有酗酒问题既往经历的个人来说,这四个术语有固定的含义,例如,他们将“酗酒”定义为一种疾病,这对他们试图理解自身的实践(“自我实践”)至关重要。另一方面,社会工作者和记者认为这四个术语取决于上下文——是流动的且不精确的。这使他们能够与信息提供者和客户建立信任的沟通关系(“信任沟通实践”),并控制沟通过程,在不同行政系统之间成功周旋(“行政管理实践”)。
由于赋予表示酗酒问题的被考察术语的含义是在不同实践中形成的,通过参考术语使用的实际背景,可以避免对给定术语实际含义的混淆。