+44 (0)1509 263171
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title: ||From policy to practice : the implementation of developmental community mental handicap teams in Nottinghamshire|
|Authors: ||Cotmore, Richard A.|
|Issue Date: ||1988|
|Publisher: ||© R.A. Cotmore|
|Abstract: ||Community mental handicap teams (CMHTs) are currently in vogue,
although each of the constituent elements in their title: community;
mental handicap; and team, are attracting much debate, hence these
different concepts are explored. There is much variation between CMHTs
in practice, one example being Notts where the CMHTs have been
established uniquely with an explicit development role. This research
is an empirical study of the first three CMHTs established in Notts and
has two main foci: implementation and teamwork.
Debates in the implementation field between the Bottom-up and Topdown
models provide the backcloth for the unfolding of the CMHTs'
establishment and development. These models are found to be too
polarised and inflexible but a dimensions approach proves useful for
overcoming the polarity without losing the insights of either model.
Variation between the CMHTs in practice is partly accounted for by their
different environments. Negotiation is a key element in the CMHTs'
responses to their environments as teams carve out a niche for
themselves in established structures and processes. This study examines
the environments of the Notts CMHTs to understand how they have
undertaken such negotiations.
The CMHTs' internal dynamics are also studied, focusing on their
experiences of co-operation. Particular aspects are studied in depth,
for example, leadership, communication, conflict and· roles, and are
shown clearly to inter-relate. Further, the models of co-operation
employed by the teams are examined. Many theoretical models exist, and
these are "tried" against the evidence, rather than trying to make the
evidence fit the frameworks. A crucial question becomes: how is the
work done, in an individualist or shared manner? A series of
classifications is preferred to a composite measure because of
differences within teams according to personnel and task. The
distinction between teams and networks is seen as valid, with the
question of identity emerging as a determining factor.|
|Description: ||A Doctoral Thesis. Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Doctor of Philosophy of Loughborough University.|
|Appears in Collections:||PhD Theses (Social Sciences)|
Files associated with this item:
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.