| Title |
Perspectives on Erving Goffman’s “Asylums” fifty years on
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, May 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11019-012-9410-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John Adlam, Irwin Gill, Shane N. Glackin, Brendan D. Kelly, Christopher Scanlon, Seamus Mac Suibhne |
| Abstract |
Erving Goffman's "Asylums" is a key text in the development of contemporary, community-orientated mental health practice. It has survived as a trenchant critique of the asylum as total institution, and its publication in 1961 in book form marked a further stage in the discrediting of the asylum model of mental health care. In this paper, some responses from a range of disciplines to this text, 50 years on, are presented. A consultant psychiatrist with a special interest in cultural psychiatry and mental health legislation, two collaborating psychotherapists in adult and forensic mental health, a philosopher, and a recent medical graduate, present their varying responses to the text. The editors present these with the hope of encouraging further dialogue and debate from service users, carers, clinicians, and academics and researchers across a range of disciplines. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 58 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 16% |
| Researcher | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 14% |
| Unknown | 10 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 14 | 24% |
| Psychology | 14 | 24% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 10% |
| Arts and Humanities | 4 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 12% |
| Unknown | 10 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 May 2013.
All research outputs
#20,195,877
of 22,713,403 outputs
Outputs from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#532
of 590 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,326
of 163,582 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#10
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,713,403 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 590 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 163,582 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.