↓ Skip to main content

At the Edge of Safety: Moral Experimentation in the Case of Family Therapy

Overview of attention for article published in Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
Title
At the Edge of Safety: Moral Experimentation in the Case of Family Therapy
Published in
Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11013-017-9520-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Teresa Kuan

Abstract

"At the Edge of Safety" argues for thinking of structural family therapy as a "moral laboratory." Borrowing a trope from Cheryl Mattingly's recent book Moral Laboratories, the article reconsiders a therapeutic style that was once controversial by analyzing personal stories of supervision-i.e. professional training-in light of Mattingly's suggestion that a social space in which people conduct experiments on themselves and their lives may be considered a moral laboratory. Family therapy is especially good to think with, because it is simultaneously a real and a metaphorical laboratory, physically lab-like in its use of visual technologies, yet moral in the way it puts the possibility for situational change in the hands of human actors. The technological apparatus stages evidence for sub-visible, interpersonal dynamics, while the provocative quality of not only therapeutic actions, but also of supervision, points to an ethos of experimentation. Stories of supervision reveal how personal of an experience being supervised can be. Trainees are pushed to become something otherwise, in learning to "expand" their styles. Sometimes the push is just right. Sometimes it goes too far. Whatever the case may be, the stories analyzed speak to anthropological questions concerning the uncertainty of human action and the many ways people can unknowingly injure one another with small hurts.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 29%
Student > Master 4 17%
Student > Postgraduate 3 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 4 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 8 33%
Social Sciences 6 25%
Arts and Humanities 2 8%
Unspecified 1 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 5 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 29 June 2017.
All research outputs
#3,505,282
of 23,906,448 outputs
Outputs from Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry
#226
of 622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,766
of 425,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry
#8
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,906,448 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 622 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
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 425,939 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.