Expert Knowledge, Cognitive Polyphasia and Health more |
5 views |
RENEDO
AND
JOVCHELOVITCH:
EXPERT
KNOWLEDGE,
COGNITIVE
POLYPHASIA
Title
Expert
Knowledge,
Cognitive
Polyphasia
and
Health:
A
Study
on
Social
Representations
of
Homelessness
among
Professionals
Working
in
the
Voluntary
Sector
in
London
Authors
Alicia
Renedo
&
Sandra
Jovchelovitch
London
School
of
Economics,
UK
Abstract
This
article
develops
a
social
representational
approach
to
understanding
expert
knowledge
and
its
relation
to
health.
Research
with
homelessness
professionals
(HPs)
working
in
the
UK
voluntary
sector
shows
that
expert
definitions
of
homelessness
can
either
undermine
or
enhance
the
health
of
the
homeless.
Guided
by
the
concepts
of
social
representations
and
cognitive
polyphasia,
the
analysis
reveals
a
contradictory
field
of
knowledge,
which
reflects
the
struggle
of
professionals
to
sustain
a
humanizing
approach
and
resist
the
pressures
of
statutory
agendas.
We
conclude
pointing
to
the
need
of
recognizing
the
impact
of
professional’s
knowledge
on
the
health
and
care
policies
for
the
homeless.
Keywords
cognitive
polyphasia,
expert
knowledge,
homelessness,
identity,
social
representations
Suggested
citation
Renedo,
A.,
&
Jovchelovitch,
S.
(2007)
Expert
knowledge,
cognitive
polyphasia
and
health:
a
study
on
social
representations
of
homelessness
among
professionals
working
in
the
voluntary
sector
in
London.
Journal
of
health
psychology,
12
(5).
pp.
779-‐790
Available
online:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17855462
The
final,
definitive
version
of
this
paper
has
been
published
in
Journal
of
health
psychology,
12
(5),
2007
by
SAGE
Publications
Ltd,
All
rights
reserved.
©
[The
Owner]”
1
RENEDO
AND
JOVCHELOVITCH:
EXPERT
KNOWLEDGE,
COGNITIVE
POLYPHASIA
HOMELESSNESS
continues
to
be
a
major
social
problem
in
the
UK.
Despite
the
great
deal
of
attention
it
has
received
since
the
mid-‐1990s
from
policy
makers,
researchers
and
service
providers,
there
remains
much
controversy
about
the
extent
of
the
problem,
its
underlying
causes
and
the
most
effective
ways
to
combat
it.
These
controversies
stem
partly
from
the
fact
that
in
the
UK
there
is
widespread
disagreement
on
the
definition
of
homelessness.
Whereas
the
homeless
have
been
unanimously
identified
as
a
socially
excluded
group
and
various
policies,
such
as
the
Homelessness
Directorate
and
the
Rough
Sleepers
Unit,
have
been
implemented
to
address
the
issue
(Pleace
&
Quilgars,
2003),
support
and
care
structures
are
diversified
across
two
clashing
and
co-‐existing
sectors:
the
voluntary
and
the
statutory
sectors,
each
holding
different
definitions
and
approaches
to
the
problem
of
the
homeless.
This
general
lack
of
agreement
between
sectors
on
defining
homelessness
creates
a
number
of
problems
ranging
from
difficulties
in
estimating
precisely
the
number
of
homeless
people
in
the
UK
to
consequences
at
the
level
of
service
delivery,
models
of
intervention
and
policy
design.
While
governmental
estimations
reflect
a
decline
in
numbers
(see
ODPM,
2006),
sources
from
the
voluntary
sector
show
that
there
is
a
vast
number
of
homeless
people
that
are
not
included
in
these
statistics
(Crisis,
2006)
because
they
are
not
officially
considered
homeless.
The
contested
nature
of
definitions
about
homelessness
makes
it
difficult
to
achieve
consensual
estimations
(Hutson
&
Liddiard,
1994)
and
impacts
negatively
on
the
health
and
needs
of
those
who
do
not
fit
within
statutory
definitions
and
are
thus
not
officially
regarded
as
home-‐
less
(Crane
&
Warnes,
2001).
Whereas
it
is
clear
that,
as
with
most
social
problems,
homelessness
is
constructed
through
networks
of
unstable
and
contested
meanings,
tackling
the
problem
effectively
requires
a
clear
understanding
of
how
the
issue
is
framed
by
different
stakeholders
and
social
actors.
Care-‐related
practices,
the
interventions
deemed
appropriate
to
prevent
and
resolve
homelessness
and
how
the
homeless
are
treated
are
all
based
on
meanings
and
definitions
of
homelessness.
As
Pleace
and
Quilgars
(2003)
concluded
in
their
examination
of
British
homeless
research,
there
is
an
urgent
need
for
academics
of
the
social
sciences
to
explore
the
socially
constructed
nature
of
homelessness
in
the
UK.
In
this
article
we
seek
to
contribute
in
this
direction
by
examining
social
psychological
dimensions
involved
in
the
constitution
of
homelessness
and
the
role
they
play
in
the
living
conditions
and
thus
health
of
the
homeless.
We
focus
on
the
links
between
expert
knowledge
and
health,
and
in
particular
on
how
professionals
working
with
homeless
people
in
the
voluntary
sector
produce
knowledge
about
homelessness.
As
key
social
actors
positioned
at
the
inter-‐
face
between
the
homeless,
the
statutory
sector,
policy
makers
and
society
as
a
whole,
homelessness
2
RENEDO
AND
JOVCHELOVITCH:
EXPERT
KNOWLEDGE,
COGNITIVE
POLYPHASIA
professionals
working
in
the
voluntary
sector
(from
now
on
HP)
offer
a
privileged
entry
point
for
under-‐
standing
processes
of
social
construction
of
homelessness
and
the
health
of
the
homeless
person.
We
define
HPs
as
experts
in
context:
mediators,
translators
and
integrators
of
beliefs,
meanings
and
images
of
homelessness
circulating
in
the
UK.
Drawing
on
the
theory
of
social
representations
(Jodelet,
1989/1991;
Moscovici,
2000)
and
the
concept
of
cognitive
polyphasia
(Jovchelovitch,
2002,
2007;
Moscovici,
1961/1976),
we
argue
that
HPs’
knowledge
production
is
a
plural
affair
shaped
by
the
definitional
clashes
and
competing
approaches
that
characterize
the
context
of
service
provision.
Moving
between
the
streets,
hostels
and
official
meetings
with
statutory
agencies,
listening
to
the
tales
and
witnessing
the
practices
of
those
who
are
out
in
the
streets,
adjusting
their
experience-‐based
knowledge
to
the
definitions
and
models
of
intervention
of
statutory
programmes,
HPs
are
a
living
site
of
negotiations
and
resolutions
about
homeless-‐
ness.
Understanding
how
they
make
sense
of
the
problem
and
develop
practices
to
deal
with
it
can
produce
fresh
insights
on
the
complexities
involved
in
defining
homelessness
in
the
UK
and
contribute
to
improve
the
care
and
services
needed
by
home-‐
less
people.
As
we
shall
argue,
constructions
about
what
homelessness
is
also
encompass
constructions
about
who
is
the
homeless
person
and
how
she
should
be
treated.
They
also
shed
light
on
how
the
clashes
between
different
forms
of
knowing
in
con-‐
temporary
public
spheres
impact
on
the
definition
and
resolution
of
social
problems
such
as
health.
Homelessness
and
health
It
is
now
widely
accepted
that
health
is
a
relational
construct
dependent
on
the
larger
material,
social
and
symbolic
living
conditions
in
which
social
actors
find
themselves
(WHO
&
UNICEF,
1978).
Rather
than
being
the
absence
of
disease,
health
involves
physical,
psychological
and
social
well-‐
being.
An
expanded
understanding
of
health
makes
visible
its
connections
with
social
and
cultural
contexts
showing
that
poverty
and
inequality
have
a
direct
impact
on
the
health
of
individuals
and
com-‐
munities.
In
addition,
relationships
with
others
and
the
discourses
held
by
others
about
one’s
self
or
social
group
impact
directly
on
the
self-‐esteem,
autonomy
and
capacity
of
actors
to
engage
in
health
behaviours
and
seek
social
and
material
support
that
will
improve
health.
In
the
case
of
the
homeless
this
is
particularly
true.
Research
in
the
UK
has
continuously
shown
that
homeless
people
are
more
likely
to
suffer
from
mental,
physical
and
social
health
problems
than
other
sectors
of
the
population
(Aldridge,
1997;
CESI,
2005;
Crisis,
2005).
Stress,
stigma,
abandonment,
neglect,
low
self-‐esteem
and
substance
abuse
all
emerge
through
the
relational
processes
between
the
homeless
and
the
social
world.
Hodgetts
and
colleagues
(this
issue)
have
shown
that
stigma
and
a
loss
of
sense
of
self
are
associated
with
substance
misuse
and
escapist
strategies
typically
used
by
3
RENEDO
AND
JOVCHELOVITCH:
EXPERT
KNOWLEDGE,
COGNITIVE
POLYPHASIA
homeless
people.
They
convincingly
argue
that
otherizing
processes
that
construct
deviance
and
separation
from
mainstream
domiciled
society
are
materialized
in
the
body
of
the
homeless
producing
ill-‐health
and
a
diminished
sense
of
worth
and
self-‐ esteem.
This
is
corroborated
by
studies
on
the
importance
granted
to
meaningful
personal
relationships
by
the
homeless.
Tosi
(2005)
found
that
homeless
people
consider
the
relational
dimension
an
essential
resource
for
their
material
and
emotional
support,
for
reintegration
and
for
re-‐
establishing
equilibrium
in
their
lives.
These
dimensions
make
clear
that
homelessness
and
the
social
and
symbolic
constructions
it
projects
onto
the
identity
and
experience
of
the
homeless
can
undermine
the
health
of
the
homeless
and
place
this
population
in
a
situation
of
increased
risk.
The
research
we
report
below
corroborates
these
find-‐
ings
by
exposing
the
processes
whereby
the
knowledge
of
experts
working
in
the
voluntary
sector
defines
the
experience
of
homelessness
and
the
self-‐
understanding
of
the
homeless
person.
What
is
homelessness?
Clear
consensus
about
the
importance
of
a
comprehensive
approach
to
homelessness
has
not
dissipated
widespread
disagreements
about
what
homelessness
means,
who
belongs
to
this
group
and
what
are
the
best
solutions
to
resolve
this
social
problem.
Central
to
these
disagreements
is
the
very
context
of
support
structures
for
the
homeless
in
the
UK,
which
rests
on
both
statutory
(public
sector,
state
controlled)
and
non-‐statutory
(voluntary
sector)
agencies.
Clashes
between
these
two
sectors
are
common
and
framed
by
different
definitions
of
homelessness,
diverging
understandings
of
its
causes
and
disagreements
in
relation
to
the
intentionality
behind
homelessness.
Indeed
defining
to
which
extent
the
homeless
person
is
intentionally
causing
the
situation
of
homelessness
sharply
demarcates
the
approaches
between
statutory
and
voluntary
agencies.
Underlying
these
differences
are
deeper
social
psychological
and
political
issues
related
to
the
role
of
the
individual
and
the
social
in
the
construction
of
homelessness.
The
standard
approach
of
the
statutory
sector
is
based
on
access
to
accommodation
and
the
intentionality
of
the
individual
person
in
constructing
the
situation
of
homelessness.
Homeless
people
are
defined
in
terms
of
unintentionally
lacking
secure
or
permanent
accommodation
(Warnes,
Crane,
Whitehead,
&
Fu,
2003).
Once
evaluated
and
considered
to
fit
within
criteria
of
eligibility
and
basic
categories
of
priority
need,
people
are
channelled
into
the
procedures
for
the
allocation
of
housing
and
referred
to
services
of
the
welfare
system,
such
as
social
services
and
the
NHS.
Lack
of
comprehensive
joined-‐up
strategies
between
housing
and
other
specialist
areas
(CESI,
2005),
and
the
absence
of
a
more
comprehensive
approach,
which
attends
to
the
emotional
and
social
needs
of
the
target
population
have
4
RENEDO
AND
JOVCHELOVITCH:
EXPERT
KNOWLEDGE,
COGNITIVE
POLYPHASIA
consistently
led
to
the
recurrence
of
episodes
of
homelessness.
As
various
commentators
have
pointed
out
(Jacobs,
Kemeny,
&
Manzi,
1999;
Warnes
et
al.,
2003),
in
adopting
very
restricted
eligibility
criteria
to
establish
the
boundaries
of
its
target
population,
the
statutory
sector
covers
very
limited
dimensions
of
homelessness,
reducing
the
phenomena
to
a
problem
of
‘lack
of
roof
over
one’s
head’
caused
by
factors
outside
an
individual’s
control.
Mainstream
policies
have
constructed
two
different
groups
of
people:
those
who
are
unintentionally
homeless
and
are
therefore
considered
statutory
and
those
who
are
intentionally
homeless.
This
in
turn
has
generated
two
groups
of
people:
the
deserving
and
the
undeserving;
those
who
are
unintentionally
homeless
and
therefore
deserve
services
and
support
structures,
and
those
who
are
homeless
through
conditions
of
their
own
making
and
therefore
do
not
deserve
the
attention
of
statutory
services
(Clapham,
2003).
The
latter
group
is
not
officially
regarded
as
homeless
and
has
no
legal
rights
to
housing
or
support
services.
They
are
thus
left
to
seek
help
from
the
voluntary
sector.
The
central
marker
of
the
voluntary
sector’s
definition
of
homelessness
is
that
it
does
not
include
the
criterion
of
intentionality.
The
sector
defines
homelessness
in
broader
terms
and
understands
it
as
a
multifaceted
phenomenon;
an
experience
that
affects
all
aspects
of
one’s
life.
They
acknowledge
that
beyond
‘roofless-‐ness’
there
are
multiple
forms
of
homelessness,
and
take
into
account
the
heterogeneity
of
the
homeless
population
as
well
as
the
complexity
of
support
needs
that
exist
alongside
the
lack
of
housing.
Thus
their
responses
are
not
only
focused
on
alleviating
a
specific
situation
or
crisis
(i.e.
through
outreach
work,
food
and
health
care),
but
also
on
prevention,
aiding
continuity
along
their
pathway
of
services
towards
independence
(i.e.
advice
and
tenancy
support
services,
training
and
employment
projects).
The
aim
of
voluntary
services
is
to
deal
comprehensively
with
the
diverse
and
intertwined
dimensions
of
homelessness
and
enable
clients
to
rebuild
their
lives.
This
is
sought
through
an
individualized
and
responsive
approach.
The
wide
gap
in
the
conceptualization
and
framing
of
homelessness
by
the
statutory
and
voluntary
sec-‐
tors
is
thus
at
the
core
of
the
difficulties
confronted
by
those
working
with
the
homeless.
Dualism
between
the
individual
and
social
dimensions
has
framed
the
debate
and
underlies
disagreements
about
what
are
the
best
practices
for
the
improvement
of
the
living
conditions
and
health
of
homeless
people.
Theorists
have
defined
the
discussion
in
terms
of
minimalist
or
maximalist
constructions
(Jacobs
et
al.,
1999)
of
the
issue.
Minimalist
definitions
locate
the
causes
of
homelessness
on
the
individual,
have
led
to
the
dichotomy
between
deserving
and
undeserving
home-‐
less
and
produced
interventions
designed
to
deal
only
with
individual
factors.
Maximalist
definitions
see
homelessness
as
the
outcome
of
social-‐economic
shortcomings
and
put
an
emphasis
on
policy
as
the
key
solution
to
end
homelessness.
These
two
definitions
stress
the
importance
of
either
social
structures
or
psychological
and
personal
factors,
but
neglect
the
connections
5
RENEDO
AND
JOVCHELOVITCH:
EXPERT
KNOWLEDGE,
COGNITIVE
POLYPHASIA
between
them
showing
a
problematic
dis-‐
connection
between
individual
and
structural
elements
(Clapham,
2003).
Both
provide
the
backdrop
against
which
responses
to
homelessness
take
place.
Operating
in
such
a
contested
and
contradictory
context,
voluntary
HPs
face
the
challenges
of
holding
on
to
their
approach
and
conceptualization
while
at
the
same
time
engaging
and
dealing
with
the
pressures
and
demands
coming
from
the
statutory
sector.
The
result,
as
we
discuss
later
in
this
article,
is
a
multifaceted
and
contradictory
representational
field,
made
of
a
patchwork
of
different
knowledges,
values
and
practices
that
configure
how
homelessness
is
constructed
and
dealt
with
in
the
public
sphere.
Understanding
homelessness
professionals’
knowledge:
cognitive
polyphasia
in
representational
fields
It
is
against
the
background
outlined
above
that
professionals
working
in
the
voluntary
sector
construct
knowledge
and
practices
related
to
homelessness.
Understanding
the
social
position
of
these
professionals
and
the
network
of
inter-‐ relations
that
frames
their
everyday
experience
is
central
to
explaining
the
nature
of
the
knowledge
they
construct
and
the
practices
they
develop
towards
the
homeless
person.
We
approach
this
process
through
the
theoretical
lenses
of
social
representations
theory
and
in
particular
through
the
concept
of
cognitive
polyphasia.
Representations
are
defined
as
a
system
of
knowledge
collectively
constructed
through
communicative
interaction
in
order
to
make
sense
of
the
social
world
(Moscovici,
1984).
As
a
form
of
social
knowledge,
social
representations
are
symbolic
resources
through
which
people
give
meaning
to
social
structures,
experiences
and
material
circumstances.
They
inform
and
permeate
social
practices
influencing
the
life
of
individuals
and
groups.
Either
as
symbolic
resources
that
mediate
our
understanding
of
the
world
and
guide
our
actions,
or
as
socio-‐communicative
processes
of
meaning
making,
social
representations
are
central
to
the
constitution
of
the
social
life
of
groups.
Because
they
are
the
social
action
of
individuals
in
relation
to
other
individuals
they
can
only
be
understood
against
the
background
of
one’s
positioning
within
communities
and
cultural
contexts.
And
it
is
because
they
are
grounded
in
different
socio-‐cultural
contexts
that
social
representations
emerge
as
plural
and
heterogeneous
fields.
The
concept
of
cognitive
polyphasia
(Jovchelovitch,
2002,
2007;
Moscovici,
1961/1976),
has
been
buried
for
a
long
time
within
the
theoretical
corpus
of
social
representations.
Presented
for
the
first
time
in
Moscovici’s
study
of
psychoanalysis
in
France,
cognitive
polyphasia
expresses
precisely
the
plurality
of
representational
fields,
where
differing,
and
at
times
conflicting,
styles
of
thinking,
meanings
and
6
RENEDO
AND
JOVCHELOVITCH:
EXPERT
KNOWLEDGE,
COGNITIVE
POLYPHASIA
practices
co-‐exist
in
the
same
individual,
institution,
group
or
community.
Current
research
in
the
field
of
social
representations
has
retrieved
and
expanded
the
concept
to
theorize
proliferating
empirical
evidence
on
the
co-‐existence
of
plural
and
contradictory
ways
of
thinking
used
in
different
ways
by
individuals
and
communities
to
make
sense
of
their
everyday
lives
and
important
social
issues
(e.g.
Jovchelovitch
&
Gervais,
1999;
Wagner,
Duveen,
Themel,
&
Verma,
1999;
Wagner,
Duveen,
Verma,
&
Themel,
2000).
The
concept
helps
us
to
understand
the
multiplicity
of
voices
that
speak
through
individual
speakers
and
within
social
fields.
It
is
a
concept
linked
to
the
inter-‐
subjective,
and
therefore
communicative,
nature
of
all
knowledge
systems,
and
to
the
heterogeneity
and
diversity
of
the
social
fabric.
It
links
cognition
and
knowledge
to
their
social
context
of
production
and
provides
the
means
to
theorize
how
different
representations,
meanings
and
styles
of
thinking
co-‐exist
in
public
spheres.
As
societies
become
more
open
to
con-‐
testation
and
dissent
the
concept
also
sheds
light
on
the
increasing
representational
clashes
that
emerge
from
the
new
regime
of
encounters
between
knowledge
systems
in
the
contemporary
world
(Jovchelovitch,
2007).
Globalized
societies,
shaped
by
new
and
multiple
forms
of
communication,
offer
greater
opportunities
for
encounters
between
different
types
of
knowledge
and
different
views
of
the
world.
As
a
con-‐
sequence
of
these
encounters,
the
nature
of
knowledge
changes
towards
more
hybrid
systems
characterized
by
the
co-‐ presence
of
multiple
contents
and
modalities
of
thinking
(Jovchelovitch,
2002,
2007).
Polyphasic
representational
fields
operate
as
assets
for
individuals
and
communities,
offering
a
multiplicity
of
co-‐existing
knowledge
resources
from
which
they
draw
the
tools,
concepts,
practices
and
meanings
that
enable
them
to
cope
with
the
everyday
and
make
sense
of
what
is
going
on.
Rather
than
being
monological
in
content,
cognitive
polyphasia
in
representational
fields
expresses
the
dialogical
nature
of
all
knowledge
systems
and
the
constant
networks
of
inter-‐relations
that
form
the
experience
of
life
each
day.
Within
this
plurality,
individuals
accommodate
different
social
positions,
mediate
the
eclectic,
dilemmatic
and
contradictory
contents
and
modes
of
thinking
at
their
disposal
and
put
to
use
their
social
representations.
Both
the
content
and
the
dynamics
of
social
representations
express
the
inter-‐
relations
between
the
diversity
of
meanings
circulating
in
society
and
how
in
appropriating,
reproducing
or
challenging
them,
individual
subjects
take
up
and
negotiate
particular
positions
within
representational
fields.
In
cognitive
polyphasia
we
find
thus
a
fertile
concept
to
apprehend
macro-‐social
psychological
processes
at
the
level
of
de-‐ traditionalized
societies
and
micro-‐social
psychological
processes
at
the
level
of
everyday
encounters
between
individuals,
groups
and
communities
holding
different
traditions,
levels
of
expertise
and
positionings
in
social
fields.
7
RENEDO
AND
JOVCHELOVITCH:
EXPERT
KNOWLEDGE,
COGNITIVE
POLYPHASIA
These
issues
play
a
central
role
with
respect
to
homelessness
and
health.
The
contested
nature
of
definitions
about
homelessness,
the
conflicting
views
about
service
provision
and
the
duality
of
the
under-‐
standings
about
the
problem
express
the
multiplicity
of
the
fields
of
knowledge
at
once
used,
constructed
and
re-‐ constructed
by
voluntary
HPs
as
they
negotiate,
translate
and
mediate
the
issue
of
homelessness
in
the
public
sphere.
From
the
inner
reality
of
homeless-‐
ness,
to
policy
and
the
Government,
across
the
media
and
the
public,
HPs
are
positioned
at
a
variety
of
interfaces
that
makes
them
a
fascinating
case
for
the
study
of
processes
of
construction
of
polyphasic
knowledge.
At
the
same
time,
it
shows
that
integral
to
the
constitution
of
homelessness
are
the
dynamics
of
socio-‐psychological
processes,
where
representations
and
discourses
about
homelessness
frame
services,
influence
treatments
and
ultimately
affect
the
way
the
homeless
person
constructs
her
life,
her
reaction
to
provision
and
her
personal
decisions
about
accessing
support
structures
(Clapham,
2003).
Method
In
order
to
explore
the
representations
held
by
HPs
about
homelessness
we
favoured
a
qualitative
approach
based
on
in-‐depth
individual
interviews.
These
offer
scope
for
interviewees
to
construct
and
express
their
knowledge
in
an
open
and
relatively
unconstrained
way.
A
total
of
36
narrative
interviews
with
HPs
working
in
voluntary
organizations
of
inner
London
were
conducted.
Of
these,
24
were
with
front-‐line
professionals,
comprising
outreach
workers,
training
and
development
workers,
mental
health/drug
misuse
workers
and
project
workers.
These
professionals
work
in
direct
contact
with
the
homeless
and
are
for
most
of
the
time
in
the
field.
Twelve
interviews
were
conducted
with
rear-‐line
professionals,
comprising
policy
officers,
media
officers,
campaign
officers,
fundraisers
and
directors
of
programmes.
Participants
were
recruited
through
letters,
emails
and
by
personal
contact.
The
first
author
worked
as
a
volunteer
in
a
London-‐based
NGO
for
the
homeless
for
nine
months,
which
provided
first-‐
hand
contact
with
the
everyday
reality
of
homeless-‐
ness
professionals
and
ethnographic
data
(not
reported
in
this
article).
This
allowed
in
particular
for
t
he
segmentation
criterion
of
front-‐line
and
rear-‐line
professionals,
whose
specificities
were
better
under-‐
stood
in
the
process
of
direct
observation.
Interviews
lasted
between
60
and
90
minutes,
were
tape-‐ recorded
and
transcribed
verbatim
for
the
analysis.
The
field
work
took
place
between
September
2003
and
March
2005.
Topics
addressed
in
the
interviews
were
divided
into
three
main
themes
covering:
(1)
general
definitions
and
experiences
of
homelessness
and
provision
of
services;
(2)
issues
surrounding
professional
identity,
including
how
HPs
saw
themselves
and
how
they
saw
the
views
of
others
about
themselves
as
professionals
in
the
voluntary
sector;
and
(3)
issues
related
to
the
clashes
between
the
statutory
and
the
voluntary
8
RENEDO
AND
JOVCHELOVITCH:
EXPERT
KNOWLEDGE,
COGNITIVE
POLYPHASIA
sector,
including
representations
held
about
the
views
of
statutory
professionals
on
homelessness
and
on
how
differences
between
statutory
and
voluntary
sec-‐
tors
influenced
practice
and
quality
of
response
to
homelessness.
After
transcription,
the
data
were
analysed
with
a
focus
on
both
the
content
of
knowledge
and
on
the
internal
dialogues
that
were
expressed
by
each
interviewee.
The
analysis
of
internal
dialogues
was
guided
by
Bakhtin’s
(1984)
view
that
what
people
convey
in
conversation
comes
from
the
polyphony
of
voices
of
multiple
others
that
percolate
the
self
of
the
interlocutor,
that
is,
institutions,
other
groups,
etc.
In
the
case
of
HPs
it
soon
became
clear
that
each
one
of
the
voices
interviewed
spoke
through
internal
dialogues
with
multiple
others
representing
the
statutory
sector,
mainstream
society,
the
homeless
themselves
and
an
‘ideal
self’
that
embodied
the
ethical
commitment
with
the
cause
and
onto-‐
logical
rights
of
the
homeless
person.
HPs’
representations
of
homelessness:
humanization,
institutional
discourses
and
identity
The
contested
background
against
which
HPs
work
and
the
conflicting
nature
of
the
internal
and
external
dialogues
HPs
establish
in
their
everyday
work
shape
the
representations
they
hold
about
homeless-‐
ness.
Our
research
found
that
the
dynamics
of
knowledge
production
in
the
community
of
HPs
is
bound
to,
and
at
the
same
time
expresses,
the
contradictions
and
clashes
of
the
context
where
it
is
produced
and
enacted.
Through
this
dynamics
emerges
a
representational
field
characterized
by
the
co-‐existence
of
polyphasic
themes,
that
is,
themes
that
are
constituted
through
contradiction
and
plurality
in
ways
of
thinking
and
acting
towards
homelessness.
This
applies
both
to
the
dynamics
within
each
one
of
the
major
themes
as
well
as
to
the
dynamics
between
the
themes.
The
clashes
between
the
co-‐existing
voluntary
and
statutory
sec-‐
tors
and
the
dilemmas
of
sustaining
the
responsive,
comprehensive
and
individualized
approach
of
the
voluntary
sector,
when
funded
by
or
working
in
partnership
with
the
Government,
frame
the
representations
we
found.
The
representational
field
about
homelessness
held
by
HPs
is
organized
around
three
co-‐existing
and
inter-‐related
themes,
each
containing
its
own
internal
dynamics
and
contradictory
content:
(1)
discourses
of
humanization;
(2)
institutional
dis-‐
courses;
and
(3)
discourses
of
identity
(see
Fig.
1).
Humanizing
and
institutional
discourses
compete
to
produce
a
view
of
what
homelessness
is,
and
it
is
out
of
this
struggling
relation
that
discourses
of
identity
containing
representations
about
the
identity
of
the
homeless
person
emerge.
Discourses
of
humanization,
which
seek
to
preserve
the
homeless
person
as
a
holistic
human
being
appeared,
associated
with
HPs’
role
as
communicators
and
educators
of
the
public,
politicians
and
the
media.
Their
campaigning
battle
against
the
otherization
of
the
homeless
claims
an
idealist
ethical
encounter
with
the
other
through
practices
of
understanding
and
healing
as
9
RENEDO
AND
JOVCHELOVITCH:
EXPERT
KNOWLEDGE,
COGNITIVE
POLYPHASIA
the
first
step
in
a
moral
commitment
to
them.
In
constructing
discourses
of
humanization
HPs
enter
a
conflicting
dialogue
with
the
rhetoric
of
victimization,
which
is
anchored
in
images
of
deficiency
and
incompleteness
of
the
homeless
and
is
expressed
in
practices
of
judging
and
curing.
Institutional
discourses
reflect
the
dilemmas
lived
by
HPs
in
their
everyday
work.
These
refer
to
the
struggle
to
free
themselves
from
the
pressures
to
conform
to
the
discourse
of
funding
bodies,
pre-‐
dominantly
the
Government,
and
their
efforts
to
sustain
the
humanizing
ethos
of
the
voluntary
sector.
They
express
claims
of
independence
and
self-‐
agency
to
put
into
practice
their
ethical
mission
against
the
pragmatic
needs
of
the
job
and
the
wish
for
the
development
of
the
voluntary
sector
as
a
professional
industry.
The
clashes
between
discourses
of
humanization
and
institutional
discourses
and
their
respective
internal
contradictions
are
played
out
in
an
ultimate
representation
of
who
the
homeless
person
is.
This
comes
out
as
competing
representations
of
the
identity
of
the
homeless,
who
emerges
simultaneously
as
someone
torn
between
being
objectified
and
victimized
or
ontologically
recognized
as
a
whole
human
being.
The
dynamics
of
HPs’
knowledge
is
characterized
by
dialogue
between
these
three
contradictory
and
co-‐existing
themes.
Hence,
their
representation
is
constructed
against
a
background
of
constant
contradiction
and
dilemmas
between:
(a)
the
approach
of
the
voluntary
sector
grounded
in
a
view
of
the
homeless
as
a
whole
person;
(b)
the
statutory
sector’s
tendency
to
victimize
and
objectify
the
homeless
through
labelling
the
homeless
and
pushing
them
into
official
categories;
(c)
wanting
to
sustain
the
ethical
approach
of
the
voluntary
sector;
and
(d)
the
pragmatics
of
every-‐
day
work
in
the
industry,
which
implies
having
to
adjust
to
the
definitions
and
approaches
of
others
(public
funders,
the
Government
and
statutory
professionals).
In
the
following
we
present
in
more
detail
the
internal
dynamics
of
each
one
of
the
discourses
found.
Humanization
and
victimization
The
contradiction
between
humanization
and
victimization
is
central
to
HPs’
representations
of
homelessness.
On
the
one
hand,
there
is
a
rhetoric
of
moral
commitment
to
the
homeless
that,
in
asserting
their
human
dignity
and
wholeness,
seeks
to
undermine
violent
representations
that
reduce
them
to
problems
such
as
drug
addiction
and
mental
illness.
On
the
other
hand,
there
is
a
co-‐existing
rhetoric
of
victimization
in
which
the
homeless
are
otherized,
pitied
and
represented
as
voiceless
and
disempowered.
This
opposition
stems
from
the
clash
between
different
notions
of
homelessness
sustained
by
different
systems
of
knowledge
and
sectors
of
society
(common
sense,
policy,
the
media,
the
voluntary
sector
and
the
inner
reality
of
homelessness),
and
experienced
first
hand
at
the
various
interfaces
in
which
HPs
are
located.
It
is
within
this
location,
in
communicative
interaction
with
these
groups
through
work
practices,
press
releases,
public
awareness
campaigns,
10
RENEDO
AND
JOVCHELOVITCH:
EXPERT
KNOWLEDGE,
COGNITIVE
POLYPHASIA
responses
to
policy
and
partnerships
with
the
statutory
sector
that
HPs’
social
representations
emerge
and
change.
The
conflict
between
humanization
and
victimization
is
also
played
out
at
the
level
of
practices,
which
appear
as
the
conflict
between
understanding
on
the
one
hand,
and
judging
on
the
other.
Healing
is
the
HPs’
ideal
approach
to
deal
with
the
problem
of
homelessness
and
it
is
based
on
empowerment,
companionship
and
a
holistic
personalized
approach
that
attempts
to
deal
with
the
whole
person,
rather
than
only
with
physical
conditions.
In
such
a
practice
HPs
function
as
a
footbridge
for
the
homeless
towards
self-‐actualization
and
rebuilding
their
trusting
relationship
with
society.
As
one
HP
stated:
...
building
people’s
self-‐esteem,
building
their
social
confidence,
giving
them
things
to
do
but
giving
them
opportunities
to
grow
and
to
develop
skills
or
redis-‐
cover
skills
they’d
forgotten
they
had
...
Trying
to
bring
people
back
into
mainstream
society
and
give
them
a
place
there.
Pulling
them
away
from
the
margins
in
which
they
existed
because
of
all
these
problems,
dealing
with
the
problems
but
also
trying
to
give
them
a
boost,
give
them
a
push
back
in,
being
positive
about
it
and
looking
about
what
[they
can]
achieve,
helping
them
to
achieve
it
rather
than
looking
at
what
their
problems
are
and
just
addressing
those
problems.
(Front-‐line
4)
However,
there
is
an
opposing
judging
rhetoric
that
represents
homelessness
as
a
life
downwards,
a
vicious
circle
of
problems
related
to
drugs
and
mental
health,
from
which
one
needs
to
be
cured.
Curing
reflects
the
pragmatics
of
everyday
work,
of
the
industry
and
ultimately,
of
institutional
discourses.
(Dis)empowerment,
(in)action,
(in)capability,
(sub)
ordination:
these
notions
of
the
person
are
evoked
when
the
rhetoric
of
victimization
claims
the
need
of
curing.
The
following
example
shows
how
HPs
also
fall
into
judging
practices
that
otherize
the
homeless:
Now
it
means
someone
who
doesn’t
have
the
opportunities
that
I’ve
had
to
make
the
most
of
themselves
and
to
live
what
we
would
call
a
‘normal’
life.
You
know.
To
study,
to
get
qualifications,
to
get
a
job,
to
make
friends,
all
these
things
that
are
very
difficult
if
you
have
a,
a
background
that
involves
homelessness
or
living
in
care
or,
you’re
involved
with
the
criminal
justice
system.
(Rear-‐line
1)
The
co-‐existence
of
the
conflicting
themes
of
humanization
and
victimization
becomes
clear
as
HPs
speak
of
themselves
as
‘idealistic’
and
‘fellow
human
beings
of
the
homeless
brother’,
towards
the
‘cruel
and
ignorant’
public
and
statutory
‘experts’
(doctors,
psychiatric
nurses,
policy
officers),
while
at
the
same
time
re-‐ positioning
themselves
as
‘knowledgeable
professionals’
who
are
‘representatives
of
the
home-‐
less’,
as
victims
in
need
of
compassion
from
the
out-‐
side
world.
This
polyphasic
strategy
allows
on
the
one
hand,
to
reassert
the
truthfulness
of
the
humanization
rhetoric
and
the
defence
of
the
homeless
person
as
a
being
who
has
11
RENEDO
AND
JOVCHELOVITCH:
EXPERT
KNOWLEDGE,
COGNITIVE
POLYPHASIA
the
right
to
be
given
a
voice
and,
on
the
other
hand,
to
sustain
practices
such
as
fundraising
and
campaigning
for
the
homeless.
Cognitive
polyphasia
here
becomes
a
resource
that
allows
shifting
discourses
of
humanization
and
victimization
to
respond
to
different
needs
and
demands
to
deal
with
the
problem.
Institutional
discourses:
ethics
and
pragmatics
This
discourse
shows
HPs’
dynamic
conflict
between
putting
into
practice
the
ethics
of
the
voluntary
sector,
and
the
simultaneous
need
to
adjust
to
the
representations
and
practices
defined
by
government
and
private
funding
bodies.
Institutional
dis-‐
courses
are
constituted
by
the
daily
struggle
of
the
HP,
which
is
rooted
in
the
dilemma
between
the
nature
of
the
voluntary
sector
as
an
industry
that
demands
professionalism
and
productivity
and
its
ethical
mission.
This
paradox
is
unfolded
through
an
opposing
dyad
of
representations
of
the
homeless
as
both
‘clients/social
cause’
and
‘products’
of
the
voluntary
sector.
The
co-‐
existence
of
this
contradiction
is
another
example
of
cognitive
polyphasia,
and
expresses
the
dynamics
of
HPs’
work,
where
practising
the
ethos
of
the
voluntary
sector
is
appropriate
under
certain
circumstances,
and
adjusting
to
the
approaches
of
the
statutory
sector
and
following
governmental
measures
of
progress
in
terms
of
‘hard
indicators’
are
justified
as
adequate
in
the
context
of
the
industry.
In
both
cases,
adjusting
to
the
statutory
framework
is
an
exigency
of
the
pragmatics
of
their
job.
As
noted
by
one
HP:
Emotional
blackmail,
you
know
...
(laughs)
I
think
for
the
funding,
we
had
to
do
a
lot
of
work
on
show-‐
ing
what
we
call
soft
indicators.
So,
if
an
indication
of
success
for
somebody
was
getting
a
job
at
one
end
(laughs),
we’ve
had
to
really
look
at,
at
the
end,
somebody
gaining
self-‐esteem,
you
know,
attending
group
for
the
first
time,
attending
a
class
or
some
work
for
the
first
time,
somebody
turning
up
for
a
session
and
not
drinking
for
an
entire
day
and
then
not
drinking
for
two
days,
so
it
is
kind
of
showing
up
in
all
of
those
first
steps
in
order
to
get
this
last
step.
We’ve
been
documenting,
you
know,
and
showing
funders
that
our
clients
need
to
go
through
those
five
steps
or
we’ve
got
to
think
about
those.
...
yes,
we
will
aim
for
so
many
percent
of
people
to
be
high
achieving,
to
go
into
training
or
jobs,
but
we
also
want
to
be
able
to
cater
within
that
bid
for
those
soft
outcomes
as
well.
...
(Front-‐line
3)
Despite
non-‐conformism
HPs
also
declare
the
need
to
be
submissive
to
the
statutory
client
and
its
agenda.
Within
this
context
the
homeless
is
marketed
and
traded,
sold
and
campaigned
for
with
the
aim
of
being
funded.
Here
victimization
of
the
homeless
co-‐exists
in
polyphasic
contradiction
with
the
ethos
of
the
voluntary
sector.
It
is
used
as
a
rhetorical
device
in
playing
‘the
system’
(i.e.
private
and
governmental
funding
bodies).
It
is
appropriate
and
justified
as
an
essentially
surviving
strategy
within
the
context
of
state
funding
since
this
is
the
only
way
of
responding
to
the
needs
of
the
victim.
Consequently
constructions
of
homelessness
in
terms
of
statutory
legal
definitions
and
hard
outcomes
co-‐exist
along
with
those
of
12
RENEDO
AND
JOVCHELOVITCH:
EXPERT
KNOWLEDGE,
COGNITIVE
POLYPHASIA
the
ethos
of
the
voluntary
sector,
that
is,
achieving
‘soft
outcomes’
such
as
self-‐ esteem
and
self-‐worth.
The
following
example
shows
how
adjusting
to
institu-‐
tional
discourses
jeopardizes
the
humanization
of
the
homeless:
I
think
that
it’s
possible
even
that
homeless
professionals
who
don’t
work
with
street
homeless
people,
I
think
that
they
might
even
have
a,
a
double
picture
in
their
mind,
you
know.
Homeless
is
that
person
sleeping
on
the
street
outside
the
tube
station
and
then
homeless
is,
you
know,
this
person,
you
know,
my
client
who
has,
you
know,
just
come
out
of
hospital
or
something.
I’m
referring
to
this
project
and
I
need
to
call
him
homeless.
And
I
think
they
actually
can
mean
two
different
things
when
I
say
that
because
I
think
that
just
like
anyone
they,
they
just
slot
the
label
on
if
it’s
useful
and
doesn’t
actually
necessarily
mean
that
they
see
their
clients
as
homeless.
(Front-‐line
5)
By
positioning
themselves
as
‘defiant
nonconformist
grass
roots’
members
of
the
voluntary
sector
and
as
‘idealistic
HPs’,
interviewees
claim
the
homeless
client
as
their
ultimate
aim,
and
invoke
an
emancipating
and
liberating
counter-‐agenda.
Here
the
significant
others
that
are
responded
to
are
both
the
‘bureaucratized
and
careless
government’,
and
the
‘socially
irresponsible
public’.
This
is
often
put
to
practice
through
public
awareness
campaigns
and
critical
responses
to
policy
consultations.
Another
important
aspect
that
emerges
in
the
oppositions
found
in
institutional
discourses
is
the
claim
HPs
make
of
their
own
expertise
vis-‐a-‐vis
the
expertise
of
the
professionals
of
the
statutory
sector.
The
rhetorical
aim
is
to
contest
statutory
experts’
views
of
the
voluntary
sector
as
amateur
and
present
them-‐
selves
as
highly
professional.
This
is
yet
another
battle
that
HPs
have
to
fight
in
their
daily
practice
when
working
in
partnership
with
statutory
experts
from
the
NHS,
housing
and
benefit
departments,
since
there
is
low
recognition
of
their
work
from
the
main
statutory
welfare
agencies
(Warnes
et
al.,
2003).
Despite
HPs’
position
as
‘members
of
the
voluntary
homeless
sector’
attempting
to
put
into
practice
their
ethos,
they
also
dilemmatically
re-‐position
themselves
as
‘professional
experts
of
the
homeless
industry
(contractors)’.
In
shuffling
between
positions
they
accomplish
a
dis-‐
cursive
practice
of
sacrifice
of
their
ethos
and
their
subordination
to
institutional
practices.
Identity
The
conflicting
dialogue
between
discourses
of
humanization
and
institutional
discourses
in
HPs’
representation
of
homelessness
is
played
out
in
a
set
of
co-‐ existing
representations
and
images
of
the
identity
of
the
homeless
person.
These
are
organized
in
terms
of
contradictions:
ontology
vs
objectification,
whole
vs
fragmented,
resulting
in
a
bifurcated
identity.
13
RENEDO
AND
JOVCHELOVITCH:
EXPERT
KNOWLEDGE,
COGNITIVE
POLYPHASIA
There
is
across
all
participants
a
rhetoric
of
disclaiming
the
objectification
of
the
homeless
label
since
it
acts
as
a
forced
identity
perpetuating
the
experience
of
homelessness.
Freeing
the
homeless
from
the
taken-‐
for-‐granted
meanings
attached
to
the
label
is
seen
as
an
essential
element
of
the
process
of
resolving
homelessness.
Using
the
label
implies
an
external
and
internal
process
of
social
exclusion:
external
through
prejudice,
stigma
and
stereotyping
sustained
by
the
outside,
and
internal
though
self-‐identification
and
internalization
of
the
homeless
label.
This
forced
identity
perpetuates
the
homeless
as
an
outsider,
socially
and
psychologically.
As
stated
by
a
participant:
It
just,
it
is
like
a
tag
that
seems
to
automatically
come
with
a
homeless
person
and
you
just
think
like
well
....
I
think
that
there
are
some
assumptions
of
‘yeah,
he
wouldn’t
possibly
fit
in.
They
are
all
like
crazy
hair,
big
beards,
alcoholics’.
You
know.
Often
from
people
you
think
should
really
know
better,
you
know,
rather
than
something
you
know.
(Front-‐line
1)
Objectification
occurs
through
judgement
and
lack
of
understanding
shaped
by
representations
of
the
homeless
as
a
deviant
other.
It
is
equally
sustained
by
statutory
practices
of
tagging
people
with
an
official
homeless
category
(i.e.
unintentional
home-‐
less)
required
by
mainstream
welfare
services.
In
being
labelled,
the
person
is
cut
off
from
his/her
past
history
and
present
experience,
experiencing
loss
of
a
sense
of
self
and
feelings
of
exclusion.
Statutory
definitions
are
criticized
for
ideologically
instituting
the
meaning
of
the
homeless
experience
while
neglecting
the
person’s
ontological
experience.
Despite
being
highly
disclaimed,
this
process
of
objectification
is
also
dilemmatically
disclosed
in
the
interviewees’
utterances.
Thus,
at
points
they
represent
the
person
as
fragmented
into
her
problems
(addictions,
mental
health),
visual
images,
physicality
(roofless-‐ness)
and
the
psychological
(self-‐esteem,
mental
health):
And
because
I
think
the
phrase
‘homelessness’
has
the
capacity
to
...
I
can’t
think
of
any
other
word
but
dehumanize,
has
the
capacity
to
dehumanize,
those
who
are
labelled
with
it
to
just,
to
mean
that
they’re
just
a
problem
and
not
a
person.
And
I
think
if
you’re
working
with
homeless
people
day
to
day,
you
can
see
through
that.
Yeah.
(Rear-‐line
4)
These
representations
show
that
paradoxically
HPs’
are
both
holders
and
contesters
of
representations
that
fragment
the
homelessness.
They
are
them-‐
selves
in
conflict
with
this
fragmentation
since
it
is
based
on
the
approach
of
the
statutory
sector
and
undermines
their
multi-‐dimensional
and
holistic
approach.
Here
we
can
clearly
see
the
contradictory
nature
of
the
representational
field
and
the
manifold
voices
speaking
through
the
voice
of
the
HP:
And
it’s
hard
because
different,
different
professionals
have
responsibilities
for
different
parts
of
people’s
lives
then
people’s
lives
kind
of
tend
to
get
broken
up
into
chunks
and
given
to
different
people
which
is
ridiculous
because
the
poor
person
is
14
RENEDO
AND
JOVCHELOVITCH:
EXPERT
KNOWLEDGE,
COGNITIVE
POLYPHASIA
in
the
middle
and
to
them
everything
is
all
part
of
one
thing,
you
know,
but,
you
know,
different
people
are
responsible
for
different
things.
(Front-‐line
5)
The
key
dialogue
constructing
these
representations
is
with
the
statutory
sector.
Statutory
services
are
regarded
as
producing
a
‘pathological’
bifurcated
identity
that
creates
an
impasse
in
the
self.
Once
inside
the
hostel/accommodation
system
the
person
is
separated
from
her
own
peer-‐group
or
‘sub-‐society’,
which
is
a
source
of
social
identity,
support
and
sense
of
community.
She
is
removed
from
a
source
of
identification
and
simultaneously
put
through
an
experience
where
she
is
tagged
as
‘homeless’
and
in
need
of
a
‘cure’
to
be
‘normal’.
It
is
impossible
to
escape
from
the
otherizing
process:
in
offering
the
service
there
is
an
invitation
to
be
normal,
yet
by
the
same
token
there
is
the
imposition
of
the
label:
And
when
you
think
of,
people
moving
into
like
rough
sleeper
flats
....
They
don’t
build
them
with
the
idea
that
people
are
going
to
change
from
the
status
of
homelessness
into
being
a
couple,
having
a
family.
When
they
want
to
make
an
exchange,
they
can’t,
it’s
difficult
for
people
to
move.
They
have
to
move
to
another
rough
sleeper
flat.
They
can’t
say,
‘but
that’s
not
me
anymore.
(Front-‐line
1)
HPs’
representations
of
homelessness,
identity
and
health
HPs
working
in
the
voluntary
sector
contribute
decisively
to
the
social
construction
of
‘homelessness’
and
in
consequence
to
the
self-‐understanding
of
homeless
people.
They
are
positioned
at
the
interface
of
the
homeless
and
the
outside
world
and
as
professional
practitioners
act
as
‘vectors’
between
various
social
spheres,
being
important
carriers
and
shapers
of
social
knowledge
and
public
images
of
their
clients
(Morant,
1997,
p.
82).
They
implement
both
policy
and
expert
theoretical
knowledge,
integrate
it
into
their
practices,
inform
the
public,
raise
funds
and
offer
feedback
to
policymakers.
They
perform
a
pivotal
task
in
communicating
and
explaining
the
issue
of
‘homelessness’
to
the
public,
politicians
and
the
media
(Hutson
&
Liddiard,
1994).
In
proposing
their
versions
of
‘homelessness’,
HPs
negotiate,
challenge
and/or
contest
the
meaning
of
‘homelessness’
held
by
other
interest
groups
with
whom
they
intersect.
They
have
been
advocating
for
change
within
policy
and
campaigning
for
raising
awareness
of
the
limitations
of
statutory
services.
HPs
have
the
potential
to
question
and
con-‐
test
reified
forms
of
knowledge
and
are
able
to
adopt
a
more
comprehensive
and
individualized
relationship
with
their
client.
Theirs
is
an
expertise
that
comes
from
the
day-‐to-‐day
experience
with
homelessness.
All
these
features
define
HPs
as
experts
in
context
and
make
the
representations
they
hold
key
indicators
in
the
process
of
understanding
homelessness
and
its
consequences
in
the
living
conditions
and
health
of
the
homeless
person.
15
RENEDO
AND
JOVCHELOVITCH:
EXPERT
KNOWLEDGE,
COGNITIVE
POLYPHASIA
The
contradictions
and
polyphasic
themes
found
in
the
representational
field
we
uncovered
show
that
constructions
about
homelessness
have
a
direct
impact
on
the
construction
of
practices
towards
the
homeless,
the
definition
of
provision
and
the
design
of
policies
and
the
identity
of
the
homeless
person.
All
these
issues
are
present
as
professionals
working
with
homeless
people
struggle
to
define
the
problem
and
provide
support
and
care
to
this
population.
Recognizing
that
issues
of
health
and
homelessness
are
grounded
in
the
way
homelessness
is
constructed
helps
to
understand
why
it
is
important
to
integrate
HPs’
knowledge
into
the
design
of
pol-‐
icy,
decisions
about
healthcare
systems
and
services
aiming
at
tackling
homelessness.
Our
data
show
that
representations
about
homelessness
held
by
HPs
express
the
multiple
networks
of
interaction
and
struggle
that
construct
homelessness
and
the
homeless
person.
They
reveal
the
dilemmas
and
contradictions
of
the
field
and
the
impasses
related
to
the
identity
and
life
conditions
of
this
vulnerable
group.
Through
the
contestation
of
notions
and
practices
they
contain,
we
can
apprehend
the
challenges
that
confront
policy
makers
and
the
obstacles
to
the
realization
of
partnerships
between
the
statutory
and
the
voluntary
sectors.
The
most
essential
feature
of
HPs’
way
of
thinking
is
the
co-‐existence
of
internal
dilemmas
and
contradiction,
which
speak
about
the
complexity
of
the
phenomenon
of
homelessness
and
point
to
the
need
to
take
into
account
the
intricacy
of
this
issue
when
designing
policy.
Representations
of
homelessness
held
by
HPs
are
not
just
about
roofless-‐
ness,
otherness
and
the
need
to
cure
and
provide
material
structures.
They
are
at
one
and
the
same
time
about
being
otherized,
judged
and
reduced
to
problems
and
being
understood
as
a
whole
human,
about
being
labelled
and
deserving
a
personalized
approach,
about
being
fragmented
through
reductionistic
and
unconnected
services
and
being
comprehensively
treated,
about
being
cured
and
being
accompanied
along
the
healing
process
towards
self-‐ actualization
and
re-‐development
of
potentialities,
about
being
a
social
cause
of
the
voluntary
sec-‐
tor
and
being
a
product
of
the
industry.
Clear
in
these
oppositional
constructions
is
the
intrinsic
connection
between
the
social
representations
of
homelessness,
the
practices
and
policies
towards
the
homeless,
the
identity
and
health
of
the
homeless.
A
proper
understanding
of
the
contradictions
involved
in
these
constructions,
and
the
alternative
pathways
they
suggest,
can
help
those
involved
in
working
with
homelessness
elements
for
reflection
and
for
moving
further
the
state
of
the
debate.
Conclusions
In
this
article
we
sought
to
contribute
to
debates
between
homelessness
and
health
by
examining
social
psychological
dimensions
involved
in
the
constitution
of
homelessness
and
the
role
they
play
in
the
identity,
living
conditions
and
health
of
16
RENEDO
AND
JOVCHELOVITCH:
EXPERT
KNOWLEDGE,
COGNITIVE
POLYPHASIA
the
homeless.
We
focused
on
the
construction
of
social
representations
of
homelessness
by
HPs
working
in
the
voluntary
sector
and
highlighted
the
importance
and
value
of
HPs’
knowledge
of
homelessness
in
framing
understanding
of
homelessness
and
consequent
policies
of
care
and
service
provision.
We
have
shown
that
HPs
work
in
a
context
of
definitional
clashes
and
conflicting
approaches
between
the
statutory
and
voluntary
sectors,
which
sharply
shapes
the
process
of
knowledge
construction
and
the
state
of
cognitive
polyphasia
expressed
in
the
representations
they
hold.
The
context
of
service
provision,
HPs
particular
location
at
the
intersection
between
different
spheres
of
knowledge
and
social
sectors
and
their
movements
from
the
front-‐line
of
homelessness
to
the
spheres
of
policy
making
and
the
public,
provide
resources
for
these
professionals
to
make
sense
of
homelessness
and
construct
the
multiple
contents
and
dialogues
that
form
the
knowledge
they
hold.
We
have
shown
HPs’
knowledge
of
homelessness
to
be
polyphasic
and
contain
co-‐ existing
and
conflicting
themes.
These
oppositional
themes,
rather
than
being
mutually
exclusive,
live
side
by
side
and
operate
as
an
asset
from
which
HPs
can
draw
the
resources
to
deal
with
the
contradictions
and
challenges
of
the
contested
context
in
which
they
work.
As
a
community
of
professionals,
HPs
seek
to
defend
and
put
into
practice
their
professional
ethos
and
ideals
of
good
practice,
while
having
to
adapt
to
the
pragmatics
and
institutional
requirements
of
their
job.
Their
representations
point
to
the
troubling
consequences
that
interventions
framed
by
job
pragmatics
and
the
institutional
discourses
of
others
have
for
the
identity,
well-‐ being
and
health
of
the
homeless.
Despite
government
attempts
to
establish
an
‘objective’
legal
definition
that
could
guide
statutory
welfare
and
care
delivery,
we
are
convinced
that
with-‐
out
understanding
how
notions
of
homelessness
are
constructed
in
conditions
of
everyday
life
health
interventions
and
policy
will
remain
partial
and
disconnected
with
what
really
happens
on
the
ground.
In
the
UK,
where
homeless
people
are
still
exposed
to
high
levels
of
health
inequalities
(Gorton,
2003),
this
issue
remains
an
essential,
if
challenging,
task.
Given
the
wealth
of
information
they
contain
and
the
direct
connection
with
the
reality
of
homelessness
they
express,
sensitivity
to
the
knowledge
of
HPs
is
a
key
strategy
to
resolve
the
challenges
facing
policy
makers
and
experts
working
for
the
care
of
the
homeless
today.
17
RENEDO
AND
JOVCHELOVITCH:
EXPERT
KNOWLEDGE,
COGNITIVE
POLYPHASIA
References
Aldridge,
R.
(1997).
Meeting
the
needs
of
homeless
people
with
multiple
problems.
Brussels:
Feantsa.
Bakhtin,
M.
M.
(1984).
Problems
of
Dostoevsky’s
poetics.
Trans.
C.
Emerson.
Manchester:
Manchester
University
Press.
CESI.
(2005).
A
literature
review
on
access
to
mainstream
public
services
for
homeless
people.
http://www.crisis.org.
uk/page.builder/researchbank.html
(accessed
7
June
2006).
Clapham,
D.
(2003).
Pathways
approaches
to
homeless-‐
ness
research.
Journal
of
Community
and
Applied
Social
Psychology,
13,
119–127.
Crane,
M.,
&
Warnes,
A.
M.
(2001).
Single
homeless
people
in
London:
Profiles
of
service
user
and
percep-‐
tions
of
needs.
Report
for
Bondway,
St
Mungo’s
and
Thames
Reach:
Sheffield
Institute
for
studies
on
ageing.
Crisis.
(2005).
From
the
margins
to
the
mainstream
A
new
model
of
public
service
delivery.
http://www.crisis.org.
uk/page.builder/researchbank.html
(accessed
7
June
2006).
Crisis.
(2006).
Statistics
about
homelessness.
http://www.
crisis.org.uk/page.builder/stats_factfile.html
(accessed
27
March
2006).
Gorton,
S.
(2003).
Guide
to
models
of
delivering
health
ser-‐
vices
to
homeless
people:
Crisis
health
action.
London:
Crisis.
Hutson,
S.,
&
Liddiard,
M.
(1994).
Youth
homelessness:
The
construction
of
a
social
issue.
London:
Macmillan.
Jacobs,
K.,
Kemeny,
J.,
&
Manzi,
T.
(1999).
The
struggle
to
define
homelessness:
A
constructivist
approach.
In
S.
Hutson
&
D.
Clapham
(Eds.),
Homelessness:
Public
policies
and
private
troubles
(pp.
11–28).
London:
Cassell.
Jodelet,
D.
(1989/1991).
Madness
and
social
representa-‐
tions.
London:
Harvester/Wheatsheaf.
Jovchelovitch,
S.
(2002).
Re-‐thinking
the
diversity
of
knowledge:
Cognitive
polyphasia,
belief
and
represen-‐
tation.
Psychologie
&
Société,
5,
121–138.
Jovchelovitch,
S.
(2007).
Knowledge
in
context:
Representa-‐
tions,
community
and
culture.
London:
Routledge.
Jovchelovitch,
S.,
&
Gervais,
M.
C.
(1999).
Social
represen-‐
tations
of
health
and
illness:
The
case
of
the
Chinese
com-‐
munity
in
England.
Journal
of
Community
and
Applied
18
RENEDO
AND
JOVCHELOVITCH:
EXPERT
KNOWLEDGE,
COGNITIVE
POLYPHASIA
Social
Psychology,
9,
247–260.
Morant,
N.
J.
(1997).
Social
representations
of
mental
ill-‐
ness:
A
study
of
British
and
French
mental
health
pro-‐
fessionals.
Unpublished
doctoral
dissertation.
London
School
of
Economics
and
Political
Science.
Moscovici,
S.
(1961/1976).
La
psychanalyse:
Son
image
et
son
public,
2nd
edn.
Paris:
Presses
Universitaires
de
France,
Paris.
Author
biographies
ALICIA
RENEDO
is
a
doctoral
candidate
at
the
London
School
of
Economics.
Her
research
examines
social
representations
of
homelessness
among
professionals
working
in
the
voluntary
sector
in
London,
with
an
emphasis
on
plurality
of
knowledge
and
self.
SANDRA
JOVCHELOVITCH
is
Senior
Lecturer
in
Social
Psychology
at
the
London
School
of
Moscovici,
S.
(1984).
The
phenomenon
of
social
repre-‐
sentations.
In
R.
Farr
&
S.
Moscovici
(Eds.),
Social
rep-‐
resentations
(pp.
3–69).
Cambridge:
University
Press.
Moscovici,
S.
(2000).
Social
representations:
Explorations
in
social
psychology.
Cambridge:
Polity.
ODPM.
(2006).
Statutory
homelessness:
4th
quarter
2005,
England.
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1002882
&PressNoticeID=2095
(accessed
27
March
2006).
Pleace,
N.,
&
Quilgars,
D.
(2003).
Led
rather
than
leading?
Research
on
homelessness
in
Britain.
Journal
of
Commu-‐
nity
and
Applied
Social
Psychology,
13,
187–196.
Tosi,
A.
(2005).
Re-‐housing
and
social
reintegration
of
homeless
people:
A
case
study
from
Milan.
Innovation,
18,
183–203.
Wagner,
W.,
Duveen,
G.
M.,
Themel,
M.,
&
Verma,
J.
(1999).
The
modernisation
of
tradition:
Thinking
about
mental
ill-‐
ness
in
Patna.
Culture
and
Psychology,
5,
413– 445.
Wagner,
W.,
Duveen,
G.,
Verma,
J.,
&
Themel,
M.
(2000).
‘I
have
some
faith
and
at
the
same
time
I
don’t
believe’:
Cognitive
polyphasia
and
cultural
change
in
India.
Journal
of
Community
&
Applied
Psychology,
10,
301–314.
Warnes,
A.,
Crane,
M.,
Whitehead,
N.,
&
Fu,
R.
(2003).
Homelessness
factfile.
London:
Crisis.
19
RENEDO
AND
JOVCHELOVITCH:
EXPERT
KNOWLEDGE,
COGNITIVE
POLYPHASIA
WHO,
&
UNICEF.
(1978).
Declaration
of
Alma-‐Ata.
International
conference
on
primary
health
care.
Geneva:
WHO,
&
UNICEF.
ALICIA
RENEDO
is
a
doctoral
candidate
at
the
London
School
of
Economics.
Her
research
examines
social
representations
of
homelessness
among
professionals
working
in
the
voluntary
sector
in
London,
with
an
emphasis
on
plurality
of
knowledge
and
self.
SANDRA
JOVCHELOVITCH
is
Senior
Lecturer
in
Social
Psychology
at
the
London
School
of
Economics
where
she
directs
the
MSc
in
Cultural
and
Social
Psychology.
She
works
on
social
representations,
health
and
the
social
psychology
of
community,
with
emphasis
on
issues
related
to
dialogue
between
knowledge
systems
and
the
transformation
of
knowledge
in
contemporary
public
spheres.
20