"Jag tror att det är ärftligt och att det är biologiskt.. och så tror jag att det är.. eller ja.. jag tror att det är biologiskt". Konstruktionen av ADHD och DAMP i skolans och vetenskapens värld
Sammanfattning: The purpose of this study was to investigate the understanding of the diagnoses ADHD and DAMP within different professional categories in the educational system, how it is being addressed and how this affect their work with children diagnosed with ADHD or DAMP. We also wanted to shed some light on the debate between Kärfve and Gillberg, about whether the diagnoses of ADHD and DAMP are social constructed problems or biological and genetic disorders. More specifically, our study was of a qualitative nature and consisted of interviews with seven persons working in six different professions within the educational system. The respondents all worked in school environments but with varied roles and thus varied experience of children with ADHD/DAMP. The interviews and literature studies revealed the complexity of ADHD and DAMP and also the diversity of the debate regarding the diagnoses. A major issue in this debate concerns the multifaceted consequences of the diagnoses. The diagnoses are described as on one hand necessary for the child's healthy development and on the other as a negative label imposed on the child; since a diagnosis could lead to problems in interaction with other children or self-destructive behaviour. We analysed our data from the perspective of the professions and by using the social constructivism theory. The conclusion of our analysis is that the social context and the socialisation into a profession controls how the professionals perform their work. Since all the respondents except one lacked a formal education about ADHD and DAMP, their knowledge of the diagnoses came from social interactions with colleagues and through self-education. This means that the level of knowledge about ADHD and DAMP depends on the social context which leads to the conclusion that the practice of the profession also might be socially constructed. In the debate Kärfve believes that children are labelled with these diagnoses since they behave differently and don't fit in. Gillberg means that the diagnoses depends on brain damage or hereditary. Among our respondents all but one meant that ADHD/DAMP is a biological and genetic disorder, but when they explained the diagnoses they used social circumstances to explain why they believed that the diagnoses are biological.
HÄR KAN DU HÄMTA UPPSATSEN I FULLTEXT. (följ länken till nästa sida)