Change search
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Stabilizing a fluid intervention: The development of Motivational Interviewing, 1983-2013
Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Social Work.
2014 (English)In: Addiction Research and Theory, ISSN 1058-6989, Vol. 22, no 4, 313-324 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Introduced in 1983, Motivational Interviewing (MI) is now widely regarded as an efficacious psychosocial intervention in the addiction treatment field. Drawing on research literature, this article asks how this was achieved. Contrary to common conceptions of the dissemination of psychosocial interventions within the addiction treatment field, this analysis takes neither MI's identity nor its efficacy to be inherent qualities, but sees them as being constructed by various actors. This construction work is described as stabilizing processes. Being loosely structured and flexible, it is suggested that MI can be regarded as a fluid intervention. This has presented difficulties for its subsequent stabilization. As MI has been differently operationalized in clinical trials, it was not obvious at first to talk about the efficacy of MI as a single object of concern in systematical reviews and meta-analyses. The article discusses some of the complexities involved in the production and dissemination of efficacious psychosocial interventions. Compared with other cases, MI displays a somewhat different mode of stabilization. It is argued that MI has been stabilized enough to be considered an efficacious intervention while simultaneously incorporating fluidity, which makes it useful in a wide range of clinical settings.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2014. Vol. 22, no 4, 313-324 p.
Keyword [en]
Motivational interviewing, stabilization, treatment fidelity, historical account, evidence-based practice
National Category
Social Work
Research subject
Social Work
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-98735DOI: 10.3109/16066359.2013.845174ISI: 000339139000005OAI: diva2:685242
Available from: 2014-01-09 Created: 2014-01-09 Last updated: 2016-02-08Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. Evidence-based practice behind the scenes: How evidence in social work is used and produced
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Evidence-based practice behind the scenes: How evidence in social work is used and produced
2016 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

The aim of this dissertation is to examine empirically what Evidence-based practice (EBP) and its standardized procedures become when put into practice in social work. EBP builds on the idea that professional practice should be based on systematic and reliable knowledge of the interventions and instruments used in this work. This implies a standardization of both research and practice that has been highly contested. Inspired by works within science and technology studies (STS), this dissertation analyses the actual content of the standardized procedures and their uses in social work practice.

The dissertation examines a ‘critical case’, a substance abuse social services agency that has worked extensively for several years at implementing EBP, and consists of four papers focusing on three standardized procedures used by the agency in order to enact EBP: 1) the Addiction severity index (ASI) assessment instrument; 2) the psychosocial intervention Motivational interviewing, and 3) the decision-making model Critical appraisal (CA). Ethnographic methods were employed to study the agency’s concrete uses of the standardized procedures in daily practice. MI was also followed in the research literature as it became established as an ‘evidence-based’ intervention.

Fundamentally, the development of the standards of EBP can be a messy and paradoxical process. In the stabilization of MI, its differences and ‘fluidity’ have eventually been made to disappear and left a stable ‘evidence-based’ object.

Findings from the ethnographic studies show that EBP, as enacted in the agency’s daily practice, is a bureaucratic project where the agency’s managers have decided on and control the use of a set of standards. Thus, what constitutes relevant evidence is based not on professional discussion within the agency but is ultimately determined by the managers.

In practice, the standards introduce new logics that cause tensions within the agency, tensions which the social workers are left to handle. Main conflicts concern how the client work is ordered and contradictory organizational rationales. The three standards are used to varying extent, which can be understood by examining what they seek to standardize and how they are put to work. CA was not used at all, mainly due to its design. Disregarding organizational rationales that are unavoidable within the social services, it could not be adapted to the agency’s work. With ASI and MI the situation was different, mostly because of their organizational adaptability. ASI could be implemented in several phases of the agency’s work flow resulting in adjustments of both the instrument and the work flow. As a ‘fluid intervention’, MI was constrained by, but also adjustable to the organization. It was thus possible for both ASI and MI to transform and be transformed by pre-existing practices, in effect creating new practices.

A major conclusion is that EBP and its standardized procedures is a more dynamic and multifaceted process than previously acknowledged in social work. Rather than a deterministic one-way path, there are different kinds, degrees, and mutual transformations of standardization processes, which must be appreciated in research and in practical efforts to implement EBP. Given the importance of the organization in professional social work, there is a need to move away from individualistic conceptions of EBP and to consider what evidence use might mean from an organizational perspective.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Stockholm: Stockholm University, 2016. 81 p.
Stockholm studies in social work, ISSN 0281-2851 ; 32
Evidence-based practice, Evidence-based medicine, Addiction severity index, Motivational interviewing, critical appraisal, ethnography, social work, substance abuse, science and technology studies, standardization
National Category
Social Work
Research subject
Social Work
urn:nbn:se:su:diva-126503 (URN)978-91-7649-345-8 (ISBN)
Public defence
2016-03-18, Aula Svea, Sveavägen 160, Stockholm, 10:00
Forte, Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare

At the time of the doctoral defense, the following paper was unpublished and had a status as follows: Paper 4: Manuscript.

Available from: 2016-02-24 Created: 2016-02-04 Last updated: 2016-02-15Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Björk, Alexander
By organisation
Department of Social Work
In the same journal
Addiction Research and Theory
Social Work

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

Altmetric score

Total: 626 hits
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link