Men’s and women’s drinking tend to elicit different societal reactions, which may be attributed to different perceptions of masculinity and femininity. This study analyzes addiction care practitioners’ constructions of substance use and treatment needs in relation to gender. Data were collected by means of six focus group interviews with 30 addiction care practitioners. An interpretative repertoire of difference emerged, whereby women were constructed as being different from men in psychological, social, and biological respects. The practitioners related to gender in addiction care as an ideological dilemma resulting from the contradictory ideals of on the one hand treating everybody equally and on the other giving special attention to what is regarded as women’s needs. Reflections emerged regarding the need to be aware of one’s own stereotyped assumptions, and also to be attentive toward men’s specific problems, thus constituting a reflective repertoire. In order to avoid potentially stereotyped treatment, the application of a gender-sensitive approach should acknowledge the variety of ways in which femininity and masculinity may be performed.
AbrahamsonM. (2009). Äldres värderingar och ideal i skrivaruppropet “Alkoholen i mitt liv” [Old people’s values and ideals in the public call for writing “Alcohol in my life”]. Nordic Studies of Alcohol and Drugs, 26, 439–461.
2.
AbrahamsonM.HeimdahlK. (2010). Gendered discourse in Swedish national alcohol policy action plans 1965–2007: Invisible men and problematic women. Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 27, 65–85.
3.
ArmeliusB.-Å.ArmeliusK. (2011). En naturalistisk studie av 14000 svenska missbruksklienter baserad pa Addiction Severity Index [A naturalistic study of 14,000 Swedish abuse clients based on the Addiction Severity Index]. In Swedish Government Official Reports (2011:6), Missbruket, kunskapen, vården. Missbruksutredningens forskningsbilaga [The misuse, knowledge and care. Research supplement of misuse commission] (pp. 97–167). Stockholm, Sweden: Fritzes.
4.
BaianstovuR. (2012). Diversity as the challenge of democracy. A study of how the social welfare services, as a welfare bureaucracy and moral institution in society, understands and handles cultural diversity(Doctoral thesis). Örebro Studies in Social Work, Örebro, Sweden.
5.
BarterC.RenoldE. (1999). The use of vignettes in qualitative research. Social Research Update, Issue 25. Retrieved April 16, 2015, fromhttp://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU25.html
6.
BetancourtJ. R.GreenA. R.CarrilloJ. E. (2002). Cultural competence in health care: Emerging frameworks and practical approaches. Boston, MA: The Commonwealth Fund.
7.
BilligM.CondorS.EdwardsD.GaneM.MiddletonD.RadleyA. (1988). Ideological dilemmas: A social psychology of everyday thinking. London, England: Sage.
8.
BloorM.FranklandJ.ThomasM.RobsonK. (2001). Focus groups in social research. London, England: Sage.
9.
BogrenA. (2011). Biologically responsible mothers and girls who ‘act like men’: Shifting discourses of biological sex difference in Swedish newspaper debate on alcohol in 1979 and 1995. Feminist Media Studies, 11, 197–213.
10.
BogrenA. (2013). Symbolic gender boundaries in news discourse on psychotropic use and drinking: An analysis of the Swedish press debate 2000-2009. NORA—Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 21, 57–73.
11.
BogrenA. (2014). Sign of the times? Gender, sexuality, and drinking stories. International Journal of Drug Policy, 25, 359–360.
12.
BoltonG. (2010). Reflective practice, writing and professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
BushI. R.KraftM. K. (2001). Self-sufficiency and sobriety: Substance-abusing women and welfare reform. Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions, 1, 41–64.
14.
ButlerJ. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. London, England: Routledge.
15.
CampbellN. D.EttorreE. (2011). Gendering addiction. The politics of drug treatment in a neurochemical world. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
16.
ConnellR. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
17.
CourtenayW. H. (2000). Constructions of masculinity and their influence of men’s well-being: A theory of gender and health. Social Science & Medicine, 50, 1385–1401.
18.
DaviesB.HarréR. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20, 43–63.
EdmanJ. (2005). Treatment of what? Class, gender and work ethics within the compulsory institutional care of alcohol abusers in Sweden during the 20th century. Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 9, 45–61.
21.
EdleyN. (2001). Analysing masculinity: Interpretative repertoires, ideological dilemmas and subject positions. In WetherellM.TaylorS.YatesS. J. (Eds.), Discourse as data—A guide for analysis (pp. 189–228). London, England: Sage.
22.
EkendahlM. (1999). Att välja en vårdform[Choosing interventions]. Stockholm, Sweden: Socialstyrelsen. CUS-skrift1999:4.
23.
EttorreE. (2004). Revisioning women and drug use: Gender sensitivity, embodiment and reducing harm. International Journal of Drug Policy, 15, 327–335.
24.
FraserS. (2010). Repetition and rupture: The gender of agency in methadone maintenance treatment. In PattonC. (Ed.), Rebirth of the clinic (pp. 69–97). Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press.
25.
FookJ.GardnerF. (2007). Practising critical reflection. A resource handbook. London, England: Open University Press.
26.
GierssonM.HensingG.SpakF. (2009). Does gender matter? A vignette study of general practitioners’ management skills in handling patients with alcohol-related problems. Alcohol & Alcoholism, 44, 620–625.
27.
GramsciA. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. New York, NY: International Publishers.
28.
GriffinC.Bengry-HowellA.HackleyC.MistralW.SzmiginI. (2009). ‘Every time I do it I absolutely annihilate myself’: Loss of (self)-consciousness and loss of memory in young people’s drinking narratives. Sociology, 43, 457–477.
29.
GrellaC. E. (2008). From generic to gender-responsive treatment: Changes in social policies, treatment services, and outcomes of women in substance abuse treatment. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, SARC Supplement5, 327–343.
30.
GrosenickJ. K.HatmakerC. M. (2000). Perceptions of staff attributes in substance abuse treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 19, 273–284.
31.
HasenfeldY. (2000). Organizational forms as moral practices: The case of welfare departments. Social Services Review, 74, 329–351.
32.
Helmersson BergmarkK. (2001). Alkoholforskning om kvinnor—Från marginalitet till möjlighet [Alcohol research on women—From marginality to possibility]. Alkohol & Narkotika, 6, 106–111.
33.
HensingG. (2003). Alkoholkonsumtion och alkoholproblem ur ett genusperspektiv [Alcohol consumption and problems from a gender perspective]. Socialmedicinsk tidskrift, 4, 355–361.
34.
HerzM. (2012). Från ideal till ideologi. Konstruktionen av kön och etnicitet inom socialtjänsten[From ideal to ideology. Constructions of gender and ethnicity in social services] (Doctoral thesis). Örebro Studies in Social Work, Örebro, Sweden.
35.
JärvinenM. (1987). Kvinnan i alkoholforskningen [The woman in alcohol research]. Alkohol och narkotika, 5/6, 68–73.
36.
JärvinenM. (1991). Kontrollerade kontrollörer. Kvinnor, män och alkohol [Controlled controllers. Women, men and alcohol]. Nordisk Alkoholtidskrift, 8, 143–152.
37.
KitzingerJ. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health and Illness, 16, 103–121.
38.
KouvonenP. (2009). Vulnerable, guilty or on their own? Institutional identities of substance abusing children and families within Finnish child welfare. Nordic Studies of Alcohol and Drugs, 24, 483–502.
39.
KullbergC. (2004). Work and social support: Social workers’ assessments of male and female clients’ problems and needs. Affilia, 19, 199–210.
40.
LaanemetsL. (2002). Skapande av feminitet. Om kvinnor i missbruksbehandling[Shaping femininity. About women in misuse treatment]. Lund dissertations in Social Work. Lund, Sweden: Lund University.
41.
LaanemetsL.KristiansenA. (2008). Kön och behandling inom tvångsvård. En studie av hur vården organiseras med avseende på genus[Gender and treatment in compulsory care]. Research report No 1. Stockholm: The Swedish National Board of Institutional Care.
42.
LaanemetsL.MattssonT.NordlingV. (2014). Frikoppling, sammankoppling och besvärliga maktrelationer i socialt arbete [Disconnecting, interconnecting and troublesome power relations in social work]. Socialvetenskaplig tidsskrift, 20, 168–185.
43.
LamontM.MolnárV. (2002). The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 167–195.
44.
LipsetS. M. (1979). The first new nation. The United States in historical and comparative perspective. New York, NY: Norton.
45.
LipskyM. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
46.
MånssonE.BogrenA. (2014). Health, risk and pleasure: The formation of gendered discourses on women’s alcohol consumption. Addiction Research and Theory, 22, 27–36.
47.
MartinF. S.AstonS. (2014). A “special population” with “unique treatment needs”: Dominant representations of “women’s substance abuse” and their effects. Contemporary Drug Problems, 41, 335–360.
48.
MattssonT. (2005). I viljan att göra det normala—En kritisk studie av genusperspektivet i missbrukarvården[The will to make the normal—A critical study of the gender perspective in drug abuse treatment] (Doctoral thesis). Lund University, Sweden.
49.
MattssonT. (2013). Intersectionality as a useful tool: Anti-oppressive social work and critical reflection. Affilia, 29, 8–17.
50.
McCallL. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30, 1771–1800.
51.
MeashamF. (2002). “Doing gender—doing drugs”: Conceptualizing the gendering of drug cultures. Contemporary Drug Problems, 29, 335–373.
52.
Misuse commission. (2008). Bättre vård och stöd för individen[Improved care and support for the individual] (S 2008:04). Stockholm, Sweden: Missbruksutredningen.
53.
MooreD.FraserS.TörrönenJ.Eriksson TinghögM. (2015). Sameness and difference: Metaphor and politics in the constitution of addiction, social exclusion and gender in Australian and Swedish drug policy. International Journal of Drug Policy, 26, 420–428.
54.
MorganD. L.KruegerR. A. (1993). When to use focus groups and why. In MorganD. L. (Ed.), Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art (pp. 3–19). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
55.
NordlingV. (2011). Att dra gränser—upplevs etnicitet vara viktigt i arbetet med missbruk och beroende?[Drawing boundaries—Is ethnicity perceived as important in addiction care?] FoU Report No 2. Malmö stad, Sweden: Stadskontoret.
56.
PalmJ. (2007). Women and men—Same problems, different treatment. International Journal of Social Welfare, 16, 18–31.
57.
PetterssonT. (2014). Doing masculinity in youth institutions. In LanderI.JonN.RavnS.. Masculinities in the criminological field: Control, vulnerability and risk-taking (pp. 39–56). Farnham, England: Ashgate.
58.
PotterJ.WetherellM. (1987). Discourse and social psychology. Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London, England: Sage.
59.
Public Health Agency of Sweden. (2014). Folkhälsan i Sverige[Public health in Sweden]. Årsrapport 2014. Stockholm, Sweden: Folkhälsomyndigheten.
60.
RamstedtM. (Ed.). (2010). Tal om alkohol 2010—en statistisk årsrapport från Monitorprojektet[Numbers on alcohol: Statistical yearbook from the Monitor project]. Research report No 60. Stockholm, Sweden: SoRAD.
61.
RamstedtM.. (Ed.). (2013). Tal om alkohol 2012—en statistisk årsrapport från Monitorprojektet[Numbers on alcohol: Statistical yearbook from the Monitor project]. Research report No 67. Stockholm, Sweden: SoRAD.
62.
RamstedtM.SundinE.LandbergJ.RaninenJ. (2014). ANDT-bruket och dess negativa konsekvenser i den svenska befolkningen 2013[The ANDT use and its negative consequences in the Swedish population]. Report No 55. Stockholm, Sweden: STAD.
63.
ReedB. G. (1987). Developing women-sensitive drug dependence treatment services: Why so difficult?Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 19, 151–164.
64.
RoomR. (2001). Governing images in public discourse about problematic drinking. In HeatherN.PetersT. J.StockwellT. (Eds.), Handbook of alcohol dependence and alcohol-related problems (pp. 33–45). Chichester, England: John Wiley.
65.
RossiP. H.NockS. L. (Eds.). (1982). Measuring social judgments: The factorial survey approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
66.
SamuelssonE. (2015). Use or misuse? Addiction care practitioners’ perceptions of substance use and treatment [Doctoral thesis]. Stockholm Studies in Social Work, Sweden.
67.
SamuelssonE.WallanderL. (2014). Disentangling practitioners’ perceptions of substance use severity: A factorial survey. Addiction Research and Theory, 22, 348–360.
68.
SmithsonJ. (2000). Using and analysing focus groups: Limitations and possibilities. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 3, 103–119.
69.
Social Services Act. (2001:453). Socialtjänstlagen. The Swedish Code of Statues. Stockholm: Ministry of Health and Social Affairs.
70.
SpakF. (1999). Mäns alkoholproblem. Vad kan vi lära från studier av kvinnor och alkohol? [Men’s alcohol problems. What can we learn from women and alcohol?]Nordisk alkohol- och narkotikatidskrift, 16, 171–175.
StorbjörkJ. (2011). Gender differences in substance use, problems, social situation and treatment experiences among clients entering addiction treatment in Stockholm. Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 28, 185–209.
73.
Swedish Government Official Reports. (2011:6). Missbruket, kunskapen, vården. Missbruksutredningens forskningsbilaga[The misuse, knowledge and care. Research supplement of misuse commission]. Stockholm, Sweden: Fritzes.
74.
Swedish Government Official Reports. (2011:35). Bättre insatser vid missbruk och beroende. Individen, kunskapen och ansvaret[Improved interventions for misuse and dependence: The individual, knowledge and responsibility]. Stockholm, Sweden: Fritzes.
75.
TolvanenE.JylhäM. (2005). Alcohol in life story interviews with Finnish people aged 90 or over: Stories of gendered morality. Journal of Aging Studies, 19, 419–435.
76.
TrulssonK. (2003). Masculine and feminine in a melting pot—A gendered perspective on substance abuse. Nordisk Alkohol- & Narkotikatidskrift, 20, 5–19.
77.
WallanderL. (2012). Measuring social workers’ judgements: Why and how to use the factorial survey approach in the study of professional judgements. Journal of Social Work, 12, 364–384.
78.
WestC.ZimmermannD. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 2, 125–151.
79.
WetherellM. (1998). Positioning and interpretative repertories: Conversation analysis and post-structuralism in dialogue. Discourse and Society, 9, 387–412.
80.
WetherellM.PotterJ. (1992). Mapping the language of racism. Discourses and the legitimation of exploitation. New York: Columbia University Press.
81.
WilsnackR. W.WilsnackS. C.KristjansonA. F.Vogeltanz-HolmN. D.GmelG. (2009). Gender and alcohol consumption: Patterns from the multinational GENACIS project. Addiction, 104, 1487–1500.
