Gamblers’ conversations 7/17/2016 1
Running Head: GAMBLERS’ CONVERSATIONS
Conversations of change? Examining gamblers’ help-seeking and
change-sustaining conversations.
A Research Proposal to the
Alberta Gaming Research Institute
by
Tom Strong, PhD, Registered Psychologist
Associate Professor, Division of Applied Psychology
University of Calgary
June 29, 2007
Gamblers’ conversations 7/17/2016 2
GENERAL INFORMATION
Dr. Tom Strong, Registered Psychologist & Associate Professor
Division of Applied Psychology,
Faculty of Education, University of Calgary
2500 University Drive NW
Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4
Phone (1 - 403) 220-7770 Fax: (1-403) 282-9244
e-mail: strongt@ucalgary.ca
Research title: Conversations of recovery? Examining gamblers’ help-seeking and changesustaining conversations.
Description: The proposed research will combine qualitative case study and discourse analysis
methods to examine gamblers’ help-seeking and change-sustaining conversations in different
discourse communities, and within their primary relationships.
Domain: Bio-psychological and health care, specifically, gamblers’ help-seeking efforts.
Project Starting Date: January 1, 2008
Project Completion Date: December 31, 2009
Requested Funds: $58,000
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Personnel: 1 Doctoral research assistant 12 hours/wk ($5000/14 wk term) X 4 terms $20,000
1 Doctoral research assistant – 2 Summer terms ($5000/14wk)
$10,000
1 Masters research assistant (6 hours/wk $2000/14wk term) X 2 terms
$4,000
1 Masters research assistant (12 hours/week /14 week summer term)
$4,000
Transcription Assistance (anticipated hours = 300 hours @ $20/hr)
$6,000
The primary graduate research assistant (Doctoral Student) would assist me with critical reviews
of relevant literatures, developing ethics applications, recruiting co-researchers, conducting
interviews, coding interview data (using discourse analysis and grounded theory methods),
writing up and presenting findings. The Masters student will be involved in library research data
collection, learning and conducting qualitative analyses, and manuscript preparation. The
Transcription Assistance requested is because students will be doing more detailed transcription
(i.e., beyond that required for the many hours of verbatim interviews) on specific aspects of the
transcribed interviews using the transcription conventions of discourse analysis. Thus, the
students will learn more in-depth aspects of transcribing than mere verbatim transcription, but
they will not be saddled with essentially a clerical task in transcribing all details of all interviews.
Total Personnel Costs (student salaries = over 75% of funds requested) $44,000
Gamblers’ conversations 7/17/2016 3
Materials & Supplies
Qualitative data management software
Transana 2.20 Multiple user licence
(this software is used for analyzing
Videotaped conversational interactions)
(from David Woods of Transana at U of Wisconsin, Madison)
N-Vivo Qualitative Data Management
2 years @ $150 (Canadian)
(from Tammara Cross, U of Calgary Research Services)
$500 (US)
$300
Videotapes/audiotapes/ memory stick back-up
(Memory stick GXT 8GB USB 2.0 Mobile X4 Drive from Future shop)
$500
1 Olympus Digital Voice Recorder With MP3 (WS320M)
(Olympus Digital Voice Recorder With MP3 (WS320M) Future Shop
$225
Photocopying/Print Cartridges/Mail
$475
Total Materials/Supplies Costs
$2000
Administrative Costs
*Participant Honoraria & Recruitment
$1400
Local travel costs for researchers (e.g., for research interviews)
$400
**Miscellaneous research accounting and administration costs
$200
*Honoraria are calculated on the following bases: $25 X 5 interviews X 5 primary coresearchers (the fifth interview is to verify accuracy of transcription), interviews with
partners and family members (up to) 10 interviews X $25, interviews with an addictions
counsellor, website administrator X $50, 1 focus group interview with Gamblers’
Anonymous group including refreshments ($225), Recruitment costs $200.
** internal (within my Faculty) fees for research administration assistance are
assessed in covering time/costs for such things as assistance with
hiring and payroll.
Total Research Administration Costs
Dissemination
Conference Travel
$2000
Gamblers’ conversations 7/17/2016 4
(1 international conference for PI and student)
(2 national conferences for PI and students)
$4000
$5700
The funds requested are intended for the following conferences. In Spring 2009,
the PI and both PhD and Masters students would share preliminary findings at the
Alberta Gambling Research conference. In Fall 2009, the PhD student and PI
would present findings at the National Centre for Responsible Gambling
conference in Las Vegas. In spring 2010 further funds are requested for the PI and
PhD student to present at the Canadian Psychological Association conference.
Poster & reprint costs
$300
Poster presentations are annually made within the Faculty of Education and will
hopefully be presented in addition to conference papers.
Total Dissemination Costs
$10,000
Total Research Funds Requested
$58,000
Other Sources of Funding:
I will apply for Canada Student Jobs funding (I’ve succeeded twice in supplementing present
SSHRC funding, enabling me to increase hours of summer employment to students). I also
understand that successful doctoral students receive funding through my Faculty’s assistance to
doctoral students, bringing the doctoral student’s financial remuneration to $17, 000. This is
important as admission to our doctoral program is contingent on students having funding, such as
the funds requested here (in combination with those mentioned from the Faculty).
Breakdown of Budget by Year
Year 1 (January 1, 2008 – December 31, 2008)
Research Assistant salaries:
$21,000
Transcription assistance
$3000
Qualitative data management software
$850
Tape recorder
$225
Videotapes/audiotapes/ memory stick back-up
$350
Photocopying/Print Cartridges/Mail
$275
Participant Honoraria & Recruitment
$950
Local travel costs for researchers
$300
Miscellaneous research accounting and administration costs
$75
Total funds requested for Year 1
$27, 025
Gamblers’ conversations 7/17/2016 5
Year 2 (January 1, 2009 – December 31, 2009)
Research Assistant salaries:
$17,000
Transcription Assistance
$3000
Videotapes/audiotapes/ memory stick back-up
$150
Photocopying/Print Cartridges/Mail
$150
Participant Honoraria & Recruitment
$450
Local travel costs for researchers
$100
Miscellaneous research accounting and administration costs
$125
Conference Travel (3 conferences including students)
$9700
Poster & reprint costs
$300
Total funds requested for Year 2
Total funds requested for Years 1 & 2
$30, 975
$58,000
QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
Tom Strong, PhD, R.Psych. Associate Professor (tenured), Division of Applied Psychology
Faculty of Education, University of Calgary (started as Assistant Professor, September 2001)
Research Interests & Research in Progress: qualitative and discursive analyses of
psychotherapy, and ethical issues in counselling. Presently completing:
Exploring the collaborative potentials of discursive approaches to counselling
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (Canada) Awarded April 2004. 4 peerreviewed publications from U of Calgary starter grant (Discourse and conversation analysis of
three social constructionist counselling interventions) awarded Summer 2002.
Editing & Reviewing: The Journal of Systemic Therapies – Editorial Board Member
The Qualitative Report – Editorial Board Member, The New Therapist – Contributing Editor
Member - Committee 41028 Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada
(Reviewing Research Applications) Manuscript Reviewer for 11 other journals.
Graduate Student Research Supervision: 2 PhD Dissertations (as primary supervisory
completed), 5 Masters Theses (as primary supervisor) completed, 12 Masters Projects (as
primary supervisor) completed, 2 B.Sc. Honours Theses (as primary supervisor) completed
Selected Conference Presentations (51 in total)
1.
2.
Strong, T. (2007, May). Hijacked conversations in counseling? Invited presentation to the
Social Construction and Caring Relationships Conference. Lugano, Switzerland.
Strong, T., Pyle, N.R., & Sutherland, O.A. (2007, January). Scaling problems and solutions
in solution-focused therapy. Presented at the QUIG 2007 (Qualitative Interest Group)
Conference. Athens, Georgia.
Gamblers’ conversations 7/17/2016 6
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Strong, T., & Sutherland, O. A. (2006, June). Conversational ethics. Presented to the
Canadian Psychological Association Annual Convention. Calgary, Alberta.
Strong, T. (2006, March). Discursive approaches to counsellor education: A dialogic look
at Allen Ivey’s skill of “confronting”. Invited presentation to the Canadian Counselling
Association’s Counsellor Educators’ Group. Montreal.
Tomm, K., Couture, S., Strong, T., & Sutherland, O. (2005, October). Working out
therapeutic impasses: Discursive considerations. Pre-conference institute: American
Association of Marriage and Family Therapy 63rd Conference. Kansas City, Missouri.
Gale, J., Lawless, J., & Strong, T. (2002, October) Researching clinical talk. A day-long
Pre-Conference Institute at the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy’s
60th Annual Conference. Cincinnati, Ohio.
Strong, T., Holzman, L., Ham, M., & Conran, T. (2002, August). Therapeutic Relationships
As, Culturally Sensitive, and Ethical Reconstruction Zones. Paper presented at the
American Psychological Association’s Annual Convention. Chicago, Illinois.
Articles & Chapters (Selected – 48 in total)
1. Strong, T., Busch, R. S., & Couture, S. (in press, 2007) Conversational evidence in
therapeutic dialogue. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy.
2. Miller, G., & Strong, T. (in press). Constructing therapy and its outcomes. In J. Gubrium & J.
Holstein (Eds.) Handbook of Constructionist Research. New York: Guilford Press.
3. Strong, T. (in press, 2007). Accomplishments in social constructionist counseling: Microanalytic and retrospective analyses. Qualitative Research in Psychology.
4. Strong, T., & Sutherland, O. A. (2007) Conversational ethics in psychological dialogues:
Discursive and collaborative considerations. Canadian Psychology, 48, 94-105.
5. Strong, T. (2006). Reflections on reflecting as a dialogic accomplishment in counselling.
Qualitative Health Research, 16, 998-1013.
6. Strong, T., Zeman, D., & Foskett, A. (2006). Introducing new topics and discourses into
counselling interactions: A micro-analytic examination. Journal of Constructivist
Psychology, 19 (1), 67-89.
7. Strong, T. (2005). Understanding ‘understanding’: An up-close examination of client and
counsellor discourse, and the experience of understanding in counselling. British Journal of
Guidance and Counselling, 33, 513-533.
8. Strong, T. (2003). Engaging reflection: A training exercise using conversation and discourse
analysis. Counselor Education and Supervision, 43, 65-77.
9. Strong, T. (2004). Meaningful moments as collaborative accomplishments: Research from
within consultative dialogue. In G. Larner & D. Pare (Eds.) Collaborative Practice in
Psychology and Therapy (pp. 213-227). Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.
10. Strong, T. (2002). Collaborative ‘expertise’ after the discursive turn. The Journal of
Psychotherapy Integration, 12, 218-232.
Books
Strong, T., & Pare, D. (Eds.) (2004) Furthering talk: Advances in the discursive therapies. New
York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Gamblers’ conversations 7/17/2016 7
Book in progress: Lock, A., & Strong, T. Sources and stirrings in social constructionist theory
and practice. Cambridge University Press.
RESEARCH PROGRAM
Abstract
Reaching out for help can be a huge step for people with serious concerns like problem
gambling. What gets accomplished in their first help-seeking conversations, and in subsequent
conversations within their primary and professional relationships, may have a profound bearing
on turning problem gamblers’ lives (and those they share) around. The proposed research
examines these initial and subsequent conversations for what transpires from them by conducting
five in-depth case studies of gamblers in the context of conversational relationships to which
they turn. These case studies will be supplemented (where possible) by analyses of actual
change-oriented conversations and by examining changes reflected in each primary participant’s
discourse across four research interviews over the course of a year. In most cases, the people to
whom the primary co-researchers turn will also be interviewed. The aim of the study is to better
explain the role and accomplishments of conversation in gamblers’ efforts in initiating and
sustaining changes in addressing addictive gambling behaviours.
Objectives of the Proposed Research
The proposed research aims to answer four questions pertaining to further, more
comprehensive research of gamblers’ help-seeking and change-sustaining interactions:
1- What role does conversation with professional, peer and natural supports play in
gamblers’ efforts to address problem gambling?
2- How do gamblers initiate and sustain efforts at addressing problem gambling through
professional and non-professional conversations?
3- What discursive resources and practices are used by gamblers, and their professional and
non-professional conversational partners, in conversations that support their efforts to
address gambling problems?
4- How do conversations between gamblers and those to whom they turn change as efforts
to address problem gambling continue?
The general aim of the research is to shed further light on how conversations addressing problem
gambling occur and alter the lives of problem gamblers and those with whom they share
supportive relationships.
Relationship to the Researcher’s Research Program
The proposed research, if funded, would extend my ongoing research into the collaborative
and generative potentials of therapeutic communications. The proposed study broadens the scope
of my past, clinically oriented studies of therapeutic discourse by considering the significance of
change-oriented conversations both inside, but primarily beyond clinical contexts. Specifically, it
will focus on recovery from gambling as a conversationally-enabled activity and seek to better
Gamblers’ conversations 7/17/2016 8
understand the nature, challenges and accomplishments arising in both clinical and naturally
occurring conversations in gamblers’ lives. This inquiry extends to research interviews where
primary co-researchers and others will be asked to speak of the gamblers’ recovery efforts.
Background
In Alberta, 5.2% of the adult population has moderate or serious problems with gambling,
the highest per capita incidence in Canada (Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission,
2003). Problem gambling has negative consequences for the gambler and others in his or her
social network, a network sustained by conversational interactions. A recognized psychiatric
disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 2000); problem gambling is a concern for which
help is often sought in dire life circumstances, and while other diagnosable disorders may preoccupy the gambler (Hodgins & El-Guebaly, 2000, Smith & Wynne, 2002). As with other
addictions, “hitting rock bottom” is a common starting point from which the gambler reaches out
for help (Hodgins, Makarchuk, El-Guebaly & Peden, 2002).
A primary means by which gamblers initiate and then sustain efforts to change problems
with gambling, is through conversational interaction. It is there that such change-oriented
intentions can become elaborated, committed to, and supported. It is often the case that problem
gamblers contemplate change from a position of shame and social isolation (Tavares, Martins,
Zilberman, & el-Guebaly, 2002). It is also the case, that gamblers’ change contemplation is
marked by ambivalence (Boutin, Dumont, Ladouceur, & Montecalvo, 2003) and perceptions of
inaccessible treatment options (Slutske, 2006). This is despite a range of gambling helplines,
online resources, self-help groups and other services (Gambling Therapy, n.d., Griffiths, Scarfe,
& Bellringer, 1999; Problem Gambling Resources Network, n.d). But, reaching out to make and
sustain changes with problem gambling is often more than an individual endeavour. Families and
friendships are affected; prior to attempts at changing problem-gambling, and via attempts to
change problem-gambling. The constructive and supportive quality of change-oriented
conversations in therapy and other relationships in gamblers’ lives is thus important in better
understanding recovery from problem gambling (Ciarrocchi, 2001). Improved understandings of
these conversations, for what occurs in and from them, is the focus of the proposed research.
The Theoretical/Conceptual Framework for the Proposed Research
The perspective adopted in the proposed study is that social interaction, particularly as it
occurs in conversations, is important to how problems and solutions are articulated, and in how
change-oriented behaviours and understandings can be sustained or enhanced (Berger &
Luckmann, 1967; Garfinkel, 1967; Gergen, 1999). This perspective does not negate individual
factors in problem occurrence and change but sees change as a social as well as individual
phenomenon. It also sees problems for individuals as taking on added relational dimensions
when interactions related to problems become routinized and conflictual, something often the
case if gamblers are still in relationships (Ciarrocchi, 2001). Thus, changes possible for one
person in a relationship have implications for others in the relationship (Anderson, 1997). How
both clinical and naturally occurring conversations about change take place and transform the
Gamblers’ conversations 7/17/2016 9
lives of problem gamblers’, and the lives of supportive others, is a focus of this research.
Gamblers’ changes often take place in relationships sustained or changed by conversations.
Findings suggest that gambling can become a socially isolating problem for individuals
(Hodgins & el-Guebaly, 2004) and that pathways to recovery can be facilitated or made more
difficult depending on the quality of social interactions (Evans & Delfabbro, 2005; Meier,
Barrowclough, & Donmall, 2005). Thus turning to professional and non-professional supports to
initiate and sustain recovery efforts can mean stepping out of social isolation or back into
strained primary relationships. In other words, this means initiating and joining others in a
variety of change-oriented dialogues. Prior research points to individual factors such as
“impulsivity”, negative emotions or life events as to why problem gamblers don’t continue with
treatment (Leblond, Ladouceur, & Blaszczynski, 2003) or return to gambling (Hodgins & elGuebaly, 2004). Other research cites poor family and other social support as contributing to the
development of addictive behaviours (Hardoon, Gupta, & Derevensky, 2004). Similar
quantitative recent research focusing on gamblers attempting recovery through treatment or by
turning to “natural” efforts offers little specific understanding of conversation’s role in such
changes (Hodgins & el-Guebaly, 2000). While such research shows that the quality of social
relationships influences gambling problems and change efforts, the quality associated with social
interactions has been globally measured instead of qualitatively understood (Kozart, 2002).
The proposed research sees change taking place within varied webs of dialogue that
occur and are transformed as speakers talk to accomplish individual and social purposes
(Heritage, 1984; ten Have, 1999). Considered broadly, the change-oriented conversations of
problem gamblers can take place in contexts as varied as online chatrooms and e-mail accessible
websites (Compulsive Gamblers’ Hub, n.d.; Cooper & Doucette, 2002; Griffiths & Cooper,
2003; Kummervold et al, 2002), telephone crisis lines (Griffiths, Scarfe & Bellringer, 1999;
Lester, 2002), individual, relational and group therapy (Ciarrocchi, 2001; Mack, Franklin &
Frances, 2001; McCrady & Epstein, 1999), Gamblers’ Anonymous and other support groups
(Petry, 2005a; Stewart & Brown, 1988), and supportive interactions with friends and family
(Slutske, 2006). Each of these contexts offers gamblers links to discourse communities (Little,
Jordens, & Sayers, 2003; Preece, 2000) wherein their experiences can be shared, support sought,
and change-oriented advice requested and received. Participating in such communities requires
(to varying degrees) using and becoming responsive to change-oriented discourses (Humphreys,
2000; Klaw, Huebsch & Humphreys, 2000) and, in some cases, taking on change-oriented
community identities (Ratliff, 2003). The change-oriented dialogues or discursive communities
in which problem gamblers participate offer contexts and processes worth better understanding.
Similarly, how problem gamblers learn to reconcile their participation in these communities and
in their other supportive relationships merits further study.
For discourse analysts, such conversational interactions are where some understandings
and actions are talked into significance and action over others (e.g. ten Have, 1999; Wooffitt,
2005). But, the processes as well as the outcomes of such interactions are negotiated with others,
usually within contexts where particular cultural discourses dominate (Gergen, 1999; Hutchby,
2007). Change-oriented discourse, whether in clinical (e.g., Buttny, 2004; Hutchby, 2007;
Labov & Fanshel, 1977) or non-clinical dialogues (e.g., Drew, 1992; Jefferson, 1988; Maynard,
2003) has been a focus of analytic interest for discourse analysts for some time. Part of the
Gamblers’ conversations 7/17/2016 10
interest stems from the view that important outcomes are accomplished first in discourse (Gale,
1991; Miller & Rollnick, 2002), as part of change processes. But it is through subsequent
conversations that such change-oriented discourses are initiated, sustained, or moved beyond
when no longer necessary (Anderson, 1997; Bavelas, Coates, & Johnson, 2000; Beach 2003).
Talking about the interactions and outcomes of change-oriented discourse is different
from participating in such interactions and their outcomes (Watzlawick, Bavelas, & Jackson,
1967; Wooffitt, 2005). Most studies of therapeutic change have relied on participants’
retrospective ratings or accounts of prior conversational interactions (e.g., Lambert, 2004).
Discourse analysts, where possible, have tried to focus on analyses of actual interactions (Kozart,
2002; Strong, in press). For them, the conversational practices and resources used by speakers
can be examined as they are used, to see what results for the speakers as their conversations
develop (Gale & Lawless, 2004). Conversation in this sense is a somewhat negotiated,
improvised and constructive activity worked out between speakers in the course of their
interactions with others. Stuck conversational patterns, ways of conversing that permit no new
understanding or ways of talking, can stabilize problems (Anderson, 1997; Watzlawick, et al,
1967). Conversely, therapeutic discourse engages speakers in generative new ways of talking and
understanding (Friedman, 1993). It would be beyond the scope of any study to analyze all
change-initiating and sustaining dialogues in gamblers’ lives, including those prior to initiatives
to change. Therefore, the proposed study will, where possible, selectively combine analyses of
actual conversations (e.g., a therapy session) involving participating gamblers’ and others, with
retrospective accounts from these participants about prior change-oriented conversations.
Consistent with the social constructionist perspective informing this proposed study,
special consideration is given to the “retrospective” conversations central to the research.
Specifically, these research conversations are seen as more than neutral information-requesting
and information-gathering – they are contexts for reflexively talking some understandings into
significance over others (ten Have, 2004). This fits a longstanding concern of social
constructionist therapists about what questions and therapists’ responses elicit from and objectify
for clients (Tomm, 1988; Buttny, 2004). Therapies and interviewing styles have been derived
from this concern; most notably, solution-focused, motivational interviewing and appreciative
inquiry approaches. Unsurprisingly, these therapies and interview styles now feature in clinical
efforts to address problem gambling (e.g., Hodgins, Currie, el-Guebaly, & Peden, 2004; Miller &
Rollnick, 2002; Mintoft, Bellringer, & Orme, 2005). This extends to therapeutic conversations
involving partners and families (Cordova, Warren, & Gee, 2001; Moore & Charvat, 2007;
Waters & Lawrence, 1993) The gist of these approaches is that a focus on what is appreciated,
resourceful, and worth building on helps in making and sustaining preferred changes
(Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005). Thus, the proposed research – case studies of gamblers making
use of conversational interactions in changing problem gambling – sees the research
conversations as potentially supportive of and constructive in co-researchers’ change efforts.
Accordingly, the research conversations with primary case study co-researchers will also be
discursively analysed as part of the research, along with any other change oriented conversations
(e.g., with partners, with a therapist) that can be videotaped or audiotaped for analysis. This can
help supplement what co-researchers relate about their change-oriented conversations.
Gamblers’ conversations 7/17/2016 11
A primary aim of the proposed case studies (Fishman, 1999; Yin, 1994) is to better
understand problem gamblers’ conversations in different discourse communities and in their
closest relationships over time, where change-oriented dialogues about problem gambling are
occurring. Accordingly, five longitudinal (i.e., year long) case studies will examine five selfidentified problem gamblers as co-researchers, according to their being primarily active within
one of the following discourse communities: a) in online help, b) in non-professional gamblers’
recovery support groups, c) in professional treatment, d) in natural recovery efforts outside of
these three communities, and e) in a recovery effort discontinued after initiating change. The coresearchers will be asked, in four interviews, to speak to their involvement within these
communities as part of their change efforts. Where possible (i.e., ethics approved, informed
consent given), change-oriented conversations in these communities will be recorded and
analysed. This, for example, might mean examining a counselling conversation, or a changeoriented conversation between the co-researcher and a supportive partner. These interview data
will be further supplemented by conversations (i.e., about change-oriented conversations) with
conversational partners nominated by the co-researchers, and through more general
conversations with an addictions counsellor, gambling support website, and a focus group of
self-help group members. The aim is to provide a rich understanding of the role change-oriented
conversation plays in co-researchers’ efforts to address problem gambling via their participation
in these discourse communities, and in conversations beyond them.
A secondary aim of the proposed study is to examine changes in the discourses of coresearchers and those sharing their lives. These changes should not only reflect new concepts and
language but new ways of talking, with new values and emphases (Friedman, 1993; Gale &
Lawless, 2004). From a discourse analysis perspective (ten Have, 1999; Woffitt, 2005), the aim
is to identify conversational resources and practices used by and useful to co-researchers in
overcoming problem gambling over time. With this in mind, the conversationally-focused case
studies will be enriched by analyses of the research interviews, as well as (where ethically
approved and consented to) relevant conversational interactions with others. Examples of these
conversational interactions might include an audiotaped counselling session or conversations
with a partner or friend pertaining to recovery from problem gambling. Collectively, these
conversations will be examined over time for changes in discourse and for what case-study coresearchers report about their change-oriented conversations regarding problem gambling.
Finally, the proposed study is exploratory, process-oriented research that focuses on
change as a conversational phenomenon. This focus is, of course, only part of the change process
but an often overlooked one, given the centrality of conversation to therapy, self-help group,
online and normal relational interactions in a gambler’s life.
Practical and Theoretical Value of the Research
A practical aim of this research is to expand addictions counsellors’ awareness of the role
that conversations in and beyond the counselling context play in clients’ efforts to address
problem gambling. A fuller understanding of the diverse conversational resources and practices
problem gamblers use and derive benefit from could be useful assessment information,
especially in harmonizing treatment with these other conversational resources and practices. The
research in this sense will help to highlight potentially relevant assessment questions. The study
Gamblers’ conversations 7/17/2016 12
will also examine how problem gamblers take part in and possibly benefit from change-oriented
conversations beyond counselling. Since clients often make use of multiple resources (e.g.,
online resources, self-help groups, partners and friends) while counselling, understanding more
of what using these resources entails and how they may be helpful can be useful clinical
information. Finally, as a longitudinal study that looks at what benefits and participation means
to gamblers who have been involved in diverse change-oriented conversations over time, this
research could add rich understandings of gamblers’ efforts to seek help and change (Petry,
2005b) as this relates to the conversational context.
Theoretically, this study would further the use of a discursive or social constructionist
perspective in conceptualizing and responding to problem gambling. While this perspective has
been increasingly taken up in psychology (e.g., Edwards & Potter, 1992; Harre & Gillett, 1994)
and counselling (e.g., Anderson, 1997; Friedman, 1993), the clinically oriented gambling
literature seldom features this perspective. A few exceptions occur, in critical discourse analyses
which problematize how gambling as a field of study and practice has been conceptualized (e.g.,
Muller, 2006), in clinical reports of solution-focused therapy (Cordova et al, 2001) or in a recent
case study in the Electronic Journal of Gambling Issues (“Counselling Mary about her gambling
problems” in 2003). Elsewhere, substance abuse counsellors have drawn from this perspective
(e.g., Berg & Reuss, 1998; Diamond, 2000) while there has been some discursive research of
change-oriented conversations (Arminen, 1998, Booth, 1997). My hope is that the research
proposed will help to further consideration of a discursive or social constructionist perspective
with respect to researching problem gambling and counselling those who are affected by it.
Research Methods
In conceptualizing problem gambling and attempts to address it as occurring in a
conversational context, I have correspondingly chosen research methods that permit an in-depth
understanding of what transpires in and results from conversational interactions within this
context. The study involves a mixed qualitative methods design centering on five longitudinal
case studies (Yin, 1994). These case studies offer opportunities to gain rich personal, contextual
and process-oriented understandings of what it means to turn to conversations as a resource in
addressing problem gambling. As case studies, the intention is not to generalize findings to a
broader population, but to heuristically draw from their rich detail to inform future hypotheses,
research questions and potential clinical insights. Because the focus on the case co-researchers’
involvements in change-oriented conversations, it was natural to turn to discursive methods of
analysis, where possible. The qualifier “where possible” is necessary here as the intention is to
seek case study co-researchers who would be willing to consent to having some of their changeoriented conversations videotaped or audiotaped. This would also require the informed consent
of others engaged in such conversations, assuming ethical clearance is granted.
As mentioned, five longitudinal (i.e. year long) case studies will examine five primary
co-researchers over time, each identifying themselves as primarily active within one of the
following discourse communities: a) in online help, b) in non-professional gamblers’ recovery
support groups, c) in professional treatment, d) in natural recovery efforts outside of these three
communities, and e) in a recovery effort discontinued after initiating change. The interviews with
primary co-researchers will occur at four points over a 12 month year. The first of these
Gamblers’ conversations 7/17/2016 13
interviews shall primarily focus on co-researchers’ efforts to initiate recovery through
conversations with others but will also discuss co-researchers’ views of their progress in their
recovery efforts. The second and third of these interviews will focus on the role that
conversational interactions play in co-researchers’ change efforts, including how they face
challenges to their recovery. The fourth and final interview will focus on the conversational
process of change, looking as well at the roles that the research process has played in the change
efforts. For this reason, the final interview will be conducted by a different research assistant
than the person conducting prior research interviews. The choice of a co-researcher who stopped
recovery efforts is to provide a voice of contrast regarding change efforts through conversational
interaction. In addition to the four interviews mentioned above with each primary co-researcher,
this study hopes to include other conversational data where possible. Specifically, such sources
might include conversations with partners or one’s addictions counsellor. Primary co-researchers
will each be asked to nominate two other people from their natural social networks whom the
researchers may interview regarding their views on the role of conversation in initiating and
sustaining change within their relationships with the co-researchers. Finally, the general sense
relevant others have of conversation’s role in gamblers’ change efforts will be consulted. In this
regard, interviews will be held with a counsellor of problem gamblers, a gambling self-help
website administrator, and a focus group with self-selecting Gamblers’ Anonymous group
members. This general interview information will be combined with the other data to provide
richer contextual detail regarding the conversational context of recovery from problem gambling.
At a minimum, the research conversations themselves will serve as a source of discursive
data wherein the researcher is seen as reflexively contributing to the co-articulation of this data.
This is a theoretically-informed acknowledgment (ten Have, 2004) that researchers can not
consider interview data as neutrally elicited from research co-researchers. But, it is also a
perspective compatible with discursive approaches to therapy (e.g., Berg & Reuss, 1998; Tomm,
1988) wherein questions are seen as helping to bring forth or construct preferred actions and
understandings. In this respect, parts of the research could also be considered to have an action
research (Reason & Bradbury, 2001) thrust in that the research conversations not only hope to
capture and analyze co-researchers’ views of conversations’ role in their change efforts, but
possibly contribute to those change efforts as well. I recognize some may question this
theoretical premise, but within the discourse analysis and current qualitative research literatures
(Gubrium & Holstein, 2004, ten Have, 2004), to not regard the interview as constructive would
be seen as naïve. The action research ‘add-on’ is construed as a further way of seeing the
research conversations in the broader context of conversations pertaining to addressing problem
gambling. The effects of the research interviews will be discussed in the concluding interviews
held with each primary case study participant.
Taken together, this mixed methods qualitative study aims to follow co-researchers as
they longitudinally participate in five primary and distinct discourse communities, including one
co-researcher where conversations toward change have, in the co-researcher’s view, been
discontinued. By inquiring about their conversations and by examining actual conversations
where possible, the aim is to develop rich descriptions of conversational contexts and processes
gamblers turn to, to address problem gambling.
Training and Collaborative Aspects of Proposed Research
Gamblers’ conversations 7/17/2016 14
Two graduate students in Counselling Psychology, one Doctoral student and one Masters
student, with backgrounds in qualitative research, will be hired to assist in conducting the
proposed research. Through weekly meetings and other consultations the students will be
mentored and supervised in all phases and facets of the research. This extends to their
involvement in helping me prepare ethics applications, acquiring an understanding of the
discursive/social constructionist framework that organizes the research activities and analysis,
learning “active interview” (Gubrium & Holstein, 2004) techniques, identifying and transcribing
relevant passages of research and other recorded conversations using the conventions from
discourse analysis, participating in discourse analysis sessions as a research team, presenting on
the topic in Faculty and national research forums (for example, at the Canadian Psychological
Association), and in preparing manuscripts for publication review. The perspective I have of
students presenting or co-authoring papers with me is that they should feel as accountable as I do
in responding to questions raised by others. With this in mind, the mentoring experience is one
aimed at preparing them for such questions and answering them. Where this work interests
students as it relates to their graduate research requirements, there will be opportunities to use
their research experience in preparing thesis or dissertation research.
Research Timeline (if funded):
December, 2007
Jan-Feb, 2008
March-April 2008
May-June 2008
Graduate Research Assistants Hired with January 1, 2008 starting date
Collaboratively prepare ethics application, involve students in reading
relevant theoretical, clinical and research literatures.
(while ethics pending) Develop case study interview protocols and
interview skills. Practice using Transana qualitative software to do
preliminary discursive analyses on mock interviews
Recruit co-researchers, more mock interviews, study more in-depth the
discourse communities from which co-researchers are sought
Gamblers’ conversations 7/17/2016 15
July – August 2008
Sept- Oct. 2008
Nov- Dec 2008
Jan-Feb 2009
March-April 2009
May-June 2009
July – August 2009
Sept-Dec 2009
Begin initial interviews and introductory analyses of the interviews
using Transana and N-Vivo software/literature reviews
Data analysis sessions of initial interviews, recordings (where consent
given) of other conversational interactions.
Second research interviews /data analyses/ where possible further
conversational interactions.
Data analysis of interview interactions and of other conversational
interactions. Preliminary presentation (primarily on method/study
conceptualization) at Faculty research forum.
Third research interview /further analyses/ preparation of paper for
national conference
Data analysis of third and other interviews. Presentation of paper at
Alberta Gambling Research Association conference
Final interviews / data analysis /
Finalizing analyses/1 international (National Centre for Responsible
Gambling) conference presentation/preparing and submitting
manuscripts for publication. Paper preparation and abstract submission
for the Canadian Psychological Association conference Spring 2010.
Gamblers’ conversations 7/17/2016 16
References
Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission (2003). Alberta Profile: Social and health
indicators of addiction. Edmonton: Author.
Anderson, H. (1997). Conversation, language and possibilities. New York: Basic Books.
Arminen, I. (1998). Therapeutic interaction: A study of mutual self-help in the meetings of
Alcoholics Anonymous. Vol. 45, Helsinki: The Finnish Foundation for Alcohol Studies.
Bavelas, J.B., Coates, L., & Johnson, T. (2000). Listeners as co-narrators. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 79, 941-952.
Beach, W. A. (2003). Managing Optimism. In P. Glenn, C. D. LeBaron, & J. Mandelbaum (Eds.)
Studies in Language and Social Interaction: In honor of Robert Hopper (pp. 175-94).
Mahweh, N.J. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Berg, I. K., & Reuss, N. H. (1998). Solutions step by step: A substance abuse treatment manual.
New York: Norton.
Booth, J. J. (1997). Drugspeak: The analysis of drug discourse. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Boutin, C., Dumont, M., Ladouceur, R., & Montecalvo, P. (2003). Excessive gambling and
cognitive therapy: How to address ambivalence. Clinical Case Studies, 2, 259-269.
Buttny, R. (2004). Talking problems: Studies of discursive construction. Albany, NY: SUNY
Press.
Ciarrocchi, J. W. (2001). Counseling problem gamblers and their families: A self-regulation
manual for individual and family therapy (Practical resources for the mental health
professional). New York: Academic Press.
Compulsive Gamblers Hub (n.d.). website Retrieved online from
http://www.cghub.homestead.com/
Cooper, G.A., & Doucet, G. (2002). Online help for problem gambling: Why it is and is
not being considered. E-Gambling: The electronic journal of gambling issues, 7
(December). Retrieved online June 9, 2004 from
http://www.camh.net/egambling/issue7/clinic/
Cooperrider, D. L., & Whitney, D. (2005). Appreciative inquiry: A positive revolution in change.
San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Cordova, J. V., Warren, L. Z., & Gee, C. B. (2001). Motivational Interviewing as an intervention
for at-risk couples. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 27, 315-326
Diamond, J. (2000). Narrative means to sober ends. New York: Norton.
Drew. P. (Ed.) (1992). Talk at work: interaction in institutional settings. New York: Cambridge.
Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. London: Sage.
Evans, L., & Delfabbro, P. H. (2005). Motivators for change and barriers to help-seeking in
Australian problem gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 21, 133-155.
Fishman, D. B. (1999). The case for a pragmatic psychology. New York: New York University
Press.
Friedman, S. (Ed.) (1993). The new language of change. New York: Guilford.
Gale, J. (1991). Conversational analysis of therapeutic discourse: Pursuit of an agenda.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Gale, J., & Lawless, J. (2004). Discursive approaches to clinical research. In T. Strong & D. Paré
(Eds.), Furthering talk: Advances in the discursive therapies (pp. 125-144). New York:
Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.
Gamblers’ conversations 7/17/2016 17
Gambling therapy. (n.d.). website Retrieved June 9, 2007 from
http://www.gamblingtherapy.org/forum/default.asp
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gergen, K. (1999). An invitation to social construction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Griffiths, M., Scarfe, A., Bellringer, P. (1999). The UK national telephone gambling helpline:
Results on the first year of operation. Journal of Gambling Studies, 15(1), 83-90.
Griffiths, M., & Cooper, G. (2003). Online therapy: implications for problem gamblers and
clinicians. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 31(1), 113-135.
Hardoon, K. K., Gupta, R., & Derevensky, J. L. (2004). Psychosocial variables associated with
adolescent gambling. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18, 170-179.
Harre, R., & Gillett, G. (1994). The discursive mind. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Hodgins, D.C., & El-Guebaly, N. (2000). Natural and treatment-assisted recovery from
gambling problems: A comparison of resolved and active gamblers. Addiction,
95(5), 777-789.
Hodgins, D. C., Currie, S. R., & el-Guebaly, N. (2001). Motivational enhancement and self-help
treatments for problem gambling. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 5057
Hodgins, D.C., Makarchuk, K., El-Guebaly, N., & Peden, N. (2002). Why problem gamblers quit
gambling: A comparison of methods and samples. Addiction Research & Theory, 10,
203-218.
Hodgins, D. C., Currie, S., el-Guebaly, N., Peden, N. (2004). Brief motivational treatment for
problem gambling: A 24-month follow-up. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18, 293296.
Hodgins, D. C., & el-Guebaly, N. (2004). Retrospective and prospective reports of precipitants to
relapse in pathological gambling. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 72(1),
72-80.
Holstein, J., & Gubrium, J. (2004). The active interview. In D. Silverman (Ed.) Qualitative
research: Theory, method and practice (2nd ed., pp. 14-161). London: Sage.
Humphreys, K. (2000). Community narratives and personal stories in Alcoholics Anonymous.
Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 495-506.
Hutchby, I. (2007). The discourse of child counselling. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Jefferson, G. (1988). On the sequential organization of troubles talk in ordinary conversation.
Social Problems, 35, 418-441.
Klaw, E., Huebsch , P. D., & Humphreys, K. (2000). Communication patterns in an on-line
mutual help group for problem drinkers. Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 535-546.
Kozart, M. (2002). Understanding efficacy in psychotherapy: An ethnomethodological
perspective on the therapeutic alliance. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 27, 217231.
Kummervold, P. E., Gammon, D., Bergvik, S., Johnsen, J. A., Hasvold, T., & Rosenvinge, J. H.
(2002). Social support in a wired world: use of online mental health forums in Norway.
Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 56(1), 59-65
Labov, W. & Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapy discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. New York:
Basic Books.
Lambert, M. J. (Ed.) (2004). Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behavior
change (5th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Gamblers’ conversations 7/17/2016 18
Leblond, J., Ladouceur, R., & Blaszczynski, A. (2003). Which pathological gamblers will
complete treatment? British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 42, 205–209.
Little, M., Jordens, C. F. C., & Sayers, E-J. (2003). Discourse communities and the discourse of
experience. Health, 7(1), 73-86.
Lester, D. (Ed.) (2002). Crisis intervention and counselling by phone. (2nd ed.). Springfield, IL:
Charles C. Thomas Publisher.
Lorenz, V.C. (1989). Some treatment approaches for family members who jeopardize the
compulsive gambler's recovery. Journal of Gambling Studies, 5, 303-312.
Mack, A.H., Franklin Jr., J. E., & Frances, R. J. (2001). Concise guide to treatment of
alcoholism and addictions. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Maynard, D.W. (2003). Bad news, good news: Conversational order in everyday talk and
clinical settings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McCrady, B. S., & Epstein, E. E. (Eds). (1999). Addictions: A guidebook for professionals.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Meier, P. S., Barrowclough, C., & Donmall, M. C. (2005). The role of the therapeutic alliance in
the treatment of substance misuse: a critical review of the literature. Addiction, 100, 304316.
Miller, W.R., & Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational Interviewing: Preparing people for change
(2nd ed.) New York: Guilford.
Mintoft, B., Bellringer, M. E., Orme, C. (2005). Improved client outcome services project: An
intervention with non-benefiting clients of problem gambling treatment. International
Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 3(1), 3-40.
Moore, S., & Charvat, J. (2007). Promoting health behavior change using Appreciative Inquiry:
Moving from deficit models to affirmation models of care. Family & Community Health,
30(1), S64-S74.
Muller, R. (2006). Gambling Discourse in South Australia: Power, Knowledge, and Ethics.
Thesis (Ph.D.) -- Flinders University, Dept of Sociology.
Petry, N. (2005a). Gamblers Anonymous and cognitive-behavioral therapies for pathological
gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 21(1), 27-33.
Petry, N. (2005b). Stages of change in treatment-seeking pathological gamblers. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 312–322.
Preece, J. (2000). Online communities: Designing usablity, supporting sociability. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Problem Gambling Resources Network (AB) website. (n.d.)
http://www.problemgamblingalberta.ca/PGRN/Home%20Page.htm
Ratliff, J. (2003). Community identity in an Alcoholics Anonymous group:
Discourse contention and integration. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 21(3), 41-58.
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.) (2001). Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry
and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Slutske, W. S. (2006). Natural recovery and treatment-seeking in pathological gambling: Results
of two U.S. national surveys. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163, 297–302.
Smith, G.J., & Wynne, H.J. (2002). Measuring Gambling and Problem Gambling in Alberta
Using the Canadian Problem Gambling Index (CPGI): Final Report. Retrieved June 9,
2004, from
http://www.abgaminginstitute.ualberta.ca/documents/research/gambling_alberta_cpgi.pdf
Gamblers’ conversations 7/17/2016 19
Stewart, R. M., & Brown, R. I. (1988). An outcome study of Gamblers’ Anonymous. British
Journal of Psychiatry, 152, 284-288.
Strong, T. (in press). Accomplishments in social constructionist counseling: Micro-analytic and
retrospective analyses. Qualitative Research in Psychology.
Tavares, H., Martins, S. S., Zilberman, M. L., & el-Guebaly, N. (2002). Gamblers seeking
treatment: Why haven’t they come earlier? Addictive Disorders & Their Treatment, 1(2),
65-69.
Tomm, K. (1988). Interventive interviewing: Part III. Intending to ask lineal, circular, strategic,
or reflexive questions? Family Process, 27, 1-15.
ten Have, P. (1999). Doing conversation analysis. London: Sage.
ten Have, P. (2004). Understanding qualitative research and ethnomethodology. London: Sage.
Waters, D. B., & Lawrence, E. C. (1993). Competence, courage and change. New York: Norton.
Watzlawick, P., Bavelas, J.B., & Weakland, J. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication.
New York: Norton.
Wooffitt, R. (2005). Conversation and discourse analysis. London: Sage.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.