Downgrading Deontic Authority in Open Dialogue Reflection Proposals: A Conversation Analysis.
Authority
Conversation analysis
Deontics
Open dialogue
Power
Proposals
Reflection
análisis de la conversación
deóntico
diálogo abierto
poder
propuestas
reflexión
会话分析
反思
开放式对话
提议
权力
道义
Journal
Family process
ISSN: 1545-5300
Titre abrégé: Fam Process
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0400666
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2021
12 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
22
11
2020
medline:
3
2
2022
entrez:
21
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The Open Dialogue approach promotes collaboration with clients and families in decisions about the direction of therapy. This creates potential problems for Open Dialogue therapists who seek collaboration but also have responsibility for managing the session. Using conversation analysis, we examined 14 hours of video recordings of Open Dialogue sessions, and specifically how therapists proposed the transition to a reflecting conversation. We found that, when making proposals to reflect, therapists routinely downgrade their deontic authority (i.e., adopt a less powerful, more collaborative position). They did this through framing proposals as interrogatives, providing accounts, and by prefacing their proposals with "I'm wondering". More heavily downgraded proposals made acceptance less salient, potentially risking transition to the reflection. These findings provide more detail on how theoretical concepts such as "collaboration" and "power" are actually displayed and negotiated in practice and can contribute to a more nuanced understanding of what constitutes Open Dialogue. El método de diálogo abierto promueve la colaboración con los pacientes y las familias en las decisiones acerca del rumbo de la terapia. Esto genera posibles problemas para los terapeutas que implementan el diálogo abierto y que buscan colaboración, pero que también tienen la responsabilidad de manejar la sesión. Utilizando el análisis de la conversación, analizamos 14 horas de videograbaciones de sesiones de diálogo abierto y, específicamente, cómo los terapeutas propusieron la transición a una conversación reflexiva. Descubrimos que, cuando los terapeutas hacen una propuesta de reflexionar, habitualmente rebajan su autoridad deóntica (p. ej.: adoptan una postura menos poderosa y más colaborativa). Para esto, los terapeutas plantearon las propuestas como interrogaciones, ofrecieron explicaciones e introdujeron sus propuestas con la frase: “Me pregunto”. Las propuestas más rebajadas hicieron que la aceptación se destacara menos, arriesgando potencialmente la transición a la reflexión. Estos hallazgos ofrecen mas detalles sobre cómo los conceptos teóricos, como la “colaboración” y el “poder”, en realidad se muestran y se negocian en la práctica, y pueden contribuir a una comprensión más matizada de lo que constituye el diálogo abierto. 开放性对话的方法促进了在与病人和家庭在有关治疗方向上做出决策时的合作。开放对话治疗师寻求合作但又有责任管理会话，此方法给这一类治疗师带来了潜在的问题。使用会话分析，我们调查了14个小时的公开对话的视频记录，特别是治疗师是如何建议过渡到反思对话的。我们发现，在提出反思建议时，治疗师通常会降低他们的行为权威(即采取一种不那么强势、更具协作性的立场)。这样做的方式是将建议框定为质问句，提供解释，并以 "我在想 "作为建议的前言。更加严重的降级建议使接受不那么突出，可能会有过渡到反思的风险。这些发现提供了更多关于 "协作 "和 "权力 "等理论概念如何在实践中实际呈现和协商的细节，并有助于更细致地理解什么是 "开放式对话"。.
Autres résumés
Type: Publisher
(spa)
El método de diálogo abierto promueve la colaboración con los pacientes y las familias en las decisiones acerca del rumbo de la terapia. Esto genera posibles problemas para los terapeutas que implementan el diálogo abierto y que buscan colaboración, pero que también tienen la responsabilidad de manejar la sesión. Utilizando el análisis de la conversación, analizamos 14 horas de videograbaciones de sesiones de diálogo abierto y, específicamente, cómo los terapeutas propusieron la transición a una conversación reflexiva. Descubrimos que, cuando los terapeutas hacen una propuesta de reflexionar, habitualmente rebajan su autoridad deóntica (p. ej.: adoptan una postura menos poderosa y más colaborativa). Para esto, los terapeutas plantearon las propuestas como interrogaciones, ofrecieron explicaciones e introdujeron sus propuestas con la frase: “Me pregunto”. Las propuestas más rebajadas hicieron que la aceptación se destacara menos, arriesgando potencialmente la transición a la reflexión. Estos hallazgos ofrecen mas detalles sobre cómo los conceptos teóricos, como la “colaboración” y el “poder”, en realidad se muestran y se negocian en la práctica, y pueden contribuir a una comprensión más matizada de lo que constituye el diálogo abierto.
Type: Publisher
(chi)
开放性对话的方法促进了在与病人和家庭在有关治疗方向上做出决策时的合作。开放对话治疗师寻求合作但又有责任管理会话，此方法给这一类治疗师带来了潜在的问题。使用会话分析，我们调查了14个小时的公开对话的视频记录，特别是治疗师是如何建议过渡到反思对话的。我们发现，在提出反思建议时，治疗师通常会降低他们的行为权威(即采取一种不那么强势、更具协作性的立场)。这样做的方式是将建议框定为质问句，提供解释，并以 "我在想 "作为建议的前言。更加严重的降级建议使接受不那么突出，可能会有过渡到反思的风险。这些发现提供了更多关于 "协作 "和 "权力 "等理论概念如何在实践中实际呈现和协商的细节，并有助于更细致地理解什么是 "开放式对话"。.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1217-1232Informations de copyright
© 2020 Family Process Institute.
Références
Anderson, H., & Goolishan, H. (1992). The client is the expert: A not-knowing approach to therapy. In S. McNamee & K. J. Gergan (Eds.), Therapy as social construction (pp. 25-39). London, UK: Sage Publications.
Antaki, C. (2008). Formulations in psychotherapy. In A. Peräkylä, C. Antaki, S. Vehviläinen, & I. Leudar (Eds.), Conversation analysis and psychotherapy (pp. 26-42). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Antaki, C., & Kent, A. (2015). Offering alternatives as a way of issuing directives to children: Putting the worse option last. Journal of Pragmatics, 78, 25.
Brown, J. M., & Mikes-Liu, K. (2015). Special issue: Dialogical practices. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 36(1), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1002/anzf.1101
Buus, N., Bikic, A., Jacobsen, E. K., Müller-Nielsen, K., Aagaard, J., & Rossen, C. B. (2017). Adapting and implementing open dialogue in the Scandinavian countries: A scoping review. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 38(5), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/01612840.2016.1269377
Buus, N., Kragh Jacobsen, E., Bojesen, A. B., Bikic, A., Müller-Nielsen, K., Aagaard, J. et al. (2019). The association between Open Dialogue to young Danes in acute psychiatric crisis and their use of health care and social services: A retrospective register-based cohort study. International journal of nursing studies, 91, 119-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.12.015
Couture, S. J., & Sutherland, O. (2006). Giving advice on advice-giving: A conversation analysis of Karl Tomm's practice. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 32(3), 329-344. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2006.tb01610.x
Craven, A., & Potter, J. (2010). Directives: Entitlement and contingency in action. Discourse Studies, 12(4), 419-442. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445610370126
Curl, T. S., & Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(2), 129-153. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810802028613
Ekberg, K., & LeCouteur, A. (2014). Co-implicating and re-shaping clients' suggestions for behavioural change in cognitive behavioural therapy practice. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 11(1), 60-77. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2012.709917
Ekberg, K., & LeCouteur, A. (2015). Clients' resistance to therapists' proposals: Managing epistemic and deontic status. Journal of Pragmatics, 90, 12-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.10.004
Enfield, N. J. (2013). Relationship thinking: Agency, enchrony, and human sociality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Flaskas, C. (2010). Frameworks for practice in the systemic field: Part 1 - Continuities and transitions in family therapy knowledge. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 31(3), 232-247. https://doi.org/10.1375/anft.31.3.232
Flaskas, C. (2011). Frameworks for practice in the systemic field: Part 2 - Contemporary frameworks in family therapy. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 32(2), 87-108.
Georgaca, E., & Avdi, E. (2009). Evaluating the talking cure: The contribution of narrative, discourse, and conversation analysis to psychotherapy assessment. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 6(3), 233-247. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780880802146896
Gordon, C., Gidugu, V., Rogers, E. S., DeRonck, J., & Ziedonis, D. (2016). Adapting open dialogue for early-onset psychosis into the U.S. health care environment: A feasibility study. Psychiatric Services, 67(11), 1166-1168. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201600271
Guilfoyle, M. (2003). Dialogue and power: A critical analysis of power in dialogical therapy. Family Process, 42(3), 331-343. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2003.00331.x
Hare-Mustin, R. T. (1994). Discourses in the mirrored room: A postmodern analysis of therapy. Family Process, 33(1), 19-35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1994.00019.x
Hella, P., Niemi, J., Tirkkonen, J.-M., Hintikka, J., Koponen, H., & Koivumaa-Honkanen, H. (2015). Talking about paranoid experiences: Interactional dynamics of accomplishing disclosure of psychotic symptoms in triadic conversation. Communication & Medicine, 12(1), 25-40. https://doi.org/10.1558/cam.v12i1.20214
Hepburn, A., & Bolden, G. B. (2017). Transcribing for social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Heritage, J. (1988). Explanations as accounts: A conversation analytic perspective. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Analysing everyday explanation : A casebook of methods (pp. 127-144). London, UK: Sage Publications.
Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. (1990). Accounting for proposals. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(1), 111-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90066-M
Hutchby, I., & O’Reilly, M. (2010). Children's participation and the familial moral order in family therapy. Discourse Studies, 12(1), 49-64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445609357406
Kent, A., & Kendrick, K. H. (2016). Imperative directives: Orientations to accountability. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(3), 272-288.
Muntigl, P., & Horvath, A. O. (2016). A conversation analytic study of building and repairing the alliance in family therapy. Journal of Family Therapy, 38(1), 102-119. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.12109
O’Reilly, M. (2005a). ‘Active noising’: The use of noises in talk, the case of onomatopoeia, abstract sounds, and the functions they serve in therapy. Text, 25(6), 745-762. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2005.25.6.745
O’Reilly, M. (2005b). The complaining client and the troubled therapist: A discursive investigation of family therapy. Journal of Family Therapy, 27(4), 370-391. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6427.2005.0328.x
O’Reilly, M. (2008). What value is there in children's talk? Investigating family therapists’ interruptions of parents and children during the therapeutic process. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(3), 507-524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.005
O’Reilly, M., & Lester, J. N. (2016). Building a case for good parenting in a family therapy systemic environment: Resisting blame and accounting for children's behaviour. Journal of Family Therapy, 38, 491-511.
O’Reilly, M., & Parker, N. (2013). 'You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink': Exploring children's engagement and resistance in family therapy. Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal, 35(3), 491-507.
Olson, M., Seikkula, J., & Ziedonis, D. (2014). The key elements of dialogic practice in open dialogue. The University of Massachusetts Medical School. Retrieved from http://umassmed.edu/psychiatry/globalinitiatives/opendialogue/
Ong, B., Barnes, S., & Buus, N. (2019). Conversation analysis and family therapy: A critical review of methodology. Family Process, 59(2), 460-476. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12431
Ong, B., Barnes, S., & Buus, N. (2020). Conversation analysis and family therapy: A narrative review. Journal of Family Therapy, 42(2), 169-203. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.12269
Parker, N., & O’Reilly, M. (2012). 'Gossiping' as a social action in family therapy: The pseudo-absence and pseudo-presence of children. Discourse Studies, 14(4), 457-475.
Peräkylä, A. (2012). Conversation analysis in psychotherapy. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 551-574). Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell.
Peräkylä, A. (2019). Conversation analysis and psychotherapy: Identifying transformative sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 52(3), 257-280.
Peräkylä, A., Antaki, C., Vehvilainen, S., & Leudar, I. (2008). Conversation analysis and psychotherapy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Peräkylä, A., & Vehviläinen, S. (2003). Conversation analysis and the professional stocks of interactional knowledge. Discourse & Society, 14(6), 727-750. https://doi.org/10.1177/09579265030146003
Pomerantz, A. (1980). Telling my side: “Limited access” as a “fishing” device. Sociological Inquiry, 50(3-4), 186-198.
Potter, J. (1996). Discourse analysis and constructionist approaches: Theoretical background. In J. T. E. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research methods for psychology and the social sciences (pp. 125-140). Leicester, UK: BPS Books.
Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis: The study of talk-in-interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010
Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology, 102(1), 161-216. https://doi.org/10.1086/230911
Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289-327.
Schriver, K. N., Buus, N., & Rossen, C. B. (2019). Reflective practices in open dialogue meetings: Reporting and inferential ‘my side tellings’. Journal of Pragmatics, 146, 19-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.03.007
Schubert, S., Rhodes, P., & Buus, N. (2020). Transformation of professional identity: An exploration of psychologists and psychiatrists implementing open dialogue. Journal of Family Therapy. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.12289. [Epub ahead of print].
Seikkula, J. (2011). Becoming dialogical: Psychotherapy or a way of life? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 32(3), 179-193.
Seikkula, J., & Arnkil, T. E. (2006). Dialogical meetings in social networks. London, UK: Karnac.
Seuren, L. M. (2018). Assessing answers: Action ascription in third position. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 33-51. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413890
Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (2013). The handbook of conversation analysis. Chicester, UK: Wiley.
Stevanovic, M. (2013a). Constructing a proposal as a thought: A way to manage problems in the initiation of joint decision-making in Finnish workplace interaction. Pragmatics, 23(2), 519-544.
Stevanovic, M. (2013b). Deontic rights in interaction. A conversation analytic study on authority and cooperation. (PhD thesis), University of Helsinki, Finland.
Stevanovic, M. (2018). Social deontics: A nano-level approach to human power play. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 48(3), 369-389. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12175
Stevanovic, M., & Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3), 297-321. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.699260
Stevanovic, M., & Peräkylä, A. (2014). Three orders in the organization of human action: On the interface between knowledge, power, and emotion in interaction and social relations. Language in Society, 43(2), 185-207. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404514000037
Stevanovic, M., & Svennevig, J. (2015). Introduction: Epistemics and deontics in conversational directives. Journal of Pragmatics, 78, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.01.008
Stivers, T., & Enfield, N. J. (2010). A coding scheme for question-response sequences in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(10), 2620-2626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.002
Stivers, T., & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 43(1), 3-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903471258
ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage.
Tribe, R. H., Freeman, A. M., Livingstone, S., Stott, J. C. H., & Pilling, S. (2019). Open dialogue in the UK: Qualitative study. BJPsych open, 5(4), s49. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2019.38
Tseliou, E. (2013). A critical methodological review of discourse and conversation analysis studies of family therapy. Family Process, 52(4), 653-672. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12043
White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Company.