Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Saying no to the staff: an analysis of refusals in a care home for people with severe communication difficulties.

By W. M. L. Finlay, Charles Antaki and Chris Walton

Abstract

People with severe communication difficulties may attempt to exercise control over their lives by verbally or non-verbally refusing an activity proposed by supporters. We detail examples in which such refusals are treated by care home staff as a temporary reluctance, warranting further attempts to persuade the individual to co-operate. We identify the following conversational (and bodily) practices by which staff achieve their institutional ends: appreciating a resident's behaviour as something other than refusal; formulating the invitation again in a no-blame format; minimising the task required; escalating the invitation to a request and an order; moving the person bodily; and positively glossing the proceedings. Dealing with refusals illustrates the dilemma faced by institutional personnel in health and care settings in accepting choices which might disrupt the efficient management of the service

Year: 2008
OAI identifier: oai:eprints.lancs.ac.uk:21093
Provided by: Lancaster E-Prints

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (1995). A doi
  2. (1988). A little book about person-centred planning.
  3. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. doi
  4. (1995). Assessing opportunities for choice-making: a comparison of self- and staff reports.
  5. (1999). Communications between staff and adults with intellectual disabilities in naturally occurring settings. doi
  6. (1998). Conversation Analysis. doi
  7. (1988). Daily decisionmaking in community residences: a social comparison of adults with and without mental retardation.
  8. (2005). Improving services, improving lives: evidence and key themes. Interim report. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
  9. (2005). Improving the life chances of disabled people. doi
  10. (2000). Interaction and the Standardised Survey Interview. Cambridge: doi
  11. (1997). Longitudinal study of deinstitutionalization and the exercise of choice. Mental Retardation, 35, 159-169 Saying no to staff…. 25 doi
  12. (1994). NB authors' references are not included in this submission
  13. (1987). Opportunities to express preferences and make choices among students with severe disabilities in classroom settings.
  14. (1988). Preliminary notes on a possible metric which provides for a 'standard maximum' silence of approximately one second in conversation. In
  15. (1992). Repair after next turn: the last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. doi
  16. (1989). Speech to and from a severely retarded young Down's syndrome child. In
  17. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, doi
  18. (2004). The Resident Choice Scale: a measure to assess opportunities for self-determination in residential settings. doi
  19. (2004). The social construction of Intellectual disability. doi
  20. (2005). Valuing People: making things better (The Government’s annual report on Learning Disability,
  21. (2001). Who’s in control?: decision-making by people with learning difficulties who have high support needs. London: Values Into Action.
  22. (1997). Whose text? Whose context?", doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.