'I'm not X, I just want Y': formulating 'wants' in interaction

This article provides a conversation analytic description of a two-part structure, ‘I don’t want X, I want/just want Y’. Drawing on a corpus of recordings of family mealtimes and television documentary data, I show how speakers use the structure in two recurrent environments. First, speakers may use the structure to reject a proposal regarding their actions made by an interlocutor. Second, speakers may deliver the structure following a co-interactant’s formulation of their actions or motivations. Both uses decrease the likelihood of challenge in third-turn position. When responding to multi-unit turns speakers routinely deal with the last item first. The value of ‘I want Y’ is to formulate an alternative sense of agency which undermines the preceding turn and shifts the trajectory of the ongoing sequence. The article contributes to work in discursive psychology as I show how speakers may formulate their ‘wants’ in the service of sequentially unfolding social interaction

Engaging terminally ill patients in end of life talk: How experienced palliative medicine doctors navigate the dilemma of promoting discussions about dying

Objective: To examine how palliative medicine doctors engage patients in end-of-life (hereon, EoL) talk. To examine whether the practice of “eliciting and responding to cues”, which has been widely advocated in the EoL care literature, promotes EoL talk. Design: Conversation analysis of video- and audio-recorded consultations. Participants: Unselected terminally ill patients and their companions in consultation with experienced palliative medicine doctors. Setting: Outpatient clinic, day therapy clinic, and inpatient unit of a single English hospice. Results: Doctors most commonly promoted EoL talk through open elaboration solicitations; these created opportunities for patients to introduce Ð then later further articulate Ð EoL considerations in such a way that doctors did not overtly ask about EoL matters. Importantly, the wording of elaboration solicitations avoided assuming that patients had EoL concerns. If a patient responded to open elaboration solicitations without introducing EoL considerations, doctors sometimes pursued EoL talk by switching to a less participatory and more presumptive type of solicitation, which suggested the patient might have EoL concerns. These more overt solicitations were used only later in consultations, which indicates that doctors give precedence to patients volunteering EoL considerations, and offer them opportunities to take the lead in initiating EoL talk. There is evidence that doctors treat elaboration of patients’ talk as a resource for engaging them in EoL conversations. However, there are limitations associated with labelling that talk as “cues” as is common in EoL communication contexts. We examine these limitations and propose “possible EoL considerations” as a descriptively more accurate term. Conclusions: Through communicating Ð via open elaboration solicitations Ð in ways that create opportunities for patients to volunteer EoL considerations, doctors navigate a core dilemma in promoting EoL talk: giving patients opportunities to choose whether to engage in conversations about EoL whilst being sensitive to their communication needs, preferences and state of readiness for such dialogue

Person reference as a trouble source in dysarthric talk-in-interaction

This chapter provides an analysis of talk between people with acquired motor speech disorders (dysarthria) and family members. Using conversation analytical principles it focuses on how person references are treated as trouble sources in everyday interaction, how they arise and are collaboratively managed. Following a review of relevant literature we present a detailed examination of person references produced by people with dysarthria in conversation with family members. We will show that person references are vulnerable to becoming trouble sources given their potential ambiguity or relatively weak relationship to immediately prior talk

News Interviews: Clayman and Heritage’s The News Interview

News interviews: Clayman and Heritage’s ‘The News Interview

Police Strategies and Suspect Responses in Real-Life Serious Crime Interviews

This research focuses exclusively on real-life taped interviews with serious crime suspects and examines the strategies used and types of questions asked by police, and suspects’ responses to these. The information source was audio-tape-recorded interviews with 56 suspects. These recordings were obtained from 11 police services across England and Wales and were analysed using a specially designed coding frame. It was found that interviewers employed a range of strategies with presentation of evidence and challenge the most frequently observed. Closed questions were by far the most frequently used, and open questions, although less frequent, were found to occur more during the opening phases of the interviews. The frequency of ineffective question types (e.g. negative, repetitive, multiple) was low. A number of significant associations were observed between interviewer strategies and suspect responses. Rapport/empathy and open-type questions were associated with an increased likelihood of suspects admitting the offence whilst describing trauma, and negative questions were associated with a decreased likelihood

Taking a Proposal Seriously : Orientations to Agenda and Agency in Support Workers’ Responses to Client Proposals

While joint decision-making is regularly launched by a proposal, it is the recipients’ responses that crucially influence the proposal outcome. This chapter examines how support workers respond to the proposals made by clients during rehabilitation group meetings at the Clubhouse. Drawing on a collection of 180 client-initiated proposal sequences, the paper describes two dilemmas that the support workers face when seeking to take client proposals “seriously.” The first concerns the meeting’s agenda and consists of a tension between providing recognition for the individual client and encouraging collective participation. The second dilemma has to do with agency and consists of a tension between focusing on the client as the originator of the proposal and avoiding treating him or her alone accountable for it. The analysis of these dilemmas contributes to a deeper understanding of group decision-making, in general, while these findings have specific relevance in mental health rehabilitation.While joint decision-making is regularly launched by a proposal, it is the recipients’ responses that crucially influence the proposal outcome. This chapter examines how support workers respond to the proposals made by clients during rehabilitation group meetings at the Clubhouse. Drawing on a collection of 180 client-initiated proposal sequences, the paper describes two dilemmas that the support workers face when seeking to take client proposals “seriously.” The first concerns the meeting’s agenda and consists of a tension between providing recognition for the individual client and encouraging collective participation. The second dilemma has to do with agency and consists of a tension between focusing on the client as the originator of the proposal and avoiding treating him or her alone accountable for it. The analysis of these dilemmas contributes to a deeper understanding of group decision-making, in general, while these findings have specific relevance in mental health rehabilitation.Peer reviewe

'I was just gobsmacked': care workers responses to BBC Panoramas 'Undercover care: the abuse exposed': invoking mental states as a means of distancing from abusive practices

This paper draws upon discourse analytic techniques and discursive psychology to examine how care workers build accounts of viewing the BBC Panorama programme “Undercover Care: The Abuse Exposed” which graphically documented the abuse of people with learning disabilities in a residential care setting. 56 interviews were conducted as part of a project concerning adult safeguarding. The analysis considers how careworkers report their reactions and the interactional strategies they use to construct themselves as shocked and disbelieving and thus, as oppositional to the extreme practices in the programme. Their role as careworkers, and therefore as ‘insiders’ of the industry that allowed such abuse to happen, makes matters of stake and agency live issues for this particular group; and constructions of ‘shock’ and ‘disbelief’ are potential ways for participants to distance themselves from the abuse shown in the programme. More broadly, these data show how the invocation of mental states contributes to the management of other discursive business, namely, that of fending off any association with the aforementioned extreme practices

Promoting Client Participation and Constructing Decisions in Mental Health Rehabilitation Meetings

The chapter analyzes practices by which support workers promote client participation in mental health rehabilitation meetings at the Clubhouse. While promoting client participation, the support workers also need to ascertain that at least some decisions get constructed during the meetings. This combination of goals—promoting participation and constructing decisions—leads to a series of dilemmatic practices, the dynamics of which the chapter focuses on analyzing. The support workers may treat clients’ turns retrospectively as proposals, even if the status of these turns as such is ambiguous. In the face of a lack of recipient uptake, the support workers may remind the clients about their epistemic access to the content of the proposal or pursue their agreement or commitment to the idea. These practices involve the support workers carrying primary responsibility over the unfolding of interaction, which is argued to compromise the jointness of the decision-making outcome.The chapter analyzes practices by which support workers promote client participation in mental health rehabilitation meetings at the Clubhouse. While promoting client participation, the support workers also need to ascertain that at least some decisions get constructed during the meetings. This combination of goals—promoting participation and constructing decisions—leads to a series of dilemmatic practices, the dynamics of which the chapter focuses on analyzing. The support workers may treat clients’ turns retrospectively as proposals, even if the status of these turns as such is ambiguous. In the face of a lack of recipient uptake, the support workers may remind the clients about their epistemic access to the content of the proposal or pursue their agreement or commitment to the idea. These practices involve the support workers carrying primary responsibility over the unfolding of interaction, which is argued to compromise the jointness of the decision-making outcome.Peer reviewe

Actions in Practice: On details in collections

Several of the contributions to the Lynch et al. Special issue make the claim that conversation- analytic research into epistemics is ‘routinely crafted at the expense of actual, produced and constitutive detail, and what that detail may show us’. Here, we seek to address the inappositeness of this critique by tracing precisely how it is that recognizable actions emerge from distinct practices of interaction. We begin by reviewing some of the foundational tenets of conversation-analytic theory and method – including the relationship between position and composition, and the making of collections – as these appear to be primary sources of confusion for many of the contributors to the Lynch et al. Special Issue. We then target some of the specific arguments presented in the Special Issue, including the alleged ‘over-hearer’s’ writing of metrics, the provision of so- called ‘alternative’ analyses and the supposed ‘crafting’ of generalizations in epistemics research. In addition, in light of Lynch’s more general assertion that conversation analysis (CA) has recently been experiencing a ‘rapprochement’ with what he disparagingly refers to as the ‘juggernaut’ of linguistics, we discuss the specific expertise that linguists have to offer in analyzing particular sorts of interactional detail. The article as a whole thus illustrates that, rather than being produced ‘at the expense of actual, produced and constitutive detail’, conversation-analytic findings – including its work in epistemics – are unambiguously anchored in such detail. We conclude by offering our comments as to the link between CA and linguistics more generally, arguing that this relationship has long proven to be – and indeed continues to be – a mutually beneficial one