Speech Codes Theory

Speech codes theory is an account of communication as a deeply cultured human activity. The theory, and the empirical research on which it is built, demonstrate that the kinds of local knowledge people deploy to talk about—to characterize, interpret, and rationalize—their communicative conduct is indeed local, particular knowledge, and that such knowledge can be discovered and described through systematic inquiry. This article describes the key theoretical commitments of speech codes theory, identifies its six propositions, illustrates research within the tradition, and assesses its purposes

Parent perceptions of early prognostic encounters following children’s severe traumatic brain injury: ‘Locked up in this cage of absolute horror’

Little guidance exists for discussing prognosis in early acute care with parents following children’s severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). Providers’ beliefs about truth-telling can shape what is said, how it is said, and how providers respond to parents

Parent perceptions of early prognostic encounters following children’s severe traumatic brain injury: ‘Locked up in this cage of absolute horror’

OBJECTIVE: Little guidance exists for discussing prognosis in early acute care with parents following children’s severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). Providers’ beliefs about truth-telling can shape what is said, how it is said, and how providers respond to parents. METHODS: This study was part of a large qualitative study conducted in the USA (42 parents/37 families) following children’s moderate to severe TBI (2005 to 2007). Ethnography of speaking was used to analyse interviews describing early acute care following children’s severe TBI (29 parents/25 families). RESULTS: Parents perceived that: a) parents were disadvantaged by provider delivery; b) negative outcome values dominated some provider’s talk; c) truth-telling involves providers acknowledging all possibilities; d) framing the child’s prognosis with negative medical certainty when there is some uncertainty could damage parent-provider relationships; e) parents needed to remain optimistic; and, f) children’s outcomes could differ from providers’ early acute care prognostications. CONCLUSION: Parents blatantly and tacitly revealed their beliefs that providers play an important role in shaping parent reception of and synthesis of prognostic information, which constructs the family’s ability to cope and participate in shared decision-making. Negative medical certainty created a fearful or threatening environment that kept parents from being fully informed