Conversation analysis

Abstract: We examine methodologies and methods that apply to multi-level research in the learning sciences. In so doing we describe how multiple theoretical frameworks inform the use of different methods that apply to social levels involving space-time relationships that are not accessible consciously as social life is enacted. Most of the methods involve analyses of video and audio files. Within a framework of interpretive research, we present a methodology of event-oriented social science, which employs video ethnography, narrative, conversation analysis, prosody analysis, and facial expression analysis. We illustrate multi-method research in an examination of the role of emotions in teaching and learning. Conversation and prosody analyses augment facial expression analysis and ethnography. We conclude with an exploration of ways in which multi-level studies can be complemented with neural level analyses.

Abstract: The article analyses the decision-making process between doctors and parents of babies in neonatal intensive care. In particular, it focuses on cases in which the decision concerns the redirection of care from full intensive care to palliative care at the end of life. Thirty one families were recruited from a neonatal intensive care unit in England and their formal interactions with the doctor recorded. The conversations were transcribed and analysed using conversation analysis. Analysis focused on sequences in which decisions about the redirection of care were initiated and progressed. Two distinct communicative approaches to decision-making were used by doctors: ‘making recommendations’ and ‘providing options’. Different trajectories for parental involvement in decision-making were afforded by each design, as well as differences in terms of the alignments, or conflicts, between doctors and parents. ‘Making recommendations’ led to misalignment and reduced opportunities for questions and collaboration; ‘providing options’ led to an aligned approach with opportunities for questions and fuller participation in the decision-making process. The findings are discussed in the context of clinical uncertainty, moral responsibility and the implications for medical communication training and guidance. A Virtual Abstract of this paper can be accessed at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyuymxDNupk&feature=youtu.be

Abstract: BACKGROUND Proponents of recent models of the doctor-patient relationship, such as concordance and shared decision making, have emphasized mutuality rather than paternalism or consumerism. However, little attention has been paid so far to the ways in which this might actually be achieved. OBJECTIVES The aims of this study were to establish whether there are any rules governing the opening sequence in general practice consultations, and to analyse the ways in which the observing or breaking of such rules contributes to the development of mutuality between patients and GPs. METHODS The paper is based on a qualitative study of 62 patients consulting 20 GPs in 20 practices in the Midlands and Southeast of England. Consultations were audio recorded and transcribed; patients were interviewed before and after each consultation, and doctors were interviewed afterwards. Data were analysed using the sociological method of Conversation Analysis. The outcomes were participants' own understandings as demonstrated in their speech. RESULTS A selection rule was identified whereby doctors choose between the questions "How are you?" and "What can I do for you?" to elicit patients' concerns. Deviations from this selection rule may be either repairable or strategic. Repairable deviance is based on misunderstanding between participants, and is resolved interactionally, usually by patients. Strategic deviance is the attempt by doctors to emphasize or de-emphasize certain aspects of their relationships with particular patients. Deviations from the rule which are not repaired lead to misalignment between participants. CONCLUSION In relation to concordance, or shared decision making more generally, this analysis demonstrates that alignment or misalignment between participants will occur before any discussion about treatment options occurs. In cases of misalignment, concordance will be much harder to achieve. Mutuality is an achievement of both patients and doctors, and requires the active participation of patients.