Difference between revisions of "Ekberg2015"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) m |
SaulAlbert (talk | contribs) m (Text replace - "Conversation analysis" to "Conversation Analysis") |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Author(s)=Katie Ekberg; Amanda LeCouteur; | |Author(s)=Katie Ekberg; Amanda LeCouteur; | ||
|Title=Clients' resistance to therapists' proposals: Managing epistemic and deontic status | |Title=Clients' resistance to therapists' proposals: Managing epistemic and deontic status | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation Analysis; Psychotherapy; Client resistance; Epistemics; Deontics; Proposals; |
|Key=Ekberg2015 | |Key=Ekberg2015 | ||
|Year=2015 | |Year=2015 | ||
Revision as of 06:28, 16 May 2018
| Ekberg2015 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Ekberg2015 |
| Author(s) | Katie Ekberg, Amanda LeCouteur |
| Title | Clients' resistance to therapists' proposals: Managing epistemic and deontic status |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Conversation Analysis, Psychotherapy, Client resistance, Epistemics, Deontics, Proposals |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2015 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Journal of Pragmatics |
| Volume | 90 |
| Number | |
| Pages | 12 - 25 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.10.004 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Abstract This paper uses conversation analysis (CA) to examine client resistance in Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) sessions for clients with depression. Analysis focuses on clients' responses to therapists' proposals for behavioural change. Typically, clients displayed active resistance to such proposals by drawing on one of three types of 'inability to comply' account: (1) appeals to restrictive situational factors; (2) appeals to fixed physical states; (3) assertions of previous effort to do what the therapist was proposing. Each type of account involved clients utilising knowledge from personal experience as their reason for resisting the proposal. In formulating their accounts, clients' turns were designed in ways that displayed their epistemic stance in relation to the situation under discussion. By indexing their superior epistemic authority in the domain of their experience, clients were able to invoke their ultimate right to reject the therapist's proposed course of action. The implications for \CBT\ practice are discussed.
Notes
