Hollin-Pilnick2018

From emcawiki
Revision as of 07:53, 5 August 2019 by PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Gregory Hollin; Alison Pilnick; |Title=The categorisation of resistance: interpreting failure to follow a proposed line of action in the...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Hollin-Pilnick2018
BibType ARTICLE
Key Hollin-Pilnick2018
Author(s) Gregory Hollin, Alison Pilnick
Title The categorisation of resistance: interpreting failure to follow a proposed line of action in the diagnosis of autism amongst young adults
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, autism, conversation analysis, diagnosis, clinical uncertainty
Publisher
Year 2018
Language English
City
Month
Journal Sociology of Health & Illness
Volume 40
Number 7
Pages 1215–1232
URL
DOI 10.1111/1467-9566.12749
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter
Error in widget Iframe: unable to write file /home2/ogviwsmy/public_html/emcawiki/extensions/Widgets/compiled_templates/wrt6623bf477905c2_93938775

Download BibTex

Abstract

Many characteristics typical of autism, a neurodevelopmental condition characterised by socio-communicative impairments, are most evident during social interaction. Accordingly, procedures such as the Autism Diagnosis Observation Schedule (ADOS) are interactive and intended to elicit interactional impairments: a diagnosis of autism is given if interactional difficulties are attributed as a persistent quality of the individual undergoing diagnosis. This task is difficult, first, because behaviours can be interpreted in various ways and, second, because conversation breakdown may indicate a disengagement with, or resistance to, a line of conversation. Drawing upon conversation analysis, we examine seven ADOS diagnosis sessions and ask how diagnosticians distinguish between interactional resistance as, on the one hand, a diagnostic indicator and, on the other, as a reasonable choice from a range of possible responses. We find evidence of various forms of resistance during ADOS sessions, but it is a resistance to a line of conversational action that is often determined to be indicative of autism. However, and as we show, this attribution of resistance can be ambiguous. We conclude by arguing for reflexive practice during any diagnosis where talk is the problem, and for a commitment to acknowledge the potential impact of diagnostic procedures themselves upon results.

Notes