Difference between revisions of "Schriver-etal2019"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Karen Nissen Schriver; Niels Buus; Camilla Blach Rossen; |Title=Reflective practices in Open Dialogue meetings: Reporting and inferentia...")
 
 
Line 9: Line 9:
 
|Journal=Journal of Pragmatics
 
|Journal=Journal of Pragmatics
 
|Volume=146
 
|Volume=146
|Pages=9-31
+
|Pages=9–31
|URL=https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.03.007
+
|URL=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378216618306015
 
|DOI=10.1016/j.pragma.2019.03.007
 
|DOI=10.1016/j.pragma.2019.03.007
|Abstract=This paper reports a conversation analytic study of video-recorded, Open Dialogue psy-
+
|Abstract=This paper reports a conversation analytic study of video-recorded, Open Dialogue psychotherapy sessions. Open Dialogue sessions are organized as network meetings between a client, members of the client’s social network, and varying mental health professionals. In the analysis, we focus on a 10-min “reflection” taking place at the end of each network meeting, where two ‘reflecting’ therapists assess and comment on what was said in the first part of the meeting. First, we describe two types of ‘my side tellings’ found in the reflections. In ‘reporting my side tellings’, the ‘reflectants’ claim to report what they have heard the clients say during the meeting. In ‘inferring my side tellings’, the reflectants claim to present their own cognitive connotations and points of view. Second, we show how these two strategies may be related to ‘recognition’ and ‘interpretation’ as have been described in earlier research on psychotherapy. The empirical findings are discussed in relation to my side tellings in everyday conversation, and to the therapeutic context in particular. My side tellings can be viewed as strategies for expressing both caution and authority when it comes to representing the client’s reality, and they may help represent the different ‘voices’ in the sessions.
chotherapy sessions. Open Dialogue sessions are organized as network meetings between
 
a client, members of the client’s social network, and varying mental health professionals.
 
In the analysis, we focus on a 10-min “reflection” taking place at the end of each network
 
meeting, where two ‘reflecting’ therapists assess and comment on what was said in the
 
first part of the meeting. First, we describe two types of ‘my side tellings’ found in the
 
reflections. In ‘reporting my side tellings’,the ‘reflectants’ claim to report what they have
 
heard the clients say during the meeting. In ‘inferring my side tellings’, the reflectants
 
claim to present their own cognitive connotations and points of view. Second, we show
 
how these two strategies may be related to ‘recognition’ and ‘interpretation’ as have been
 
described in earlier research on psychotherapy. The empirical findings are discussed in
 
relation to my side tellings in everyday conversation, and to the therapeutic context in
 
particular. My side tellings can be viewed as strategies for expressing both caution and
 
authority when it comes to representing the client’s reality, and they may help represent
 
the different ‘voices’ in the sessions.
 
 
}}
 
}}

Latest revision as of 08:39, 16 January 2020

Schriver-etal2019
BibType ARTICLE
Key Schriver-etal2019
Author(s) Karen Nissen Schriver, Niels Buus, Camilla Blach Rossen
Title Reflective practices in Open Dialogue meetings: Reporting and inferential ‘My side tellings’
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, Mental health, Psychotherapy, Conversation analysis, My side tellings, Open Dialogue
Publisher
Year 2019
Language English
City
Month
Journal Journal of Pragmatics
Volume 146
Number
Pages 9–31
URL Link
DOI 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.03.007
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

This paper reports a conversation analytic study of video-recorded, Open Dialogue psychotherapy sessions. Open Dialogue sessions are organized as network meetings between a client, members of the client’s social network, and varying mental health professionals. In the analysis, we focus on a 10-min “reflection” taking place at the end of each network meeting, where two ‘reflecting’ therapists assess and comment on what was said in the first part of the meeting. First, we describe two types of ‘my side tellings’ found in the reflections. In ‘reporting my side tellings’, the ‘reflectants’ claim to report what they have heard the clients say during the meeting. In ‘inferring my side tellings’, the reflectants claim to present their own cognitive connotations and points of view. Second, we show how these two strategies may be related to ‘recognition’ and ‘interpretation’ as have been described in earlier research on psychotherapy. The empirical findings are discussed in relation to my side tellings in everyday conversation, and to the therapeutic context in particular. My side tellings can be viewed as strategies for expressing both caution and authority when it comes to representing the client’s reality, and they may help represent the different ‘voices’ in the sessions.

Notes