Difference between revisions of "Turowetz-Maynard2019"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Jason Turowetz; Douglas W. Maynard; |Title=Documenting diagnosis: testing, labelling, and the production of medical records in an autis...")
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{BibEntry
 
{{BibEntry
 
|BibType=ARTICLE
 
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Author(s)=Jason Turowetz; Douglas W. Maynard;
+
|Author(s)=Jason Turowetz; Douglas W. Maynard;
 
|Title=Documenting diagnosis: testing, labelling, and the production of medical records in an autism clinic
 
|Title=Documenting diagnosis: testing, labelling, and the production of medical records in an autism clinic
 
|Tag(s)=EMCA; autism; interaction; diagnosis; conversation analysis; standardization; medical records
 
|Tag(s)=EMCA; autism; interaction; diagnosis; conversation analysis; standardization; medical records
Line 11: Line 11:
 
|Number=6
 
|Number=6
 
|Pages=1023–1039
 
|Pages=1023–1039
 +
|URL=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-9566.12882
 
|DOI=10.1111/1467-9566.12882
 
|DOI=10.1111/1467-9566.12882
|Abstract=All diagnosis depends on communication between doctors and patients. This is
+
|Abstract=All diagnosis depends on communication between doctors and patients. This is especially so with behavioural disorders such as autism, where structured interactions involving clinicians and children (e.g. standardised tests) play a key role in diagnosing the condition. Although such interactions are collaborative, we find that when reporting test results, clinicians, following administrative protocols, routinely gloss over the embodied interactions constitutive of testing, such that autism is predicated as an inherent feature of the child. In ethnomethodological terms, this is related to the way that “accounts” (Garfinkel 1967), including diagnoses, are reflexively related to the taken‐for‐granted practices that make them objectively reportable in prevailing professional terms. These practices include how the clinicians themselves interact with children they examine, with other professionals, and with the instruments used to test a child. Examining video footage of a multi‐stage autism evaluation, along with the medical report rendering the child's diagnosis, we show how reporting practices, while addressing the administrative features of standardised testing and diagnosis, can also be examined for their grounding in an environment of tacit matters usually unavailable for inspection. We conclude by asking whether, and how, oral and written reports might re‐situate children in the concreteness of their social environments.
especially so with behavioural disorders such as autism, where structured
 
interactions involving clinicians and children (e.g. standardised tests) play a key
 
role in diagnosing the condition. Although such interactions are collaborative, we
 
find that when reporting test results, clinicians, following administrative protocols,
 
routinely gloss over the embodied interactions constitutive of testing, such that
 
autism is predicated as an inherent feature of the child. In ethnomethodological
 
terms, this is related to the way that “accounts” (Garfinkel 1967), including
 
diagnoses, are reflexively related to the taken-for-granted practices that make them
 
objectively reportable in prevailing professional terms. These practices include how
 
the clinicians themselves interact with children they examine, with other
 
professionals, and with the instruments used to test a child. Examining video
 
footage of a multi-stage autism evaluation, along with the medical report rendering
 
the child’s diagnosis, we show how reporting practices, while addressing the
 
administrative features of standardised testing and diagnosis, can also be examined
 
for their grounding in an environment of tacit matters usually unavailable for
 
inspection. We conclude by asking whether, and how, oral and written reports
 
might re-situate children in the concreteness of their social environments.
 
 
}}
 
}}

Latest revision as of 10:41, 15 January 2020

Turowetz-Maynard2019
BibType ARTICLE
Key Turowetz-Maynard2019
Author(s) Jason Turowetz, Douglas W. Maynard
Title Documenting diagnosis: testing, labelling, and the production of medical records in an autism clinic
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, autism, interaction, diagnosis, conversation analysis, standardization, medical records
Publisher
Year 2019
Language English
City
Month
Journal Sociology of Health & Illness
Volume 41
Number 6
Pages 1023–1039
URL Link
DOI 10.1111/1467-9566.12882
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

All diagnosis depends on communication between doctors and patients. This is especially so with behavioural disorders such as autism, where structured interactions involving clinicians and children (e.g. standardised tests) play a key role in diagnosing the condition. Although such interactions are collaborative, we find that when reporting test results, clinicians, following administrative protocols, routinely gloss over the embodied interactions constitutive of testing, such that autism is predicated as an inherent feature of the child. In ethnomethodological terms, this is related to the way that “accounts” (Garfinkel 1967), including diagnoses, are reflexively related to the taken‐for‐granted practices that make them objectively reportable in prevailing professional terms. These practices include how the clinicians themselves interact with children they examine, with other professionals, and with the instruments used to test a child. Examining video footage of a multi‐stage autism evaluation, along with the medical report rendering the child's diagnosis, we show how reporting practices, while addressing the administrative features of standardised testing and diagnosis, can also be examined for their grounding in an environment of tacit matters usually unavailable for inspection. We conclude by asking whether, and how, oral and written reports might re‐situate children in the concreteness of their social environments.

Notes