Difference between revisions of "Antaki2013"
SaulAlbert (talk | contribs) m (SaulAlbert moved page Antaki two 2013 to Antaki2013: Because of limitations of the emcawiki software, and its compatibility with the BibteX format, we can't have spaces or special characters in page names and BibTeX keys... so we go for Author...) |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
||
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
− | | | + | |BibType=ARTICLE |
− | | | + | |Author(s)=Charles Antaki; |
|Title=Two conversational practices for encouraging adults with intellectual disabilities to reflect on their activities | |Title=Two conversational practices for encouraging adults with intellectual disabilities to reflect on their activities | ||
− | + | |Tag(s)=Conversation Analysis; deliberately incomplete utterances; displays; epistemic asymmetry; hinting; knowledge; organization; reflection; test questions | |
− | |Tag(s)= | + | |Key=Antaki2013 |
− | | | ||
|Year=2013 | |Year=2013 | ||
− | |||
|Journal=Journal of Intellectual Disability Research | |Journal=Journal of Intellectual Disability Research | ||
|Volume=57 | |Volume=57 | ||
|Number=6 | |Number=6 | ||
|Pages=580–588 | |Pages=580–588 | ||
+ | |URL=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01572.x/abstract | ||
|DOI=10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01572.x | |DOI=10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01572.x | ||
|Note=WOS:000318951700008 | |Note=WOS:000318951700008 | ||
|Abstract=Background Staff can encourage adults with intellectual disabilities to reflect on their experiences in a number of ways. Not all are equally successful interactionally. Methods Conversation Analysis is used to examine c. 30h of recordings made at two service-provider agencies. Results I identify two practices for soliciting reflection: both start with open-ended test' questions, but they differ on how these are followed up. A more interrogatory practice is to follow up with alternatives and yes/no questions. A more facilitative practice is to give hints and elaborate the replies. Conclusions I discuss the differences between the two practices in terms of the institutional agendas that guide the staff's interactional routines. With regard to the more successful one, I note the sensitivity of using hints' when asking about clients' own experiences. | |Abstract=Background Staff can encourage adults with intellectual disabilities to reflect on their experiences in a number of ways. Not all are equally successful interactionally. Methods Conversation Analysis is used to examine c. 30h of recordings made at two service-provider agencies. Results I identify two practices for soliciting reflection: both start with open-ended test' questions, but they differ on how these are followed up. A more interrogatory practice is to follow up with alternatives and yes/no questions. A more facilitative practice is to give hints and elaborate the replies. Conclusions I discuss the differences between the two practices in terms of the institutional agendas that guide the staff's interactional routines. With regard to the more successful one, I note the sensitivity of using hints' when asking about clients' own experiences. | ||
}} | }} |
Latest revision as of 10:45, 1 December 2019
Antaki2013 | |
---|---|
BibType | ARTICLE |
Key | Antaki2013 |
Author(s) | Charles Antaki |
Title | Two conversational practices for encouraging adults with intellectual disabilities to reflect on their activities |
Editor(s) | |
Tag(s) | Conversation Analysis, deliberately incomplete utterances, displays, epistemic asymmetry, hinting, knowledge, organization, reflection, test questions |
Publisher | |
Year | 2013 |
Language | |
City | |
Month | |
Journal | Journal of Intellectual Disability Research |
Volume | 57 |
Number | 6 |
Pages | 580–588 |
URL | Link |
DOI | 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01572.x |
ISBN | |
Organization | |
Institution | |
School | |
Type | |
Edition | |
Series | |
Howpublished | |
Book title | |
Chapter |
Abstract
Background Staff can encourage adults with intellectual disabilities to reflect on their experiences in a number of ways. Not all are equally successful interactionally. Methods Conversation Analysis is used to examine c. 30h of recordings made at two service-provider agencies. Results I identify two practices for soliciting reflection: both start with open-ended test' questions, but they differ on how these are followed up. A more interrogatory practice is to follow up with alternatives and yes/no questions. A more facilitative practice is to give hints and elaborate the replies. Conclusions I discuss the differences between the two practices in terms of the institutional agendas that guide the staff's interactional routines. With regard to the more successful one, I note the sensitivity of using hints' when asking about clients' own experiences.
Notes
WOS:000318951700008