Difference between revisions of "Ong2021"
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Author(s)=Ben Ong; Scott Barnes; Niels Buus | |Author(s)=Ben Ong; Scott Barnes; Niels Buus | ||
|Title=Downgrading Deontic Authority in Open Dialogue Reflection Proposals: A Conversation Analysis | |Title=Downgrading Deontic Authority in Open Dialogue Reflection Proposals: A Conversation Analysis | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Family; Therapy | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Family; Therapy; Deontics |
| − | |Key= | + | |Key=Ong2021 |
| − | |Year= | + | |Year=2021 |
|Language=English | |Language=English | ||
|Journal=Family Process | |Journal=Family Process | ||
| + | |Volume=60 | ||
| + | |Number=4 | ||
| + | |Pages=1217–1232 | ||
|URL=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/famp.12586 | |URL=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/famp.12586 | ||
|DOI=10.1111/famp.12586 | |DOI=10.1111/famp.12586 | ||
|Abstract=The Open Dialogue approach promotes collaboration with clients and families in decisions about the direction of therapy. This creates potential problems for Open Dialogue therapists who seek collaboration but also have responsibility for managing the session. Using conversation analysis, we examined 14 hours of video recordings of Open Dialogue sessions, and specifically how therapists proposed the transition to a reflecting conversation. We found that, when making proposals to reflect, therapists routinely downgrade their deontic authority (i.e., adopt a less powerful, more collaborative position). They did this through framing proposals as interrogatives, providing accounts, and by prefacing their proposals with “I’m wondering”. More heavily downgraded proposals made acceptance less salient, potentially risking transition to the reflection. These findings provide more detail on how theoretical concepts such as “collaboration” and “power” are actually displayed and negotiated in practice and can contribute to a more nuanced understanding of what constitutes Open Dialogue. | |Abstract=The Open Dialogue approach promotes collaboration with clients and families in decisions about the direction of therapy. This creates potential problems for Open Dialogue therapists who seek collaboration but also have responsibility for managing the session. Using conversation analysis, we examined 14 hours of video recordings of Open Dialogue sessions, and specifically how therapists proposed the transition to a reflecting conversation. We found that, when making proposals to reflect, therapists routinely downgrade their deontic authority (i.e., adopt a less powerful, more collaborative position). They did this through framing proposals as interrogatives, providing accounts, and by prefacing their proposals with “I’m wondering”. More heavily downgraded proposals made acceptance less salient, potentially risking transition to the reflection. These findings provide more detail on how theoretical concepts such as “collaboration” and “power” are actually displayed and negotiated in practice and can contribute to a more nuanced understanding of what constitutes Open Dialogue. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 06:56, 28 December 2021
| Ong2021 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Ong2021 |
| Author(s) | Ben Ong, Scott Barnes, Niels Buus |
| Title | Downgrading Deontic Authority in Open Dialogue Reflection Proposals: A Conversation Analysis |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Family, Therapy, Deontics |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2021 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Family Process |
| Volume | 60 |
| Number | 4 |
| Pages | 1217–1232 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1111/famp.12586 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
The Open Dialogue approach promotes collaboration with clients and families in decisions about the direction of therapy. This creates potential problems for Open Dialogue therapists who seek collaboration but also have responsibility for managing the session. Using conversation analysis, we examined 14 hours of video recordings of Open Dialogue sessions, and specifically how therapists proposed the transition to a reflecting conversation. We found that, when making proposals to reflect, therapists routinely downgrade their deontic authority (i.e., adopt a less powerful, more collaborative position). They did this through framing proposals as interrogatives, providing accounts, and by prefacing their proposals with “I’m wondering”. More heavily downgraded proposals made acceptance less salient, potentially risking transition to the reflection. These findings provide more detail on how theoretical concepts such as “collaboration” and “power” are actually displayed and negotiated in practice and can contribute to a more nuanced understanding of what constitutes Open Dialogue.
Notes
