Difference between revisions of "Antaki2013"
SaulAlbert (talk | contribs) m (Text replace - "conversation analysis" to "Conversation Analysis") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
− | |Author(s)=Charles Antaki; | + | |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)=Conversation Analysis; deliberately incomplete utterances; displays; epistemic asymmetry; hinting; knowledge; organization; reflection; test questions | ||
|Key=Antaki2013 | |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