Difference between revisions of "Martinez2014a"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Alexis Ibarra Martínez |Title=Practices of Argumentation in a Community of Therapists: Constructing a Dilemma |Tag(s)=discursive psycho...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
|Author(s)=Alexis Ibarra Martínez | |Author(s)=Alexis Ibarra Martínez | ||
| − | |Title= | + | |Title=Prácticas de argumentación en una comunidad de terapeutas: la construcción de un dilema |
|Tag(s)=discursive psychology; ethnomethodology; rhetoric; dilemmas; professional interaction; collaborative therapy | |Tag(s)=discursive psychology; ethnomethodology; rhetoric; dilemmas; professional interaction; collaborative therapy | ||
|Key=Martinez2014a | |Key=Martinez2014a | ||
|Year=2014 | |Year=2014 | ||
| + | |Language=Spanish | ||
|Journal=Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research | |Journal=Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research | ||
|Volume=15 | |Volume=15 | ||
|Number=3 | |Number=3 | ||
| + | |Pages=Article 23 | ||
|URL=http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/2184/3723 | |URL=http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/2184/3723 | ||
| − | |Note= | + | |Note=Practices of argumentation in a community of therapists: constructing a dilemma |
| − | + | ||
| + | The research reported in this article adopted a discursive perspective, focusing on the production of arguments in interaction between therapists: that is, intersubjective coordination as it unfolds through narrative sequences. The key premise is that people constitute their social reality through the active use of language. The data consist of tape-recordings of meetings between therapists reflecting on their clinical practice. Therapists' descriptions of their clinical work can be divided into two different argumentative positions: one labeled "collaborative," the other labeled "directive." Analysis focuses on how therapists justify and criticize both positions. It is through this process of argumentation that therapists advocate for a collaborative stance, while at the same time keeping a directive stance even though it represents a clash with their preferred values. Therapists resolve this opposition by creating arguments oriented to justify the adoption of a directive stance while recognizing its undesirability. These findings are discussed in terms of the notion of dilemma as a rhetorical construction which enables and constrains the ways of thinking within a community of therapists. | ||
| + | |Abstract=Esta investigación adopta una perspectiva discursiva que se centra en la producción de argumentos en la interacción. La premisa es que las personas constituyen su realidad social a través del uso activo del lenguaje. El corpus de datos está conformado por las grabaciones de los encuentros entre terapeutas que reflexionan sobre su práctica clínica. Las descripciones que las terapeutas formulan sobre su trabajo pueden separarse en una postura que ellas denominan "colaborativa" y otra que llaman "directiva". El foco de análisis son las formas argumentación que ellas producen para justificar o criticar cada una de estas posturas. Las terapeutas abogan a favor de una postura colaborativa, aún así consideran tomar posiciones directivas a pesar de que representa una contradicción con sus valores. Las terapeutas resuelven esta oposición con argumentos: justifican la adopción de una postura directiva al mismo tiempo que reconocen que es indeseable. Estos hallazgos se analizan a partir de la noción de dilema como una construcción retórica que posibilita y constriñe las formas de pensamiento de una comunidad. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 08:29, 9 December 2019
| Martinez2014a | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Martinez2014a |
| Author(s) | Alexis Ibarra Martínez |
| Title | Prácticas de argumentación en una comunidad de terapeutas: la construcción de un dilema |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | discursive psychology, ethnomethodology, rhetoric, dilemmas, professional interaction, collaborative therapy |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2014 |
| Language | Spanish |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research |
| Volume | 15 |
| Number | 3 |
| Pages | Article 23 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Esta investigación adopta una perspectiva discursiva que se centra en la producción de argumentos en la interacción. La premisa es que las personas constituyen su realidad social a través del uso activo del lenguaje. El corpus de datos está conformado por las grabaciones de los encuentros entre terapeutas que reflexionan sobre su práctica clínica. Las descripciones que las terapeutas formulan sobre su trabajo pueden separarse en una postura que ellas denominan "colaborativa" y otra que llaman "directiva". El foco de análisis son las formas argumentación que ellas producen para justificar o criticar cada una de estas posturas. Las terapeutas abogan a favor de una postura colaborativa, aún así consideran tomar posiciones directivas a pesar de que representa una contradicción con sus valores. Las terapeutas resuelven esta oposición con argumentos: justifican la adopción de una postura directiva al mismo tiempo que reconocen que es indeseable. Estos hallazgos se analizan a partir de la noción de dilema como una construcción retórica que posibilita y constriñe las formas de pensamiento de una comunidad.
Notes
Practices of argumentation in a community of therapists: constructing a dilemma
The research reported in this article adopted a discursive perspective, focusing on the production of arguments in interaction between therapists: that is, intersubjective coordination as it unfolds through narrative sequences. The key premise is that people constitute their social reality through the active use of language. The data consist of tape-recordings of meetings between therapists reflecting on their clinical practice. Therapists' descriptions of their clinical work can be divided into two different argumentative positions: one labeled "collaborative," the other labeled "directive." Analysis focuses on how therapists justify and criticize both positions. It is through this process of argumentation that therapists advocate for a collaborative stance, while at the same time keeping a directive stance even though it represents a clash with their preferred values. Therapists resolve this opposition by creating arguments oriented to justify the adoption of a directive stance while recognizing its undesirability. These findings are discussed in terms of the notion of dilemma as a rhetorical construction which enables and constrains the ways of thinking within a community of therapists.
