Comparative Perspectives on Doctor-Patient Interactions 2023
| CDPI | |
|---|---|
| Type | Conference |
| Categories (tags) | EMCA, doctor-patient interaction, comparative |
| Dates | 2023/10/03 - 2023/10/05 |
| Link | https://old.linguistlist.org/issues/34/34-967.html |
| Address | |
| Geolocation | 49° 55' 34", 11° 35' 7" |
| Abstract due | 2023/05/31 |
| Submission deadline | 2023/05/31 |
| Final version due | |
| Notification date | 2023/06/30 |
| Tweet | CFP for Conference "Comparative Perspectives on Doctor-Patient Interactions", Bayreuth Uni & Digital, Oct 3-5 2023; deadline May 31 for abstracts |
| Export for iCalendar | |
Comparative Perspectives on Doctor-Patient Interactions 2023:
Details:
“Comparative Perspectives on Doctor-Patient Interactions” (CDPI) is a hybrid international conference organised by the research group linkage team on the project “Interactive Dynamics and Contexts of Nigerian and German Doctor-Patient-Encounters” (funded by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation) to be hosted at the University of Bayreuth, Germany and in the virtual space, from 3rd to 5th of October 2023. Within Conversation Analysis (CA) and Linguistic Pragmatics, the investigation of doctor-patient interactions has become one of the most dominant branches of research and “has expanded to include interactions in a variety of specialty care settings as well as in allied fields such as pharmacy and dentistry” (Teas Gill & Roberts 2013: 575). While studies in Medical CA (e.g., Heritage 2017, Fatigante, et al. 2020) or Medical Pragmatics (e.g., Odebunmi 2021) usually include – at least implicitly – a comparative perspective in the way that they relate their own results to previous findings in corresponding or similar interaction types, only few studies have explicitly compared conversational phenomena across data sets originating from different linguistic/cultural/national contexts until now. Exceptions are e.g. the studies by Bergen, et al. (2018) and Boluwaduro & Groß (2019). The former investigates differences between US American and British interactions with regards to the manifestation of patients’ resistance against treatment recommendation showing that distinct behavioural trends may reflect distinct cultural norms of good-practices. Boluwaduro & Groß (2019) compare the conversational impact of the “How are you (doing)” opening question in Nigerian and German HIV consultations and conversely show that one identical practice might have distinct conversational consequences and thus contextualise distinct norms.
In order to shift the attention to this promising research area we call for contributions that explicitly take a comparative perspective on doctor-patient interactions within Medical Conversation Analysis, Discourse Analysis, Linguistic Pragmatics, Sociolinguistics, Corpus Linguistics and Health Communication. We look forward to proposals that explore doctor-patient interactions focusing on interactional phenomena from a comparative view in the sense that they compare linguistic choices, conversational practices and actions within the same interaction type (such as HIV consultations, first consultations at the general practitioner etc.) in different linguistic/cultural/national contexts.
Comparative investigations may also be triggered by emphasising the contextualization of social factors like gender, social class and educational background, the role of interpreter-mediation in multilingual interactions compared to monolingual interactions, as well as the relevance of the medical setting (in vs. out patient etc.). We welcome contributions which relate their analyses to theoretical concepts of health science, such as paternalism/humanism, shared decision making, informed choice (e.g., Albus & Koerfer 2015), asymmetry (e.g., Pilnick & Dingwall 2011), subjective illness theories (e.g., Birkner & Vlassenko 2015) or to pragmatic theories, including face theories (e.g., Arundale 2020; Goffman 1967), politeness theories (Locher & Watts 2015; Kadar & Haugh 2013; Brown & Levinson 1978, identity theories (e.g., Simon 2004), common ground theories (e.g., Clark & Brennan 1991; Kecskes & Zhang 2009) etc. Abstracts (max. 350 words, plus references) should clearly indicate the objective(s), methodology and results of the study. Presentations will typically be scheduled in sessions of 30 minutes allocated to each individual presentation. We also plan a poster session conducted in the virtual space. Submissions should be sent to the conference committee via email at CDPI@uni-bayreuth.de, and should include information whether they are meant for an oral presentation or a poster.
Conference committee: Tosin Adeyehun (University of Ibadan/Nigeria), Oluwaseun Amusa (University of Ibadan/Nigeria), Alexandra Groß (University of Bayreuth/Germany), Ahmad Izadi (University of Bayreuth/Germany and Islamic Azad University, Abadan, Iran.)
Important information: ● Conference venue: Hybrid meeting, hosted at the University of Bayreuth and in the virtual space (via zoom) ● Conference dates: from 3rd to 5th of October 2023 ● Deadline for abstract submission: 31th May 2023 ● Notification of acceptance: 30th June 2023 ● Conference language: English ● Registration fee: None (The conference is funded by Alexander von Humboldt Foundation)
References: Arundale, R. (2020). Communicating and relating: Constituting face in everyday interacting. Oxford University Press. Bergen, C., Stivers, T., Barnes, R. K., Heritage, J., McCabe, R., Thompson, L., & Toerien, M. (2018). Closing the Deal: A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Treatment Resistance. In: Health Communication 33(11), 1377-1388. Birkner, K., & Vlassenko, I. (2015). Subjektive Theorien zu Krankheit und Gesundheit. In A. Busch, & T. Spranz-Fogasy (eds.). Handbuch Sprache und Medizin, de Gruyter, 137-155. Boluwaduro, E., Groß, A. (2019). "How are you doing?" - "Great!" : Negotiating mundane, medical and moral dimensions of patients' wellbeing in opening sequences of German and Nigerian HIV consultations. In: A. Groß, R. Pech, I. Vlassenko (eds.): HIV/AIDS : Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven. LIT, 43-76. Brown, P., & Levinson, S.C. (1978). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. Clark, H. & Brennan, S. (1991). Grounding in communication. In: L. Resnick, J. Levine, and S. Teasley (eds.). Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition. American Psychological Association. 127–149. Fatigante, M., Heritage, J., Alby, F., Zucchermaglio, C. (2020). Presenting treatment options in breast cancer consultations: Advice and consent in Italian medical care. In: Social Science & Medicine 266, 113175. Heritage, J. (2017). Online Commentary in Primary Care and Emergency Room Settings. In: Acute Medicine & Surgery 4, 12-18. Kádár, D. & Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding politeness. Cambridge University Press. Kecskes, I., & Zhang, W. (2009). Activating, seeking and creating common ground- a sociocognitive approach. In: Pragmatics & Cognition 17.2. Koerfer A, Albus C (2015). Dialogische Entscheidungsfindung zwischen Arzt und Patient. In: A. Busch, T. Spranz-Fogasy (eds.). Handbuch Sprache in der Medizin. De Gruyter, 116-153. Locher, M. & Watts. R. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. In: Journal of Politeness: Language, Behavior, Culture, 1, 9-33. Pilnick, A. & Dingwall, R. (2011). On the remarkable persistence of asymmetry in doctor/patient interaction: A critical review. In: Social Science and Medicine 72(8), 1374-82. Odebunmi, A. (2021). Negotiating patients’ therapy proposals in paternalistic and humanistic clinics. In: Pragmatics 31(3), 430–454. Simon, B. (2004): Identity in modern society: A social psychological perspective. Blackwell. Teas Gill, V., Roberts, F. (2013). Conversation Analysis in Medicine. In: J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (eds.). Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Wiley-Blackwell, 575-592.
