“I did not know that there were problems”: government officials’ blame avoidance strategies in the Life Esidimeni Arbitration Hearings

IF 0.8 3区 文学 Q3 COMMUNICATION Text & Talk Pub Date : 2022-04-25 DOI:10.1515/text-2020-0208
S. Brokensha, T. Conradie, W. Greyling
{"title":"“I did not know that there were problems”: government officials’ blame avoidance strategies in the Life Esidimeni Arbitration Hearings","authors":"S. Brokensha, T. Conradie, W. Greyling","doi":"10.1515/text-2020-0208","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The travesty of the Life Esidimeni project in South Africa, which claimed the lives of 144 mental health users at psychiatric facilities in Gauteng between 2016 and 2017, is multifaceted. One facet involves strategies of blame avoidance designed to escape liability for the deaths that were expressed by the former Member of the Executive Council for Health and other public health officials during the Life Esidimeni Arbitration Hearings. These hearings were broadcast on state television between October 2017 and 2018, and eight samples from the hearings were analysed for specific blame avoidance strategies. Following the principles of qualitative discourse analysis, this paper extends research on blame avoidance behaviour in the public administration and policy domain, exploring three key officials’ micro- and macro-level choices of blame avoidance in the context of the arbitration hearings to develop a more comprehensive account of these strategies. A public hearing is a discourse setting that is reactionary in nature, and our findings on the micro-level, a neglected dimension of research on blame avoidance behaviour, extend our understanding of these behaviours. We propose that at least two continua for blame avoidance are relevant in this setting.","PeriodicalId":46455,"journal":{"name":"Text & Talk","volume":"43 1","pages":"291 - 312"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Text & Talk","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2020-0208","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The travesty of the Life Esidimeni project in South Africa, which claimed the lives of 144 mental health users at psychiatric facilities in Gauteng between 2016 and 2017, is multifaceted. One facet involves strategies of blame avoidance designed to escape liability for the deaths that were expressed by the former Member of the Executive Council for Health and other public health officials during the Life Esidimeni Arbitration Hearings. These hearings were broadcast on state television between October 2017 and 2018, and eight samples from the hearings were analysed for specific blame avoidance strategies. Following the principles of qualitative discourse analysis, this paper extends research on blame avoidance behaviour in the public administration and policy domain, exploring three key officials’ micro- and macro-level choices of blame avoidance in the context of the arbitration hearings to develop a more comprehensive account of these strategies. A public hearing is a discourse setting that is reactionary in nature, and our findings on the micro-level, a neglected dimension of research on blame avoidance behaviour, extend our understanding of these behaviours. We propose that at least two continua for blame avoidance are relevant in this setting.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“我不知道有问题”:政府官员在Life Esidimeni仲裁听证会上的回避策略
南非的Life Esidimeni项目在2016年至2017年期间夺走了豪登省精神病院144名心理健康使用者的生命,这是对该项目的讽刺,是多方面的。一个方面涉及旨在逃避死亡责任的逃避责任战略,前卫生执行委员会成员和其他公共卫生官员在生命委员会仲裁听证会上表达了这一点。这些听证会在2017年10月至2018年期间在国家电视台播出,并对听证会中的8个样本进行了分析,以确定具体的责任规避策略。本文遵循定性话语分析的原则,将责任回避行为的研究扩展到公共行政和政策领域,在仲裁听证会的背景下,探讨了三位关键官员在微观和宏观层面的责任回避选择,以更全面地解释这些策略。公开听证会本质上是一种反动的话语环境,而我们在微观层面上的发现,即对指责回避行为研究的一个被忽视的维度,扩展了我们对这些行为的理解。我们建议,在这种情况下,至少有两个责备回避的连续性是相关的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Text & Talk
Text & Talk Multiple-
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
16.70%
发文量
70
期刊介绍: Text & Talk (founded as TEXT in 1981) is an internationally recognized forum for interdisciplinary research in language, discourse, and communication studies, focusing, among other things, on the situational and historical nature of text/talk production; the cognitive and sociocultural processes of language practice/action; and participant-based structures of meaning negotiation and multimodal alignment. Text & Talk encourages critical debates on these and other relevant issues, spanning not only the theoretical and methodological dimensions of discourse but also their practical and socially relevant outcomes.
期刊最新文献
The effects of modal value and imperative mood on self-predicted compliance to health guidance: the case of COVID-19 “The results might not fully represent…”: Negation in the limitations sections of doctoral theses by Chinese and American students Recurrent gestures and embodied stance-taking in courtroom opening statements Turning talk into text: the representation of contemporary urban vernaculars in Swedish fiction Critical comments in the disciplines: a comparative look at peer review reports in applied linguistics and engineering
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1