显示知道

Leealaura Leskelä
{"title":"显示知道","authors":"Leealaura Leskelä","doi":"10.1558/jircd.19075","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: This article examines how persons with intellectual disabilities and professionals working with them manage interactionally challenging situations in which they negotiate epistemic authority. In each situation, the topic of the talk concerns something the person with intellectual disability knows best, such as their plans and hopes. Persons with intellectual disabilities are, thus, expected to show more knowledge about the topic than the professionals.\nMethod: The database for this study consisted of qualitative analysis of 16 videorecorded dyadic conversations between 12 persons with intellectual disabilities and 11 professional co-participants. The methodological approach taken was conversation analysis.\nResults. Epistemic negotiations turned out to be quite difficult for the interactants. In these situations, the professionals resorted to three practices called renewed requests for confirmations, indirect challenging, and open challenge, which had different impacts on the epistemic authority and full participation of the persons with intellectual disabilities.\nDiscussion and conclusion: None of the practices proved to be unequivocally better or worse than the others, but all had features that seemed both to strengthen and to weaken full participation. The results of the study can also be used to foster professionals’ practical knowledge of how to deal with interactionally challenging situations in conversations with their clients.","PeriodicalId":52222,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Showing knowing\",\"authors\":\"Leealaura Leskelä\",\"doi\":\"10.1558/jircd.19075\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose: This article examines how persons with intellectual disabilities and professionals working with them manage interactionally challenging situations in which they negotiate epistemic authority. In each situation, the topic of the talk concerns something the person with intellectual disability knows best, such as their plans and hopes. Persons with intellectual disabilities are, thus, expected to show more knowledge about the topic than the professionals.\\nMethod: The database for this study consisted of qualitative analysis of 16 videorecorded dyadic conversations between 12 persons with intellectual disabilities and 11 professional co-participants. The methodological approach taken was conversation analysis.\\nResults. Epistemic negotiations turned out to be quite difficult for the interactants. In these situations, the professionals resorted to three practices called renewed requests for confirmations, indirect challenging, and open challenge, which had different impacts on the epistemic authority and full participation of the persons with intellectual disabilities.\\nDiscussion and conclusion: None of the practices proved to be unequivocally better or worse than the others, but all had features that seemed both to strengthen and to weaken full participation. The results of the study can also be used to foster professionals’ practical knowledge of how to deal with interactionally challenging situations in conversations with their clients.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52222,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1558/jircd.19075\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1558/jircd.19075","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的:本文探讨了智障人士和与他们一起工作的专业人员如何处理他们在协商认知权威时遇到的具有互动挑战性的情况。在每种情况下,谈话的主题都与智障人士最了解的事情有关,比如他们的计划和希望。因此,智障人士应该比专业人士表现出更多的知识。方法:本研究的数据库包括对12名智障人士和11名专业参与者之间16次视频记录的二元对话的定性分析。所采取的方法是谈话分析。后果事实证明,认识论谈判对互动者来说相当困难。在这种情况下,专业人员采取了三种做法,即再次请求确认、间接挑战和公开挑战,这三种做法对智障人士的认识权威和充分参与产生了不同的影响。讨论和结论:事实证明,没有一种做法明显比其他做法好或坏,但所有做法的特点似乎都加强和削弱了充分参与。研究结果还可用于培养专业人士在与客户交谈时如何应对具有互动挑战性的情况的实用知识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Showing knowing
Purpose: This article examines how persons with intellectual disabilities and professionals working with them manage interactionally challenging situations in which they negotiate epistemic authority. In each situation, the topic of the talk concerns something the person with intellectual disability knows best, such as their plans and hopes. Persons with intellectual disabilities are, thus, expected to show more knowledge about the topic than the professionals. Method: The database for this study consisted of qualitative analysis of 16 videorecorded dyadic conversations between 12 persons with intellectual disabilities and 11 professional co-participants. The methodological approach taken was conversation analysis. Results. Epistemic negotiations turned out to be quite difficult for the interactants. In these situations, the professionals resorted to three practices called renewed requests for confirmations, indirect challenging, and open challenge, which had different impacts on the epistemic authority and full participation of the persons with intellectual disabilities. Discussion and conclusion: None of the practices proved to be unequivocally better or worse than the others, but all had features that seemed both to strengthen and to weaken full participation. The results of the study can also be used to foster professionals’ practical knowledge of how to deal with interactionally challenging situations in conversations with their clients.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders
Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders Social Sciences-Linguistics and Language
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
期刊最新文献
Collaborative turn-construction practices of people with primary progressive aphasia and their family conversation partners Using conversation analysis to identify unresponsiveness in peer interactions in inclusive groups Should they stay or should they go? Features of answers to questions about recent events by people with mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease, and healthy controls Facilitating participation in an online dance class for people living with dementia
×
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