1887
Volume 34, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In this study, we examine how support workers produce requests for concrete actions and, in this way, manage client participation in mental health rehabilitation. Drawing on Finnish rehabilitation group meetings as data and on conversation analysis, we examine how support workers design their requests for concrete action from clients, how clients respond, and how support workers deal with clients’ responses. The results reveal that support workers tend to use verbs indicating when implementing their requests, whereas clients resort to the modality of . By orienting to willingness, the support workers invoke clients’ sense of responsibility to contribute to group activities and simultaneously avoid questioning their capabilities. On the other hand, clients orient toward the underlying assumptions of social responsibility rather than to their own personal preferences. To conclude, our study demonstrates how support workers address the dilemma of increasing client participation and showing respect for client self-determination.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.20077.lin
2023-05-16
2024-05-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anthony, William A.
    2007Toward a Vision of Recovery: For Mental Health and Psychiatric Rehabilitation Services. Boston: Boston University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Austin, John L.
    1962How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bensing, Jozien
    2000 “Bridging the Gap: The Separate Worlds of Evidence-Based Medicine and Patient-Centered Medicine.” Patient Education and Counseling39 (1): 17–25. 10.1016/S0738‑3991(99)00087‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0738-3991(99)00087-7 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bilmes, Jack
    1988 “The Concept of Preference in Conversation Analysis.” Language in Society171: 161–181. 10.1017/S0047404500012744
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500012744 [Google Scholar]
  5. Brodie, Ellie, Eddie Cowling, Nina Nissen, Angela E. Paine, Véronique Jochum, and Diane Warburton
    2009Understanding Participation: A Literature Review. National Council for Voluntary Organisations. Retrieved fromwww.sp.gov.tr/upload/Sayfa/47/files/Pathways-literature-review-final-version.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson
    1987 [1978]Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  7. Clayman, Steven E.
    2002 “Sequence and Solidarity.” InAdvances in Group Processes: Group Cohesion, Trust, and Solidarity, edited byShane R. Thye, and Edward J. Lawler, 229–253. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. 10.1016/S0882‑6145(02)19009‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0882-6145(02)19009-6 [Google Scholar]
  8. Clayman, Steven E., and John Heritage
    2014 “Benefactors and Beneficiaries: Benefactive Status and Stance in the Management of Offers and Requests.” InRequesting in Social Interaction, edited byPaul Drew, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 51–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.26.03cla
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.26.03cla [Google Scholar]
  9. Clubhouse International
    Clubhouse International 2018clubhouse-intl.org
  10. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
    2014 “What Does Grammar Tell Us about Action?” Pragmatics24 (3): 623–647.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Marja Etelämäki
    2015 “Nominated Actions and Their Targeted Agents in Finnish Conversational Directives.” Journal of Pragmatics781: 7–24. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.12.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.12.010 [Google Scholar]
  12. Corrigan, Patrick W., Dale Faber, Fadwa Rashid, and Matthew Leary
    1999 “The Construct Validity of Empowerment among Consumers of Mental Health Services.” Schizophrenia Research38 (1): 77–84. 10.1016/S0920‑9964(98)00180‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0920-9964(98)00180-7 [Google Scholar]
  13. Cowan, Eric W., and Jack H. Presbury
    2000 “Meeting Client Resistance and Reactance with Reverence.” Journal of Counseling & Development78 (4): 411–419. 10.1002/j.1556‑6676.2000.tb01924.x
    https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2000.tb01924.x [Google Scholar]
  14. Cromdal, Jakob, Michael Tholander, and Karin Aronsson
    2007 “‘Doing Reluctance’: Managing Delivery of Assessments in Peer Evaluation.” InDiscursive Research in Practice: New Approaches to Psychology and Interaction, edited bySally Wiggins, and Alexa Hepburn, 203–223. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611216.011
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611216.011 [Google Scholar]
  15. Curl, Traci S., and Paul Drew
    2008 “Contingency and Action: A Comparison of Two Forms of Requesting.” Research on Language and Social Interaction41 (2): 129–153. 10.1080/08351810802028613
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810802028613 [Google Scholar]
  16. Davidson, Judy A.
    1984 “Subsequent Versions of Invitations, Offers, Requests, and Proposals Dealing with Potential or Actual Rejection.” InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, edited byJ. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 102–128. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. De las Cuevas, Carlos, Amado Rivero-Santana, Lilisbeth Perestelo-Pérez, Jeanette Pérez-Ramos, and Pedro Serrano-Aguilar
    2012 “Attitudes Toward Concordance in Psychiatry: A Comparative, Cross-Sectional Study of Psychiatric Patients and Mental Health Professionals.” BMC Psychiatry12, 53. 10.1186/1471‑244X‑12‑53
    https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-12-53 [Google Scholar]
  18. Elstad, Toril A., and Arne H. Eide
    2009 “User Participation in Community Mental Health Services: Exploring the Experiences of Users and Professionals.” Scandinavian Journal of Caring Science23 (4): 674–681. 10.1111/j.1471‑6712.2008.00660.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6712.2008.00660.x [Google Scholar]
  19. Ervin-Tripp, Susan
    1976 “Is Sybil There? The Structure of Some American English Directives.” Language in Society5 (1): 25–66. 10.1017/S0047404500006849
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006849 [Google Scholar]
  20. Framework for Recovery-Oriented Practice
    Framework for Recovery-Oriented Practice 2011 “Health, Drugs and Regions Division, Victorian Government Department of Health, Melbourne.” Retrieved25.2.2018fromwww.health.vic.gov.au/mentalhealth
  21. Goffman, Erving
    1955 “On Face Work. An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction.” Psychiatry18 (3): 213–231. 10.1080/00332747.1955.11023008
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1955.11023008 [Google Scholar]
  22. Goossensen, Anne, Paula Zijlstra, and Marc Koopmanschap
    2007 “Measuring Shared Decision Making Processes in Psychiatry: Skills versus Patient Satisfaction.” Patient Education and Counseling67 (1): 50–56. 10.1016/j.pec.2007.01.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2007.01.017 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja-Riitta Heinonen, and Irja Alho
    2004Iso suomen kielioppi [Descriptive grammar of Finnish]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. Online version (2008), scripta.kotus.fi/visk.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Harjunpää, Katariina
    2021 “Brokering Co-participants’ Volition in Request and Offer Sequences.” InIntersubjectivity in Action, edited byJan Lindström, Ritva Laury, Anssi Peräkylä, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 135–159. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.326.07har
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.326.07har [Google Scholar]
  25. Heinemann, Trine
    2006 “‘Will You or Can’t You?’: Displaying Entitlement in Interrogative Requests.” Journal of Pragmatics381: 1081–1104. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.013 [Google Scholar]
  26. Heritage, John, and Geoffrey T. Raymond
    2012 “Navigating Epistemic Landscapes: Acquiescence, Agency and Resistance in Responses to Polar Questions.” InQuestions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives, edited byJan P. de Ruiter, 179–192. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139045414.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139045414.013 [Google Scholar]
  27. Heritage, John
    1984Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Hibbard, Judith H., and Jessica Greene
    2013 “What the Evidence Shows about Patient Activation: Better Health Outcomes and Care Experiences; Fewer Data on Costs.” Health Affairs32 (2): 207–214. 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1061
    https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1061 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hickey, Gary, and Cheryl Kipping
    1998 “Exploring the Concept of User Involvement in Mental Health through a Participation Continuum.” Journal of Clinical Nursing7 (1): 83–88. 10.1046/j.1365‑2702.1998.00122.x
    https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2702.1998.00122.x [Google Scholar]
  30. Hollin, Gregory, and Alison Pilnick
    2018 “The Categorisation of Resistance: Interpreting Failure to Follow a Proposed Line of Action in the Diagnosis of Autism amongst Young Adults.” Sociology of Health & Illness40 (7): 1215–1232. 10.1111/1467‑9566.12749
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12749 [Google Scholar]
  31. Hänninen, Esko
    2012Choices for Recovery: Community-Based Rehabilitation and the Clubhouse Model as Means to Mental Health Reforms. THL-raportteja, 50/2012. Tampere: Tampere University Print Oy.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Kangasniemi, Heikki
    1992Modal Expressions in Finnish. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society (SKS).
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Kent, Alexandra
    2012 “Compliance, Resistance and Incipient Compliance When Responding to Directives.” Discourse Studies14 (6): 711–770. 10.1177/1461445612457485
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612457485 [Google Scholar]
  34. Kirby, Michael J. L., and Wilbert J. Keon
    2006Out of the Shadows at Last. Transforming Mental Health, Mental Illness and Addiction Services in Canada. Final Report of the Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, Senate of Canada, Ottawa.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Kotthoff, Helga
    1993 “Disagreement and Concession in Disputes: On the Context Sensitivity of Preference Structures.” Language in Society22 (2): 193–216. 10.1017/S0047404500017103
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500017103 [Google Scholar]
  36. Lehmann, Christian
    1982 “Directions for Interlinear Morphemic Translations.” Folia Linguistica16 (1–4): 199–224. 10.1515/flin.1982.16.1‑4.199
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.1982.16.1-4.199 [Google Scholar]
  37. Leipzig Glossing Rules
    Leipzig Glossing Rules 2020 “Conventions for Interlinear Morpheme-by-Morpheme Glosses.” Max Planck Institute, Department of Linguistics. Online:https://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php
  38. Lindström, Anna
    1999Language as Social Action: Grammar, Prosody, and Interaction in Swedish Conversation: grammatik, prosodi och interaktion i svenska samtal. Uppsala: Uppsala University.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Linell, Per, Johan Hofvendahl, and Camilla Lindholm
    2003 “Multi-Unit Questions in Institutional Interactions: Sequential Organizations and Communicative Functions.” Text231: 539–571.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Newman, Cory F.
    1994 “Understanding Client Resistance: Methods for Enhancing Motivation to Change.” Cognitive and Behavioral Practice1 (1): 47–69. 10.1016/S1077‑7229(05)80086‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1077-7229(05)80086-0 [Google Scholar]
  41. Ochs, Elinor, Emanuel. A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson
    eds. 1996Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874 [Google Scholar]
  42. Parker, Sophia
    2007 “Participation: A New Operating System for Public Services?” InParticipation Nation: Reconnecting Citizens to the Public Realm, edited byStella Creasy, 103–112. London: Involve.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Peräkylä, Anssi
    2013 “Conversation Analysis in Psychotherapy.” InHandbook of Conversation Analysis, edited byJack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 551–574. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118325001
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001 [Google Scholar]
  44. Pomerantz, Anita
    1984 “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, edited byJ. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Pomerantz, Anita, and John Heritage
    2013 “Preference.” InHandbook of Conversation Analysis, edited byJack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 210–228. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118325001
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001 [Google Scholar]
  46. Royal College of Psychiatrists Social Inclusion Scoping Group
    Royal College of Psychiatrists Social Inclusion Scoping Group 2009Mental Health and Social Inclusion. Making Psychiatry and Mental Health Services Fit for the 21st Century. Position statement. Retrieved fromhttps://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/PS01_2009x.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Raevaara, Liisa
    2017 “Adjusting the Design of Directives to the Activity Environment. Imperatives in Finnish Cooking Club Interaction.” InImperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, edited byMarja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 381–410. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.30.13rae
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.13rae [Google Scholar]
  48. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    2007Sequence Organization in Interaction. A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  49. Rossi, Giovanni
    2015 “The Request System in Italian Interaction.” PhD dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen.
  50. Sacks, Harvey
    1987 [1973] “On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation.” InTalk and Social Organisation, edited byGraham Button, and J. R. E. Lee, 54–69. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781800418226‑004
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781800418226-004 [Google Scholar]
  51. Searle, John R.
    1969Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  52. 1976 “A Classification of Illocutionary Acts.” Language in Society5 (1): 1–23. 10.1017/S0047404500006837
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006837 [Google Scholar]
  53. Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
    2001Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.70
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.70 [Google Scholar]
  54. Shaw, Rebecca, and Celia Kitzinger
    2012 “Compliments on a Home Birth Helpline.” Research on Language & Social Interaction45 (3): 213–244. 10.1080/08351813.2012.699251
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.699251 [Google Scholar]
  55. Steensig, Jakob, and Trine Heinemann
    2014 “The Social and Moral Work of Modal Constructions in Granting Remote Requests.” InRequesting in Social Interaction, edited byPaul Drew, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 141–166. John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.26.06ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.26.06ste [Google Scholar]
  56. Stevanovic, Melisa
    2012 “Establishing Joint Decisions in a Dyad.” Discourse Studies14 (6): 779–803. 10.1177/1461445612456654
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612456654 [Google Scholar]
  57. Stevanovic, Melisa, and Chiara Monzoni
    2016 “On the Hierarchy of Interactional Resources: Embodied and Verbal Behavior in the Management of Joint Activities with Material Objects.” Journal of Pragmatics1031: 15–32. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.07.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.07.004 [Google Scholar]
  58. Stevanovic, Melisa, and Anssi Peräkylä
    2012 “Deontic Authority in Interaction: The Right to Announce, Propose and Decide.” Research on Language and Social Interaction45 (3): 297–321. 10.1080/08351813.2012.699260
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.699260 [Google Scholar]
  59. Stevanovic, Melisa, Taina Valkeapää, Elina Weiste, and Camilla Lindholm
    2022 “Joint Decision Making in a Mental Health Rehabilitation Community: The Impact of Support Workers’ Proposal Design on Client Responsiveness.” Counselling Psychology Quarterly35 (1): 129–154. 10.1080/09515070.2020.1762166
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09515070.2020.1762166 [Google Scholar]
  60. Stivers, Tanya
    2005 “Parent Resistance to Physicians’ Treatment Recommendations: One Resource for Initiating a Negotiation of the Treatment Decision.” Health Communication18 (1): 41–74. 10.1207/s15327027hc1801_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327027hc1801_3 [Google Scholar]
  61. Stivers, Tanya, and Makoto Hayashi
    2010 “Transformative Answers: One Way to Resist a Question’s Constraints.” Language in Society39 (1): 1–25. 10.1017/S0047404509990637
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404509990637 [Google Scholar]
  62. Waring, Hansun Z.
    2007 “Complex Advice Acceptance as a Resource for Managing Asymmetries.” Text & Talk27 (1): 107–137. 10.1515/TEXT.2007.005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2007.005 [Google Scholar]
  63. Weiste, Elina, Camilla Lindholm, Taina Valkeapää, and Melisa Stevanovic
    2021 “Interactional Use of Compliments in Mental Health Rehabilitation.” Journal of Pragmatics1771: 224–236. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.02.019
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.02.019 [Google Scholar]
  64. WHO – Europe
    WHO – Europe 2010 “User Empowerment in Mental Health – A Statement by the WHO Regional Office for Europe.” Retrieved fromwww.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/113834/E93430.pdf
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.20077.lin
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error