Counseling and new media technologies: A comparison of problem presentations in e-mail and in chat

Authors

  • Wyke Stommel Radboud University Nijmegen
  • Fleur Van der Houwen VU University Amsterdam

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1558/cam.18298

Keywords:

chat, conversation analysis, e-mail, new media technology, online counseling, problem presentation

Abstract

In this article, we examine problem presentations in e-mail and chat counseling. Previous studies of online counseling have found that the medium (e.g., chat, email) impacts the unfolding interaction. However, the implications for counseling are unclear. We focus on problem presentations and use conversation analysis to compare 15 chat and 22 e-mail interactions from the same counseling program. We find that in e-mail counseling, counselors open up the interactional space to discuss various issues, whereas in chat, counselors restrict problem presentations and give the client less space to elaborate. We also find that in e-mail counseling, clients use narratives to present their problem and orient to its seriousness and legitimacy, while in chat counseling, they construct problem presentations using a symptom or a diagnosis. Furthermore, in email counseling, clients close their problem presentations stating completeness, while in chat counseling, counselors treat clients’ problem presentations as incomplete. Our findings shed light on how the medium has implications for counseling.

Author Biographies

Wyke Stommel, Radboud University Nijmegen

Wyke Stommel received her PhD in discourse analysis from the University of Frankfurt-Main and is currently an Assistant Professor at Radboud University, Nijmegen. Her research interests include institutional interaction, such as (online) counseling interaction and police interaction, and micro-analytic methods for online data.

Fleur Van der Houwen, VU University Amsterdam

Fleur van der Houwen holds a PhD from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. She is currently at the Department of Language and Communication, VU University, Amsterdam. Her research interests include interaction in institutional settings, the representation of institutions in the media, and new media technologies for communication.

References

Byrne, P. and Long, B. (1976) Doctors Talking to Patients: A Study of the Verbal Behaviours of Doctors in the Consultation. London: Royal College of General Practitioners.


Danby, S., Baker, C. and Emmison, M. (2005) Four observations on openings in calls to Kids Help Line. In C. Baker, M. Emmison and A. Firth (eds) Calling for Help: Language and Social Interaction in Telephone Helplines, 133–151. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pbns.143.10dan


Danby S., Butler, C. and Emmison, M. (2009) When ‘listeners can’t talk’: Comparing active listening in opening sequences of telephone and online counselling. Australian Journal of Communication 36 (3): 91–113.


Egan, G. (2007) Deskundig hulpverlenen [Professional Counseling]. Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum.


Ekberg, S., Barnes, R., Kessler, D., Malpass, A. and Shaw, A. (2013) Managing the therapeutic relationship in online cognitive behavioural therapy for depression: Therapists’ treatment of clients’ contributions. [email protected] 10: Article 4. Retrieved from http://www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2013/Ekberg


Fisher, S. and Groce, S. (1990) Accounting practices in medical interviews. Language in Society 19 (2): 225–250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S004740450001438X


Harris, J., Danby, S., Butler, C. W. and Emisson, M. (2012) Extending client-centered support: Counselors’ proposals to shift from e-mail to telephone counseling. Text & Talk 32 (1): 21–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/text-2012-0002


Heritage, J. and Clayman, S. (2010) Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities and Institutions. Oxford: Blackwell. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781444318135


Heritage, J. and Robinson, J. (2006a) Accounting for the visit: Giving reasons for seeking medical care. In J. Heritage and D. Maynard (eds) Communication in Medical Care: Interaction between Primary Care Physicians and Patients, 48–85. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Heritage, J. and Robinson, J. (2006b) The structure of patients’ presenting concerns: Physicians’ opening questions. Health Communication 19 (2): 89–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327027hc1902_1


Jefferson, G. (1984). On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, 346–369. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Jefferson, G. (1988) On the sequential organization of troubles talk in ordinary conversation. Social Problems 35 (4): 418–441. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/800595


Jefferson, G. and Lee, J. (1981) The rejection of advice: Managing the problematic convergence of ‘troubles-telling’ and a ‘service encounter’. Journal of Pragmatics 5: 399–422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(81)90026-6


Jol, G. A. H. and van der Houwen, F. (2014) Police interviews with child witnesses: Pursuing a response with maar (= Dutch but)- prefaced questions. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 21 (1): 113–138.


Karhila, P., Kettunen, T. and Poskiparta, M. (2003) Negotiation in type 2 diabetes counseling: From problem recognition to mutual acceptance during lifestyle counseling. Qualitative Health Research 13 (9): 1205–1224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049732303257153


Kotthoff, H. (1993) Agreement and concession in disputes: On the context sensitivity of preference structures. Language in Society 22 (2): 193–216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500017103


Kraus, R., Stricker, G. and Speyer, C. (2010) Online Counseling: A Handbook for Mental Health Professionals. London: Academic Press.


Labov, W. and Waletzky, J. (1997) Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. Journal of Narrative and Life History 7 (1): 3–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/jnlh.7.02nar


Mazeland, H. and Huiskes, M. (1997) ‘Maar’ als sequentiële conjunctie: Het hernemend gebruik [Dutch ‘but’ as sequential conjunction: Its resuming use]. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing 19 (3): 265–277.


Parsons, T. (1951) The Social System. London: Tavistock.


Pennebaker, J. W. (1997) Writing about emotional experiences as a therapeutic process. Psychological Science 8 (3): 162–166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00403.x


Peräkylä, A., Antaki, C., Vehviläinen, S. and Leuder, I. (2008) Conversation Analysis and Psychotherapy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511490002


Peräkylä, A. and Vehviläinen, S. (2003) Conversation Analysis and the professional stocks of interactional knowledge. Discourse and Society 14 (6): 727–750. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/09579265030146003


Pomerantz, A. (1984a) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00148128


Pomerantz, A. (1984b) Pursuing a response. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, 152–163. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Pomerantz, A. (1986) Extreme case formulations. Human Studies 9 (2–3): 219–229.


Riper, H., Smit, F. and Zanden, R. (eds) (2007) E-Mental Health: High Tech, High Touch, High Trust Programmeringsstudie e-mental health [E-Mental Health: High Tech, High Touch, High Trust Program Study E-Mental Health], Utrecht: Trimbos Instituut.


Roter, D. and Hall, J. (2006) Doctors Talking with Patients/Patients Talking with Doctors: Improving Communication in Medical Visits. Westport, CT: Praeger.


Schalken, F., Wolters, W. and Tilanus, W. (2010) Handboek online hulpverlening; hoe onperoonlijk contact heel persoonlijk wordt [Handbook on Online Counseling: How Impersonal Contact Becomes very Personal]. Houten, Netherlands: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum.


Schegloff, E. and Sacks, H. (1973) Opening up closings. Semiotica 8 (4): 289–327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289


Stivers, T. (2002) Presenting the problem in pediatric encounters: ‘Symptoms only’ versus ‘candidate diagnosis’ presentations. Health Communication 14 (3): 299–338. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327027HC1403_2


Stommel, W. (2012) Salutations, closings and pronouns: Some aspects of recipient design in online counselling. Communication and Medicine 9 (2): 145–158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/cam.v9i2.145


Stommel, W. and te Molder, H. (2015) Counselling online and over the phone: When pre-closing questions fail as a closing device. Research on Language and Social Interaction 48 (3): 281–300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2015.1058605


Stommel, W. and van der Houwen, F. (2013) Formulation in ‘trouble’ chat sessions. [email protected]­net 10: Article 3. Retrieved from http://www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2013/stommel


Stommel, W. and van der Houwen, F. (2014) Complaining and the management of ‘face’ in online counseling. Qualitative Health Research 24 (2): 183–193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049732313519706


Suler, J. (2004) The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior 7 (3): 321–326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/1094931041291295


ten Have, P. (1999) Doing Conversation Analysis: A Practical Guide. London: Sage.


van der Houwen, F. (2005) Negotiating Disputes and Achieving Judgments on Judge Judy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.


van der Houwen, F. (2009) Formulating disputes. Journal of Pragmatics 41 (10): 2072–2085. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.02.009

Published

2016-11-07

How to Cite

Stommel, W., & Van der Houwen, F. (2016). Counseling and new media technologies: A comparison of problem presentations in e-mail and in chat. Communication and Medicine, 12(2-3), 243–256. https://doi.org/10.1558/cam.18298