Showing knowing
Negotiating about epistemics in interaction between persons with intellectual disabilities and professionals
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/jircd.19075Keywords:
persons with intellectual disability, epistemic negotiations, full participation, confabulations, Easy Language in interaction, conversation analysisAbstract
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.
References
Antaki, C. (1994). Explaining and arguing. The social organization of accounts. London: SAGE Publications.
Antaki, C., and Finlay, W. M. L. (2013). Trust in what others mean: Breakdowns in interaction between adults with intellectual disabilities and support staff. In C. Candlin and J. Crichton (Eds.), Discourses of trust (pp. 21–35). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-29556-9_2
Antaki, C., Finlay, W. M. L., and Walton, C. (2007). Conversational shaping: Staff members’ solicitation of talk from people with an intellectual impairment. Qualitative Health Research, 17(10), 1403-1414. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732307308950
Antaki, C., Finlay, W. M. L., Walton, C., and Pate, L. (2008). Offering choices to people with intellectual disabilities: An interactional study. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 52(12), 1165-1175. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2008.01101.x
AsmuB, B. (2011). Proposing shared knowledge as a means of pursuing agreement. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, and J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 207-234). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, J., Long-McGie, J., Oberoi, P., Wartnik, A., Wresh, J., Weinkauf, E., and Falconer, G. (2013). Confabulation. Connections between brain damage, memory, and testimony. Journal of Law Enforcement, 3(5), 1–11.
Chapman, R. (2003). Language and communication in individuals with Down syndrome. In L. Abbeduto (Ed.), Language and communication in mental retardation. International Review of Research in Mental Retardation, 27, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0074-7750(03)27001-4
Clare, I., and Gudjonsson, G. H. (1993). Interrogative suggestibility, confabulation, and acquiescence in people with mild learning disabilities (mental handicap): Implications for reliability during police interrogations. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 32(3), 295–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1993.tb01059.x
Dingemanse, M., and Enfield, N. J. (2015). Other-initiated repair across languages: Towards a typology of conversational structures. Open Linguistics, 1, 98–118. https://doi.org/10.2478/opli-2014-0007
Drew, P. (1991). Asymmetries of knowledge in conversational interactions. In I. Marková and K. Foppa (Eds.), Asymmetries in dialogue (pp. 29-48). Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Drew, P. (1997). ‘Open’ class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of trouble in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 28(1), 69-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)89759-7
Duffy, S. (2003). Keys to citizenship. A guide to getting good support services for people with learning difficulties. Birkenhead: Paradigm Consultancy and Development Agency.
Finlay, W. M. L., and Lyons, E. (2002). Acquiescence in interviews with people with mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 40(1), 14–29. https://doi.org/10.1352/0047-6765(2002)040<0014:AIIWPW>2.0.CO;2
Finlay, W. M. L., Antaki, C., and Walton, C. (2008). Saying no to the staff: An analysis of refusals in a home for people with severe communication difficulties. Sociology of Health and Illness, 30(1), 55?75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2007.01028.x
Finlay, W. M. L., Antaki, C., Walton, C., and Stribling, P. (2008). The dilemma for staff in ‘playing a game’ with a person with profound intellectual disabilities: Empowerment, inclusion and competence in interactional practice. Sociology of Health and Illness, 30(4), 531-549. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2007.01080.x
Goodwin, C. (Eds.) (2003). Conversation and brain damage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Guendouzi, J. A., and Müller, N. (2006). Approaches to discourse in dementia. New Jersey/London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Haakana, M. (1996). Huumori ja vakava keskustelun kategorioina [Humor and seriousness as categories in conversation]. In A. Hakulinen (Ed.), Suomalaisen keskustelun keinoja II [Resources of Finnish conversation II] (pp. 141–172). Kieli 10, Department of Finnish Language, University of Helsinki.
Haakana, M., Laakso, M., and Lindström, J. (2009). Talk in interaction: Comparative dimensions. Studia Fennica Linguistica, 14. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. https://doi.org/10.21435/sflin.14
Haakana, M., Kurhila, S., Lilja, N., and Savijärvi, M. (2016). Kuka, mitä, häh? Korjausaloitteet suomalaisessa arkikeskustelussa [Who, what, eh? The repair initiators in Finnish mundane conversations]. Virittäjä, 120(2), 255–292.
Hammel, J., Magasi, S., Heinemann, A., Whiteneck, G., Bogner, J., and Rodriguez, E. (2008). What does participation mean? An insider perspective from people with disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation, 30(19), 1445–1460. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280701625534
Heritage, J. (2012). The epistemic engine. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646685
Heritage, J. (2013a). Epistemics in conversation. In J. Sidnell and T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 370–394). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch18
Heritage, J. (2013b). Asymmetries of knowledge in patient–provider encounters: Three studies adapting conversation analysis. Patient Education and Counselling, 92(1), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2013.05.003
Heritage, J., and Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1), 15-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103
Heritage, J., and Watson, D. (1979). Formulations as conversational objects. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language (pp. 123-162). New York: Irvington Publishers.
Jefferson, G. (1979). A technique for inviting laughter and its subsequent acceptance declination. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language (pp. 79-96). New York: Irvington Publishers.
Kangasharju, H. (2009). Preference for disagreement? A comparison of three disputes. In M. Haakana, M. Laakso, and J. Lindström (Eds.), Talk in interaction. Comparative dimensions (pp. 231-253). Studia Fennica Linguistica, 6. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.
Kartio, J. (Ed.) (2009). Selkokieli ja vuorovaikutus [Easy language and interaction]. Helsinki: Opike/KVL.
Kartio, J. (2010). Selkokieli ja vuorovaikutus -projekti, loppuraportti [Easy Language and Interaction, final project report]. Helsinki: Kehitysvammaliitto.
Keevallik, L. (2011). The terms of not knowing. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, and J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 184-206). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.009
Kitzinger, C. (2013). Repair. In J. Sidnell and T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 229–256). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch12
Kumin, L. (2008). Language intervention to encourage complex language use. A clinical perspective. In J. Roberts, R. Chapman, and S. Warren (Eds.), Speech and language development and intervention in Down syndrome and fragile X syndrome (pp. 193–218). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Kurhila, S. (2003). Co-constructing understanding in second language conversation. Department of Finnish Language, University of Helsinki.
Kurhila, S., and Lilja, N. (2017). Toisto ja korjauksen rajat [Repeating and boundaries of repair]. Virittäjä, 212(2), 213–243. https://doi.org/10.23982/vir.56632
Laakso, M. (1997). Self-initiated repair by fluent aphasic speakers in conversation. Studia Fennica Linguistica, 8. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.
Labov, W., and Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. New York: Academic Press.
Landmark, A. M. D., Gulbrandsen, P., and Svennevig, J. (2015). Whose decision? Negotiating epistemic and deontic rights in medical treatment decisions. Journal of Pragmatics, 78, 54–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.11.007
Leskelä, L. (2012a). Ymmärrysvaikeuksien käsittelyä kehitysvammaisten henkilöiden ja heidän ohjaajiensa keskusteluissa [Understanding troubles in conversations between persons with intellectual disability and their tutors]. In L. Leskelä and C. Lindholm (Eds.), Haavoittuva keskustelu. Keskustelunanalyyttisia tutkimuksia kielellisesti epäsymmetrisestä vuorovaikutuksesta [The vulnerable conversation. Conversation analytical research on linguistically asymmetrical interaction] (pp. 184–234). Helsinki: Kehitysvammaliitto.
Leskelä, L. (2012b). Selkokielisen vuorovaikutuksen ohjeet [The guidelines for easy to understand interaction]. Appendix. In L. Leskelä and C. Lindholm (Eds.), Haavoittuva keskustelu. Keskustelunanalyyttisia tutkimuksia kielellisesti epäsymmetrisestä vuorovaikutuksesta [The vulnerable conversation. Conversation analytical research on linguistically asymmetrical interaction] (pp. 269-298). Helsinki: Kehitysvammaliitto.
Leskelä, L., and Lindholm, C. (2012). Näkökulmia kielellisesti epäsymmetriseen vuorovaikutukseen [Aspects of linguistically asymmetrical interaction]. In L. Leskelä and C. Lindholm (Eds.), Haavoittuva keskustelu. Keskustelunanalyyttisia tutkimuksia kielellisesti epäsymmetrisestä vuorovaikutuksesta [The vulnerable conversation. Conversation analytical research on linguistically asymmetrical interaction] (pp. 12-31). Helsinki: Kehitysvammaliitto.
Leskelä, L., and Lindholm, C. (forthcoming). Selkopuhe kehitysvammaisen henkilön kielellisen osallistumisen tukena [Supporting linguistic participation of persons with intellectual disability with easy language]. Submitted to M. Lindeman M. Lindeman, M. Luodonpää-Manni, J. Paananen, and C. Lindholm (Eds.), Kieli, hyvinvointi ja sosiaalinen osallisuus [Language, well being and social participation]. Tampere: Vastapaino.
Lilja, N. (2010). Ongelmista oppimiseen: toisen aloittamat korjausjaksot kakkoskielisessä keskustelussa [From problems to learning: other-initiated repair sequences in language 2 conversations]. Jyväskylä Studies in Humanities, 146. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.
Lindholm, C. (2012). Vuorovaikutuksen haasteita ja mahdollisuuksia – tapaustutkimus muistisairaiden päivätoiminnasta [Challenges and chances in interaction – A case study in a day care center of persons with memory loss]. In L. Leskelä and C. Lindholm (Eds.), Haavoittuva keskustelu. Keskustelunanalyyttisia tutkimuksia kielellisesti epäsymmetrisestä vuorovaikutuksesta [The vulnerable conversation. Conversation analytical research on linguistically asymmetrical interaction] (pp. 57–98). Helsinki: Kehitysvammaliitto.
Lindholm, C., and Stevanovic, M. (forthcoming). Challenges of trust in atypical interaction. Pragmatics and Society.
Lindley, L. M. (2016). Competence in everyday interaction: A conversation analytical approach to repetition, confusion and getting done when living with dementia. Research dissertation, University of Leeds, Leeds.
Lindström, A., and Weatherall, A. (2015). Orientations to epistemics and deontics in treatment discussions. Journal of Pragmatics, 78, 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.01.005
Matikka, L., and Vesala, H. (1997). Acquiescence in quality-of-life interviews with adults who have mental retardation. Mental retardation, 35(2), 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1352/0047-6765(1997)035<0075:AIQIWA>2.0.CO;2
McVilly, K. R. (1997). Residential staff. How they view their training and professional support. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(1), 18–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3156.1997.tb00004.x
Milne, R., Clare, I., and Bull, R. (1999). Using the cognitive interview with adults with mild learning disabilities. Psychology, Crime and Law, 5(1–2), 81–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683169908414995
Murphy, J., and Cameron, L. (2007). Talking mats – keskustelumatto. Väline kommunikoinnin laajentamiseen [Talking mats. An instrument to broaden communication]. Helsinki: Kehitysvammaliitto.
Peräkylä, A. (1995). AIDS counselling. Institutional interaction and clinical practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597879
Pilnick, A., Clegg, J., Murphy, E., and Almack, K. (2010). Questioning the answer: Questioning style, choice and self-determination in interactions with young people with intellectual disabilities. Sociology of Health and Illness, 33(3), 415-436. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2009.01223.x
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 (pp. 57-101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665868.008
Pomerantz, A. (1984b). Pursuing a response. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 152-163). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665868.011
Pomerantz, A., and Heritage, J., (2012). Preference. In J. Sidnell and T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 210–228). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch11
Raymond, G., and Heritage, J. (2006). The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society, 35, 677–705. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060325
Roberts, J., Chapman, R., and Warren, S. (2008). Speech and language development and intervention in Down syndrome and fragile X syndrome. Communication and Language Intervention Series. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Robinson, J. (2009). Managing counterinformings. An interactional practice for soliciting information that facilitates reconciliation of speakers’ incompatible positions. Human Communication Research, 35(4), 561–587. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01363.x
Robinson, J. (2013). Epistemics, action formation, and other-initiation of repair. The case of partial questioning repeats. In M. Hayashi, G. Raymond, and J. Sidnell (Eds.), Conversational repair and human understanding (pp. 261–292). Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics, 30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511757464.009
Robinson, J., and Kevoe-Feldman, H. (2010). Using full repeats to initiate repair on others’ questions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(3), 232?259. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2010.497990
Sacks, H. (1987 [1973]). On the preference for agreement and contiguity in sequences of conversation. In G. Button and J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (pp. 54?69). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation, Volume II. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.
Schegloff, E. (1995). Discourse as an interactional achievement III: The omnirelevance of action. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28(3): 185–211. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2803_2
Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G., and Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361?382. https://doi.org/10.2307/413107; https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041
Schnider, A. (2008). The confabulating mind: How the brain creates reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780199206759.001.0001
Shakespeare, P. (1998). Aspects of confused speech. A study of verbal interaction between confused and normal speakers. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sidnell, J., and Stivers, T. (Eds.) (2013). The handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001
Sorjonen, M.-L. (1996). On repeats and responses in Finnish conversations. In E. Ochs, E. Schegloff, and S. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.006
Stivers, T., Mondada, L., and Steensig, J. (2011). Knowledge, morality and affiliation in interaction. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, and J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 3-24). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.002
Stoel-Gammon, C. (1997). Phonological development in Down syndrome. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 3(4), 300?306. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2779(1997)3:4<300::AID-MRDD4>3.0.CO;2-R
Sudhalter, V., and Belser, R. (2004). Atypical language production of males with fragile X syndrome. In D. Dew-Hughes (Ed.), Educating children with fragile X syndrome (pp. 25?31). New York and Oxon: Routledge.
Ten Have, P. (1998). Doing conversation analysis. A practical guide. Amsterdam: SAGE Publications.
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2008). https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html
Vesala, H. (2003). Palvelujen käyttäjäurat kehitysvammaisilla henkilöillä [Profiles of service users among persons with intellectual disability]. Helsinki: Finnish Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
Weiste, E., Stevanovic, M., and Lindholm, C. (2019). Introduction: Social inclusion as an interactional phenomenon. In C. Lindholm, M. Stevanovic, and E. Weiste (Eds.), Joint decision making in mental health: An interactional approach (pp. 1–41). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43531-8_1
