Requesting Examples in Psychodiagnostic Interviews

Q4 Medicine
Thomas Spranz-Fogasy, Eva Graf, J. Ehrenthal, C. Nikendei
{"title":"Requesting Examples in Psychodiagnostic Interviews","authors":"Thomas Spranz-Fogasy, Eva Graf, J. Ehrenthal, C. Nikendei","doi":"10.1558/cam.34112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As part of a larger research project on understanding change in helping professions, this paper investigates into therapists’ requesting examples and their interactional and sequential contri-bution to clients’ change. Requesting examples by therapists in psychodiagnostic interviews explicitly or implicitly criticize the patient’s prior turn as insufficient, i.e. as unclear, vague, or as too general. Such a request opens a retro-sequence (Schegloff 2007) and in the following provides for a description that both helps clarify the semantic vagueness and evinces psychic or relational aspects of the topic at hand. While the patient’s insufficient presentation is initi-ated by a prior request of the therapist, the patient’s example presentation is regularly fol-lowed by the therapist’s summarizing comments or by further requests focusing on the pa-tient’s problem. Requesting examples thus are a particular case of requests that follow ‘ex-pandable responses’ as described by Muntigl & Zabala (2008); they follow the same sequential organization, yet, given that they make examples conditionally relevant, they are more specif-ic. With the help of this sequential organization both participants co-construct elements of common knowledge. Such an ‘interplay of understanding’ (Voutilainen & Peräkylä 2014) al-lows the therapist to pursue the overall aim of therapy, i.e. to increase the patients’ awareness of their distorted perceptions, and thus to pave the way for change. The data comprises of 16 videotaped first interviews following the manual of the Operationalized Psychodynamic Di-agnostics (OPD Task Force 2009). It was collected in cooperation with the Clinic for General Internal Medicine and Psychosomatic at the University Clinic of Heidelberg.","PeriodicalId":39728,"journal":{"name":"Communication and Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communication and Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1558/cam.34112","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

As part of a larger research project on understanding change in helping professions, this paper investigates into therapists’ requesting examples and their interactional and sequential contri-bution to clients’ change. Requesting examples by therapists in psychodiagnostic interviews explicitly or implicitly criticize the patient’s prior turn as insufficient, i.e. as unclear, vague, or as too general. Such a request opens a retro-sequence (Schegloff 2007) and in the following provides for a description that both helps clarify the semantic vagueness and evinces psychic or relational aspects of the topic at hand. While the patient’s insufficient presentation is initi-ated by a prior request of the therapist, the patient’s example presentation is regularly fol-lowed by the therapist’s summarizing comments or by further requests focusing on the pa-tient’s problem. Requesting examples thus are a particular case of requests that follow ‘ex-pandable responses’ as described by Muntigl & Zabala (2008); they follow the same sequential organization, yet, given that they make examples conditionally relevant, they are more specif-ic. With the help of this sequential organization both participants co-construct elements of common knowledge. Such an ‘interplay of understanding’ (Voutilainen & Peräkylä 2014) al-lows the therapist to pursue the overall aim of therapy, i.e. to increase the patients’ awareness of their distorted perceptions, and thus to pave the way for change. The data comprises of 16 videotaped first interviews following the manual of the Operationalized Psychodynamic Di-agnostics (OPD Task Force 2009). It was collected in cooperation with the Clinic for General Internal Medicine and Psychosomatic at the University Clinic of Heidelberg.
要求精神诊断访谈中的例子
作为一个更大的研究项目的一部分,在了解帮助行业的变化,本文调查了治疗师的请求的例子和他们的相互作用和顺序的贡献客户的变化。要求治疗师在心理诊断访谈中举出例子,明确或含蓄地批评病人先前的转向是不充分的,即不清楚、模糊或过于笼统。这样的要求打开了一个回溯序列(Schegloff 2007),并在以下提供了一个描述,既有助于澄清语义模糊,又能证明手头话题的心理或关系方面。虽然患者的不充分陈述是由治疗师的事先要求引起的,但患者的示例陈述通常是治疗师总结评论或进一步要求关注患者的问题。因此,请求示例是遵循Muntigl & Zabala(2008)所描述的“可扩展响应”的请求的特殊情况;它们遵循相同的顺序组织,然而,考虑到它们使示例有条件相关,它们更具体。在这种顺序组织的帮助下,参与者共同构建共同知识的要素。这种“理解的相互作用”(Voutilainen & Peräkylä 2014)使治疗师能够追求治疗的总体目标,即提高患者对其扭曲感知的认识,从而为改变铺平道路。数据包括16个录像的首次访谈,遵循操作性心理动力学诊断不可知论手册(OPD工作队2009)。它是与海德堡大学诊所的普通内科和心身医学诊所合作收集的。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Communication and Medicine
Communication and Medicine Medicine-Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
期刊介绍: Communication & Medicine continues to abide by the following distinctive aims: • To consolidate different traditions of discourse and communication research in its commitment to an understanding of psychosocial, cultural and ethical aspects of healthcare in contemporary societies. • To cover the different specialities within medicine and allied healthcare studies. • To underscore the significance of specific areas and themes by bringing out special issues from time to time. • To be fully committed to publishing evidence-based, data-driven original studies with practical application and relevance as key guiding principles.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信