{"title":"“我不知道有问题”:政府官员在Life Esidimeni仲裁听证会上的回避策略","authors":"S. Brokensha, T. Conradie, W. Greyling","doi":"10.1515/text-2020-0208","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The travesty of the Life Esidimeni project in South Africa, which claimed the lives of 144 mental health users at psychiatric facilities in Gauteng between 2016 and 2017, is multifaceted. One facet involves strategies of blame avoidance designed to escape liability for the deaths that were expressed by the former Member of the Executive Council for Health and other public health officials during the Life Esidimeni Arbitration Hearings. These hearings were broadcast on state television between October 2017 and 2018, and eight samples from the hearings were analysed for specific blame avoidance strategies. Following the principles of qualitative discourse analysis, this paper extends research on blame avoidance behaviour in the public administration and policy domain, exploring three key officials’ micro- and macro-level choices of blame avoidance in the context of the arbitration hearings to develop a more comprehensive account of these strategies. A public hearing is a discourse setting that is reactionary in nature, and our findings on the micro-level, a neglected dimension of research on blame avoidance behaviour, extend our understanding of these behaviours. We propose that at least two continua for blame avoidance are relevant in this setting.","PeriodicalId":46455,"journal":{"name":"Text & Talk","volume":"43 1","pages":"291 - 312"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“I did not know that there were problems”: government officials’ blame avoidance strategies in the Life Esidimeni Arbitration Hearings\",\"authors\":\"S. Brokensha, T. Conradie, W. Greyling\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/text-2020-0208\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The travesty of the Life Esidimeni project in South Africa, which claimed the lives of 144 mental health users at psychiatric facilities in Gauteng between 2016 and 2017, is multifaceted. One facet involves strategies of blame avoidance designed to escape liability for the deaths that were expressed by the former Member of the Executive Council for Health and other public health officials during the Life Esidimeni Arbitration Hearings. These hearings were broadcast on state television between October 2017 and 2018, and eight samples from the hearings were analysed for specific blame avoidance strategies. Following the principles of qualitative discourse analysis, this paper extends research on blame avoidance behaviour in the public administration and policy domain, exploring three key officials’ micro- and macro-level choices of blame avoidance in the context of the arbitration hearings to develop a more comprehensive account of these strategies. A public hearing is a discourse setting that is reactionary in nature, and our findings on the micro-level, a neglected dimension of research on blame avoidance behaviour, extend our understanding of these behaviours. We propose that at least two continua for blame avoidance are relevant in this setting.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46455,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Text & Talk\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"291 - 312\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Text & Talk\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2020-0208\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Text & Talk","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2020-0208","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
“I did not know that there were problems”: government officials’ blame avoidance strategies in the Life Esidimeni Arbitration Hearings
Abstract The travesty of the Life Esidimeni project in South Africa, which claimed the lives of 144 mental health users at psychiatric facilities in Gauteng between 2016 and 2017, is multifaceted. One facet involves strategies of blame avoidance designed to escape liability for the deaths that were expressed by the former Member of the Executive Council for Health and other public health officials during the Life Esidimeni Arbitration Hearings. These hearings were broadcast on state television between October 2017 and 2018, and eight samples from the hearings were analysed for specific blame avoidance strategies. Following the principles of qualitative discourse analysis, this paper extends research on blame avoidance behaviour in the public administration and policy domain, exploring three key officials’ micro- and macro-level choices of blame avoidance in the context of the arbitration hearings to develop a more comprehensive account of these strategies. A public hearing is a discourse setting that is reactionary in nature, and our findings on the micro-level, a neglected dimension of research on blame avoidance behaviour, extend our understanding of these behaviours. We propose that at least two continua for blame avoidance are relevant in this setting.
期刊介绍:
Text & Talk (founded as TEXT in 1981) is an internationally recognized forum for interdisciplinary research in language, discourse, and communication studies, focusing, among other things, on the situational and historical nature of text/talk production; the cognitive and sociocultural processes of language practice/action; and participant-based structures of meaning negotiation and multimodal alignment. Text & Talk encourages critical debates on these and other relevant issues, spanning not only the theoretical and methodological dimensions of discourse but also their practical and socially relevant outcomes.