Communication & Medicine, Vol 9, No 2 (2012)

Formulation in clinical interviews

Mika Simonen
Issued Date: 20 May 2013

Abstract


Formulation, according to Garfinkel and Sacks (1986 [1969]), refers to speakers’ ways of talking about the current interaction. This article explores how formulations are used in clinical assessment interviews as a way of providing evidence of the respondent’s capacities that are currently assessed. The videotaped data are drawn from the clinical interviews of unemployed adults and older persons. The data are analyzed using conversation analysis (CA). The article shows how formulation is achieved through vocalized and/or embodied actions (e.g. nodding, index finger pointing), in conjunction with the speaker’s gaze directed to the recipient. It argues that these formulations enable access to the shared epistemic domain of the current interaction. This domain is an interactional achievement and, as a resource, it allows the participants to designate viewpoints regarding the respondent’s social competence. In sum, the paper demonstrates how participants can show an explicit orientation to the interactional substrate of interview.

Download Media

PDF (Price: £17.50 )

DOI: 10.1558/cam.v9i2.133

References


Antaki, C., Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. and Rapley, M. (2000) ‘Brilliant. Next question...’ High-grade assessment sequences in the completion of interactional units. Research on Language and Social Interaction 33 (3): 235–262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3303_1
Antaki, C. and Jahoda, A. (2010) Psychotherapists’ practices in keeping a session ‘on-track’ in the face of clients’ ‘off-track’ talk. Communication & Medicine 7 (1): 11–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/cam.v7i1.11
Antaki, C., Young, N. and Finlay, W. M. L. (2002) Shaping clients’ answers: Departures from neutrality in care-staff interviews with people with a learning disability. Disability & Society 17 (4): 435–455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687590220140368
Applegate, W. B., Blass, J. P. and Williams, T. F. (1990) Instruments for the functional assessment of older patients. New England Journal of Medicine 322 (17): 1207–1214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199004263221707
Argyle, M. (2007 [1969]) Social Interaction. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine.
Beckwith, A. and Crichton, J. (2010) The negotiation of the problem statement in Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. Communication & Medicine 7 (1): 23–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/cam.v7i1.23
Button, G. (1987) Answers as interactional products: Two sequential practices used in interviews. Social Psychology Quarterly 50 (2): 160–171. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2786749
Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (1992) Analyzing talk at work: an introduction. In P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, 3–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Egbert, M. M. (1996) Context-sensitivity in conversation: Eye gaze and the German repair initiator bitte? Language in Society 25 (4): 587–612. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500020820
Garfinkel, H. and Sacks, H. (1986 [1969]) On formal structures of practical actions. In H. Garfinkel (ed.) Ethnomethodological Studies of Work: Studies in Ethnomethodology, 160–193. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Guralnik, J. M., Ferrucci, L., Simonsick, E. M., Salive, M. E. and Wallace, R. B. (1995) Lower extremity function in persons over the age of 70 years as a predictor of subsequent disability. New England Journal of Medicine 332 (9): 556–561. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199503023320902
Heritage, J. (1984) Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Heritage, J. (2012) Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45 (1): 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
Heritage, J. and Greatbatch, D. (1991) On the institutional character of institutional talk: The case of news interview interaction. In D. Boden and D. H. Zimmerman (eds) Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis, 93–137. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Heritage, J. and Watson, R. (1979) Formulations as conversational objects. In G. Psathas (ed.) Everyday Language, 123–162. New York: Irvington Press.
Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. (1997) Being friendly in survey interviews. Journal of Pragmatics 28 (5): 591–623. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00018-0
Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. (2000) Interaction and the Standardized Survey Interview:The Living Questionnaire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489457
Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. and Antaki, C. (1997) Creating happy people by asking yes-no questions. Research on Language and Social Interaction 30 (4): 285–313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3004_2
Hutchby, I. and Wooffitt, R. (2008) Conversation Analysis. Second edition. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Jefferson, G. (2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (ed.) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kastenbaum, R. and Sherwood, S. (1972) VIRO: A scale for assessing the interview behavior of elderly people. In D. Kent, R. Kastenbaum and S. Sherwood (eds) Research Planning and Action for the Elderly, 166–200. New York: Behavioral Publications.
Levin, C. A. (2000) Social Functioning. In R. L. Kane and R. A. Kane (eds) Assessing Older Persons: Measures, Meanings, and Practical Applications, 170–199. New York: Oxford University Press.
Llewellyn, N. (2010) On the reflexivity between setting and practice: The ‘recruitment interview’. In N. Llewellyn and J. Hindmarsh (eds) Organisation, Interaction and Practice: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis, 74–95. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mangen, D. J. and Peterson, W. A. (1982) Preface. In D. J. Mangen and W. A. Peterson (eds) Research Instruments in Social Gerontology. Volume 1. Clinical and Social Psychology, vii-x. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis.
Marlaire, C. L. and Maynard, D. W. (1990) Standardized testing as an interactional phenomenon. Sociology of Education 63 (2): 83–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2112856
Maynard, D. W., Houtkoop-Steenstra, H., Schaeffer, N. C. and van der Zouwen, J. (2002) Standardization and Tacit Knowledge: Interaction and Practice in the Survey Interview. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Maynard, D. W. and Marlaire, C. L. (1992) Good reasons for bad testing performance: The interactional substrate of educational exams. Qualitative Sociology 15 (2): 177–202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00989493
Maynard, D. W. and Schaeffer, N. C. (2002) Standardization and it’s discontents. In D. W. Maynard, H. Houtkoop-Steenstra, N. C. Schaeffer, and J. van der Zouwen (eds) Standardization and Tacit Knowledge: Interaction and Practice in the Survey Interviews, 3–46. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Moore, R. J. (2004) Managing troubles in answering survey questions: Respondents’ uses of projective reporting. Social Psychology Quarterly 67 (1): 50–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019027250406700106
Pomerantz, A. (1978) Compliment responses: Notes on the cooperation of multiple constraints. In J. N. Schenkein (ed.) Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, 79–112. New York: Academic Press.
Pomerantz, A. (1984) 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.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. and Jefferson, G. (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50 (4): 696–735. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/412243
Schaeffer, N. C. (2002) Conversation with a purpose – or conversation? Interaction in the standardized interview. In D. W. Maynard, H. Houtkoop-Steenstra, N. C. Schaeffer and J. van der Zouwen (eds) Standardization and Tacit Knowledge: Interaction and Practice in the Survey Interview, 95–123. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007) Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208
Schwabe, M., Reuber, M., Schöndienst, M. and Gülich, E. (2008) Listening to people with seizures: How can linguistic analysis help in the differential diagnosis of seizure disorders? Communication & Medicine 5 (1): 59–72.
Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., Englert, C., Hayashi M., Heinemann, T., Hoymann, G., Rossano, F., de Ruiter, J. P., Yoon, K.-E. and Levinson, S. C. (2009) Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106 (26): 10587–10592. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903616106
Stivers, T. and Rossano, F. (2010) Mobilizing response. Research on Language & Social Interaction 41 (1): 3–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08351810903471258
Suchman, L. and Jordan, B. (1990) Interactional troubles in face-to-face survey interviews. Journal of the American Statistical Association 85 (409): 232–241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1990.10475331
Verbrugge, L. M. and Jette, A. M. (1994) The disablement process. Social Science and Medicine 38 (1): 1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(94)90294-1
WHODAS 2.0. 36-item version, interviewer-administered. World Health Organization. [http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/WHODAS2.0_36itemsINTERVIEW.pdf]

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.





Equinox Publishing Ltd - 415 The Workstation 15 Paternoster Row, Sheffield, S1 2BX United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 (0)114 221-0285 - Email: info@equinoxpub.com

Privacy Policy