emcawiki - User contributions [en]

Miller2012

2015-04-21T09:28:37Z

PaulMiller:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Author(s)=Paul K. Miller
|Title=Arsène didn’t see it: Coaching, research and the promise of a discursive psychology
|Tag(s)=Discursive Psychology; Conversation Analysis; Sport; Language;
|Key=Miller2012
|Year=2012
|Journal=International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching
|Volume=7
|Number=4
|Pages=615-628
|URL=http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/1747-9541.7.4.615?journalCode=ijssc
|DOI=10.1260/1747-9541.7.4.615
|Abstract=For twenty five years the discursive psychological perspective has been at the vanguard of innovative research in social psychology, producing high-detail systematic analyses of dynamic, constructive language use in a wide range of practical settings. To date, it has found applications in the study of medical communication, racism, political discourse, emotion and accounts of success and failure in sport, to highlight but a few. Its lack of headway in the specific study of coaching is perhaps, therefore, somewhat surprising given the transparently task-focused character of many naturally-occurring verbal activities in the domain. This paper draws on salient literature and two brief case studies in illustrating some of the ways that the perspective can inform an approach to coaching interaction that does not draw on ontologically-problematic cognitivist assumptions regarding the relationship between thought and action. A foundational argument is then made for greater engagement with Discursive Psychology within the broader realm of coaching science.
}}

Miller2013a

2015-04-21T09:27:24Z

PaulMiller:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Author(s)=Paul K. Miller; Colum Cronin
|Title=Rethinking the factuality of “contextual” factors in an ethnomethodological mode: Towards a reflexive understanding of action-context dynamism in the theorisation of coaching
|Tag(s)=context; coaching process; ethnomethodology; indexicality; sport; reflexivity
|Key=Miller2013a
|Publisher=Taylor & Francis Ltd
|Year=2013
|Journal=Sports Coaching Review
|Volume=1
|Number=2
|Pages=106-123
|URL=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21640629.2013.790166
|DOI=10.1080/21640629.2013.790166
|Abstract=In this paper, an argument is made for the revisitation of Harold Garfinkel’s classic body of ethnomethodological research in order to further develop and refine models of the action-context relationship in coaching science. It is observed that, like some contemporary phenomenological and post-structural approaches to coaching, an ethnomethodological perspective stands in opposition to dominant understandings of contexts as semi-static causal “variables” in coaching activity. It is further observed, however, that unlike such approaches – which are often focused upon the capture of authentic individual experience – ethnomethodology operates in the intersubjective domain, granting analytic primacy the coordinative accomplishment of meaningful action in naturally-occurring situations. Focusing particularly on Garfinkel’s conceptualisation of action and context as transformable and, above all, reflexively-configured, it is centrally argued that greater engagement with the ethnomethodological corpus of research has much to offer coaching scholarship both theoretically and methodologically.
}}

Miller2013

2015-04-21T09:24:37Z

PaulMiller:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Author(s)=Paul K. Miller
|Title=Depression, sense and sensitivity: On pre-diagnostic questioning about self-harm and suicidal inclination in the primary care consultation
|Tag(s)=depression; suicide; interaction; primary care; stigma, conversation analysis
|Key=Miller2013
|Publisher=Equinox
|Year=2013
|Journal=Communication and Medicine
|Volume=10
|Number=1
|Pages=39-51
|URL=http://www.equinoxpub.com/journals/index.php/CAM/article/view/13593
|DOI=10.1558/cam.v10i1.37
|Abstract=National Health Service directives in the UK specify that, in any primary care consultation where a patient either demonstrably has – or is suspected to have –depression, a “direct question” should be asked regarding their thoughts or activities relating to self-harm or suicide. The evidence collected for this study, which takes the form of recorded interactions between doctors and patients in primary care settings, indicates that this is most commonly done post-diagnosis as an exercise in “risk assessment.” Suicidal ideation is, however, not only classified as a possible outcome of depression but also a core symptom of the condition and, consequently, such a question is sometimes asked prior to the diagnostic phase of the consultation, as a key step in reaching a depression diagnosis. This specific activity presents a general practitioner with an inferably difficult communicative task: how to raise the matter of suicide/self-harm when the patient does not already have a depression diagnosis as an interactional resource with which to make sense of its local relevance. Herein, using a conversation analytic method, techniques employed by general practitioners and patients in negotiating three of these potentially sensitive moments are examined. Analytic observations are then used to highlight a range of issues pertinent to the formulation of normative frames of “good practice” in handling difficult clinical topics in situ.
}}

Miller2015

2015-04-21T09:23:04Z

PaulMiller:

{{BibEntry
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Author(s)=Paul K. Miller; Tom Grimwood
|Title=Mountains, Cones, and Dilemmas of Context: The Case of “Ordinary Language” in Philosophy and Social Scientific Method
|Tag(s)=Context; ethnomethodology; indexicality; language; Sequences;
|Key=Miller2015
|Year=2015
|Journal=Philosophy of the Social Sciences
|URL=http://pos.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/04/07/0048393115579668.abstract
|DOI=10.1177/0048393115579668
|Note=needs post-publication info
|Abstract=The order of influence from thesis to hypothesis, and from philosophy to the social sciences, has historically governed the way in which the abstraction and significance of language as an empirical object is determined. In this article, an argument is made for the development of a more reflexive intellectual relationship between ordinary language philosophy (OLP) and the social sciences that it helped inspire. It is demonstrated that, and how, the social scientific traditions of ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (CA) press OLP to re-consider the variety of problematic abstractions it has previously made for the sake of philosophical clarity, thereby self-reinvigorating.
}}

Miller2013a

2015-04-21T09:20:56Z

PaulMiller: Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Paul K. Miller; Colum Cronin |Title=Rethinking the factuality of “contextual” factors in an ethnomethodological mode: Towards a refl..."

{{BibEntry
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Author(s)=Paul K. Miller; Colum Cronin
|Title=Rethinking the factuality of “contextual” factors in an ethnomethodological mode: Towards a reflexive understanding of action-context dynamism in the theorisation of coaching
|Tag(s)=context; coaching process; ethnomethodology; indexicality; sport; reflexivity
|Key=Miller2013a
|Publisher=Taylor & Francis Ltd
|Year=2013
|Journal=Sports Coaching Review
|Volume=1
|Number=2
|Pages=106-123
|DOI=10.1080/21640629.2013.790166
|Abstract=In this paper, an argument is made for the revisitation of Harold Garfinkel’s classic body of ethnomethodological research in order to further develop and refine models of the action-context relationship in coaching science. It is observed that, like some contemporary phenomenological and post-structural approaches to coaching, an ethnomethodological perspective stands in opposition to dominant understandings of contexts as semi-static causal “variables” in coaching activity. It is further observed, however, that unlike such approaches – which are often focused upon the capture of authentic individual experience – ethnomethodology operates in the intersubjective domain, granting analytic primacy the coordinative accomplishment of meaningful action in naturally-occurring situations. Focusing particularly on Garfinkel’s conceptualisation of action and context as transformable and, above all, reflexively-configured, it is centrally argued that greater engagement with the ethnomethodological corpus of research has much to offer coaching scholarship both theoretically and methodologically.
}}

Miller2012

2015-04-21T09:17:16Z

PaulMiller: Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Paul K. Miller |Title=Arsène didn’t see it: Coaching, research and the promise of a discursive psychology |Tag(s)=Discursive Psycholo..."

{{BibEntry
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Author(s)=Paul K. Miller
|Title=Arsène didn’t see it: Coaching, research and the promise of a discursive psychology
|Tag(s)=Discursive Psychology; Conversation Analysis; Sport; Language;
|Key=Miller2012
|Year=2012
|Journal=International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching
|Volume=7
|Number=4
|Pages=615-628
|DOI=10.1260/1747-9541.7.4.615
|Abstract=For twenty five years the discursive psychological perspective has been at the vanguard of innovative research in social psychology, producing high-detail systematic analyses of dynamic, constructive language use in a wide range of practical settings. To date, it has found applications in the study of medical communication, racism, political discourse, emotion and accounts of success and failure in sport, to highlight but a few. Its lack of headway in the specific study of coaching is perhaps, therefore, somewhat surprising given the transparently task-focused character of many naturally-occurring verbal activities in the domain. This paper draws on salient literature and two brief case studies in illustrating some of the ways that the perspective can inform an approach to coaching interaction that does not draw on ontologically-problematic cognitivist assumptions regarding the relationship between thought and action. A foundational argument is then made for greater engagement with Discursive Psychology within the broader realm of coaching science.
}}

Miller2013

2015-04-21T08:56:50Z

PaulMiller: Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Paul K. Miller |Title=Depression, sense and sensitivity: On pre-diagnostic questioning about self-harm and suicidal inclination in the p..."

{{BibEntry
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Author(s)=Paul K. Miller
|Title=Depression, sense and sensitivity: On pre-diagnostic questioning about self-harm and suicidal inclination in the primary care consultation
|Tag(s)=depression; suicide; interaction; primary care; stigma, conversation analysis
|Key=Miller2013
|Publisher=Equinox
|Year=2013
|Journal=Communication and Medicine
|Volume=10
|Number=1
|Pages=39-51
|DOI=10.1558/cam.v10i1.37
|Abstract=National Health Service directives in the UK specify that, in any primary care consultation where a patient either demonstrably has – or is suspected to have –depression, a “direct question” should be asked regarding their thoughts or activities relating to self-harm or suicide. The evidence collected for this study, which takes the form of recorded interactions between doctors and patients in primary care settings, indicates that this is most commonly done post-diagnosis as an exercise in “risk assessment.” Suicidal ideation is, however, not only classified as a possible outcome of depression but also a core symptom of the condition and, consequently, such a question is sometimes asked prior to the diagnostic phase of the consultation, as a key step in reaching a depression diagnosis. This specific activity presents a general practitioner with an inferably difficult communicative task: how to raise the matter of suicide/self-harm when the patient does not already have a depression diagnosis as an interactional resource with which to make sense of its local relevance. Herein, using a conversation analytic method, techniques employed by general practitioners and patients in negotiating three of these potentially sensitive moments are examined. Analytic observations are then used to highlight a range of issues pertinent to the formulation of normative frames of “good practice” in handling difficult clinical topics in situ.
}}