Difference between revisions of "Antaki2013"
(BibTeX auto import 2014-10-23 11:14:42) |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
| − | | | + | |BibType=ARTICLE |
| − | | | + | |Author(s)=Charles Antaki; |
|Title=Two conversational practices for encouraging adults with intellectual disabilities to reflect on their activities | |Title=Two conversational practices for encouraging adults with intellectual disabilities to reflect on their activities | ||
| − | + | |Tag(s)=Conversation Analysis; deliberately incomplete utterances; displays; epistemic asymmetry; hinting; knowledge; organization; reflection; test questions | |
| − | |Tag(s)= | + | |Key=Antaki2013 |
| − | | | ||
|Year=2013 | |Year=2013 | ||
| − | |||
|Journal=Journal of Intellectual Disability Research | |Journal=Journal of Intellectual Disability Research | ||
|Volume=57 | |Volume=57 | ||
|Number=6 | |Number=6 | ||
|Pages=580–588 | |Pages=580–588 | ||
| + | |URL=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01572.x/abstract | ||
|DOI=10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01572.x | |DOI=10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01572.x | ||
|Note=WOS:000318951700008 | |Note=WOS:000318951700008 | ||
|Abstract=Background Staff can encourage adults with intellectual disabilities to reflect on their experiences in a number of ways. Not all are equally successful interactionally. Methods Conversation Analysis is used to examine c. 30h of recordings made at two service-provider agencies. Results I identify two practices for soliciting reflection: both start with open-ended test' questions, but they differ on how these are followed up. A more interrogatory practice is to follow up with alternatives and yes/no questions. A more facilitative practice is to give hints and elaborate the replies. Conclusions I discuss the differences between the two practices in terms of the institutional agendas that guide the staff's interactional routines. With regard to the more successful one, I note the sensitivity of using hints' when asking about clients' own experiences. | |Abstract=Background Staff can encourage adults with intellectual disabilities to reflect on their experiences in a number of ways. Not all are equally successful interactionally. Methods Conversation Analysis is used to examine c. 30h of recordings made at two service-provider agencies. Results I identify two practices for soliciting reflection: both start with open-ended test' questions, but they differ on how these are followed up. A more interrogatory practice is to follow up with alternatives and yes/no questions. A more facilitative practice is to give hints and elaborate the replies. Conclusions I discuss the differences between the two practices in terms of the institutional agendas that guide the staff's interactional routines. With regard to the more successful one, I note the sensitivity of using hints' when asking about clients' own experiences. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 10:45, 1 December 2019
| Antaki2013 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Antaki2013 |
| Author(s) | Charles Antaki |
| Title | Two conversational practices for encouraging adults with intellectual disabilities to reflect on their activities |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | Conversation Analysis, deliberately incomplete utterances, displays, epistemic asymmetry, hinting, knowledge, organization, reflection, test questions |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2013 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Journal of Intellectual Disability Research |
| Volume | 57 |
| Number | 6 |
| Pages | 580–588 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01572.x |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Background Staff can encourage adults with intellectual disabilities to reflect on their experiences in a number of ways. Not all are equally successful interactionally. Methods Conversation Analysis is used to examine c. 30h of recordings made at two service-provider agencies. Results I identify two practices for soliciting reflection: both start with open-ended test' questions, but they differ on how these are followed up. A more interrogatory practice is to follow up with alternatives and yes/no questions. A more facilitative practice is to give hints and elaborate the replies. Conclusions I discuss the differences between the two practices in terms of the institutional agendas that guide the staff's interactional routines. With regard to the more successful one, I note the sensitivity of using hints' when asking about clients' own experiences.
Notes
WOS:000318951700008
