Difference between revisions of "Winterbottom2026"
JakubMlynar (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Phineas Edwin Winterbottom; Andrea Bruun; Steven Bloch; |Title=Breaking the rules: A conversation analytic study of hospice multidiscipl...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m (AndreiKorbut moved page Winterbottom2025 to Winterbottom2026 without leaving a redirect) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Author(s)=Phineas Edwin Winterbottom; Andrea Bruun; Steven Bloch; | |Author(s)=Phineas Edwin Winterbottom; Andrea Bruun; Steven Bloch; | ||
|Title=Breaking the rules: A conversation analytic study of hospice multidisciplinary team meetings | |Title=Breaking the rules: A conversation analytic study of hospice multidisciplinary team meetings | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Rules; Conversation analysis; Hospice; Multidisciplinary teams | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Rules; Conversation analysis; Hospice; Multidisciplinary teams |
| − | |Key= | + | |Key=Winterbottom2026 |
| − | |Year= | + | |Year=2026 |
|Language=English | |Language=English | ||
|Journal=Discourse Studies | |Journal=Discourse Studies | ||
| + | |Volume=28 | ||
| + | |Number=1 | ||
| + | |Pages=117-137 | ||
|URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14614456251344039 | |URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14614456251344039 | ||
|DOI=10.1177/14614456251344039 | |DOI=10.1177/14614456251344039 | ||
|Abstract=Rule-breaking occurs in healthcare settings and is typically pro-social. However, rule-breaking within a hospice setting has not been previously studied. This study investigates rule-breaking within hospice multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings using Conversation Analysis. Eight video and audio recordings of approximately 45-minute-long MDT meetings at one UK hospice were systematically analysed to identify how staff break rules. Rule-breaking was present throughout the data and was characterised by the minimisation of accountability through collectivising pronouns, extreme formulations and laughables. These three features supported rule-breakers to voice potentially transgressive opinions and recommendations that may have provoked criticism from MDT members. Rule-breakers were therefore able to evade social and professional sanctions whilst carrying out pro-social actions that benefit hospice patients, meeting participants, as well as the organisation and progression of the meeting itself. These findings contribute to the existing understanding of rule-breaking and have implications for how institutions understand and address it. | |Abstract=Rule-breaking occurs in healthcare settings and is typically pro-social. However, rule-breaking within a hospice setting has not been previously studied. This study investigates rule-breaking within hospice multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings using Conversation Analysis. Eight video and audio recordings of approximately 45-minute-long MDT meetings at one UK hospice were systematically analysed to identify how staff break rules. Rule-breaking was present throughout the data and was characterised by the minimisation of accountability through collectivising pronouns, extreme formulations and laughables. These three features supported rule-breakers to voice potentially transgressive opinions and recommendations that may have provoked criticism from MDT members. Rule-breakers were therefore able to evade social and professional sanctions whilst carrying out pro-social actions that benefit hospice patients, meeting participants, as well as the organisation and progression of the meeting itself. These findings contribute to the existing understanding of rule-breaking and have implications for how institutions understand and address it. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 01:55, 17 May 2026
| Winterbottom2026 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Winterbottom2026 |
| Author(s) | Phineas Edwin Winterbottom, Andrea Bruun, Steven Bloch |
| Title | Breaking the rules: A conversation analytic study of hospice multidisciplinary team meetings |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Rules, Conversation analysis, Hospice, Multidisciplinary teams |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2026 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Discourse Studies |
| Volume | 28 |
| Number | 1 |
| Pages | 117-137 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/14614456251344039 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Rule-breaking occurs in healthcare settings and is typically pro-social. However, rule-breaking within a hospice setting has not been previously studied. This study investigates rule-breaking within hospice multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings using Conversation Analysis. Eight video and audio recordings of approximately 45-minute-long MDT meetings at one UK hospice were systematically analysed to identify how staff break rules. Rule-breaking was present throughout the data and was characterised by the minimisation of accountability through collectivising pronouns, extreme formulations and laughables. These three features supported rule-breakers to voice potentially transgressive opinions and recommendations that may have provoked criticism from MDT members. Rule-breakers were therefore able to evade social and professional sanctions whilst carrying out pro-social actions that benefit hospice patients, meeting participants, as well as the organisation and progression of the meeting itself. These findings contribute to the existing understanding of rule-breaking and have implications for how institutions understand and address it.
Notes
