Difference between revisions of "Pino2015"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Author(s)=Marco Pino | |Author(s)=Marco Pino | ||
|Title=Responses to indirect complaints as restricted activities in Therapeutic Community meetings | |Title=Responses to indirect complaints as restricted activities in Therapeutic Community meetings | ||
| − | |Editor(s)=Fabienne H.G. Chevalier | + | |Editor(s)=Fabienne H. G. Chevalier; John Moore |
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Medical EMCA; Complaints; Responding; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Medical EMCA; Complaints; Responding; |
|Key=Pino2015 | |Key=Pino2015 | ||
| − | |Publisher=John Benjamins | + | |Publisher=John Benjamins |
|Year=2015 | |Year=2015 | ||
| − | | | + | |Language=English |
| + | |Address=Amsterdam | ||
|Booktitle=Producing and Managing Restricted Activities: avoidance and withholding in institutional interaction | |Booktitle=Producing and Managing Restricted Activities: avoidance and withholding in institutional interaction | ||
|Pages=271-304 | |Pages=271-304 | ||
Latest revision as of 02:17, 15 December 2019
| Pino2015 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | INCOLLECTION |
| Key | Pino2015 |
| Author(s) | Marco Pino |
| Title | Responses to indirect complaints as restricted activities in Therapeutic Community meetings |
| Editor(s) | Fabienne H. G. Chevalier, John Moore |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Medical EMCA, Complaints, Responding |
| Publisher | John Benjamins |
| Year | 2015 |
| Language | English |
| City | Amsterdam |
| Month | |
| Journal | |
| Volume | |
| Number | |
| Pages | 271-304 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1075/pbns.225.09pin |
| ISBN | 9789027256607 |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | Pragmatics & Beyond New Series |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | Producing and Managing Restricted Activities: avoidance and withholding in institutional interaction |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
In this chapter I investigate how the staff members of a mental health Therapeutic Community in Italy avoid displays of affiliation in response to residents’ indirect (or third party) complaints. I show how this restriction can be embodied in different practices: ignoring a resident’s turn carrying a possible complaint, avoiding attending the complaint-components of a resident’s turn, and disaffiliating with a resident’s complaint. I also discuss a deviant case in which affiliation is produced and is later treated by the staff members as a problematic stance to be produced following a resident’s complaint. I argue that through a restriction on affiliation the staff members implement the institutionally-relevant identity of intermediaries, whose task is to encourage the residents’ compliance to the decisions of absent third parties.
Notes
