Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
This study examines the co-construction of five successful gatekeeping encounters. Drawing from a database of employment interviews, the emically derived concept of trustworthiness is identified as a key determiner in the success or failure of job candidates. Three critical, potentially problematic moves are identified: supplying inappropriate references, demanding too high a salary, and failing to account for gaps in one's work history. What distinguishes the successful from the failed interviews is not the frequency of these potentially damaging occurrences but the compensatory characteristics of those encounters in which trust (and subsequent success) is established. The successful candidates vary widely in terms of second language ability (in the case of nonnative speakers of English) and work experience. What they share, however, is the ability to present themselves positively, to establish rapport0solidarity with their interlocutor, and to demonstrate flexibility regarding job requirements and preferences. Both linguistic and nonlinguistic features are examined. (Comembership, crosscultural communication, cross-talk, employment interviews, gatekeeping encounters, institutional discourse, intercultural communication, interlanguage pragmatics, rapport)* I N T R O D U C T I O N Gatekeeping encounters, as defined by Schiffrin (1994:146), "are asymmetric speech situations during which a person who represents a social institution seeks to gain information about the lives, beliefs, and practices of people outside of that institution in order to warrant the granting of an institutional privilege." Numerous studies of institutional discourse and intercultural pragmatics have taken as their setting gatekeeping situations, including academic counseling
This study examines the co-construction of five successful gatekeeping encounters. Drawing from a database of employment interviews, the emically derived concept of trustworthiness is identified as a key determiner in the success or failure of job candidates. Three critical, potentially problematic moves are identified: supplying inappropriate references, demanding too high a salary, and failing to account for gaps in one's work history. What distinguishes the successful from the failed interviews is not the frequency of these potentially damaging occurrences but the compensatory characteristics of those encounters in which trust (and subsequent success) is established. The successful candidates vary widely in terms of second language ability (in the case of nonnative speakers of English) and work experience. What they share, however, is the ability to present themselves positively, to establish rapport0solidarity with their interlocutor, and to demonstrate flexibility regarding job requirements and preferences. Both linguistic and nonlinguistic features are examined. (Comembership, crosscultural communication, cross-talk, employment interviews, gatekeeping encounters, institutional discourse, intercultural communication, interlanguage pragmatics, rapport)* I N T R O D U C T I O N Gatekeeping encounters, as defined by Schiffrin (1994:146), "are asymmetric speech situations during which a person who represents a social institution seeks to gain information about the lives, beliefs, and practices of people outside of that institution in order to warrant the granting of an institutional privilege." Numerous studies of institutional discourse and intercultural pragmatics have taken as their setting gatekeeping situations, including academic counseling
Interpretive rules for both standard scal es and factor scal es of the MMPI-168 were devel oped to predict long-term outcome (6 months to 3 years postdischarge) of an inpatient pain management program. Rul es for both standard-scale and factor-scale interpretation correctly identified 79% of pain program "successes" and "failures." Resul ts provide support for the MMPI-168 as a brief, useful measure of personality functioning in a physical medicine setting.Several studies have assessed the full Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) as a predictor of pain program outcome. Maruta, Swanson, and Swenson (1979) found no statistically significant differences on MMPI scales between a group of failures and a group of successes from a pain management program, but did find that high scores on Hypochondriasis and Hysteria scales contributed to an index of premorbid factors predictive of poor pain program outcome. Painter, Seres, and Newman (1980) were unable to discriminate successful from unsuccessful patients of a pain center using the full MMPI. Kuperman, Golden, and Blume (1979) reported that, among a group of patients whose pain problems had a substantiated organic origin, a high Hypochondriasis scale score was associated with poor treatment outcomes in a pain clinic.A shorter form of the MMPI, the MMPI-168 (Overall & Gomez-Mont, 1974), appears to have utility in assessing pain patients. Calsyn, Spengler, and Freeman (1977) demonstrated that factor scoring of the MMPI-168 provided sufficient information to discriminate patients with organic pain from patients with a pain problem consisting of a mix of psychological, social, and organic factors with 74.5% accuracy. In a cross-validation sample, these same authors separated patients with primarily behavioral pain problems from patients with primarily organic pain disorders with 83% accuracy. The Somatization factor was most useful in making these discriminations. The authors
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.