Introduction: Social Inclusion as an Interactional Phenomenon

Weiste, Elina; Stevanovic, Melisa; Lindholm, Camilla

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-43531-8_1

Cited by 11 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 101 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Joint decision-making has been associated with certain, repeatable social actions that come across as constitutive of the entire activity. Specifically, drawing on a rich body of studies in the field of conversation analysis, joint decisionmaking interaction may be described with reference to sequences of proposals and responses (for a recent review, see Weiste et al, 2020). Essentially, it is through the recipients' subsequent responses to proposals that joint decisions may emerge.…”

Section: Joint Decision-makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three Multimodal Action Packages in Responses to Proposals During Joint Decision-Making: The Embodied Delivery of Positive Assessments Including the Finnish Particle Ihan “Quite”

Stevanovic

2021

Front. Commun.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Joint decision-making is a thoroughly collaborative interactional endeavor. To construct the outcome of the decision-making sequence as a “joint” one necessitates that the participants constantly negotiate their shared activity, not only with reference to the content of the decisions to be made, but also with reference to whether, when, and upon what exactly decisions are to be made in the first place. In this paper, I draw on a dataset of video-recorded dyadic planning meetings between two church officials as data, investigating a collection of 35 positive assessments with the Finnish particle ihan “quite” occurring in response to a proposal (e.g., tää on ihan kiva “this is quite nice”). The analysis focuses on the embodied delivery of these assessments in combination with their other features: their sequential location and immediate interactional consequences (i.e., accounts, decisions, abandoning of the proposal), their auxiliary verbal turn-design features (i.e., particles), and the “agent” of the proposals that they are responsive to (i.e., who has made the proposal and whether it is based on some written authoritative material). Three multimodal action packages are described, in which the assessment serves 1) to accept an idea in principle, which is combined with no speaker movement, 2) to concede to a plan, which is associated with notable expressive speaker movement (e.g., head gestures, facial expressions) and 3) to establish a joint decision, which is accompanied by the participants’ synchronous body movements. The paper argues that the relative decision-implicativeness of these three multimodal action packages is largely based on the management and distribution of participation and agency between the two participants, which involves the participants using their bodies to position themselves toward their co-participants and toward the proposals “in the air” in distinct ways.

show abstract

Section: Joint Decision-makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three Multimodal Action Packages in Responses to Proposals During Joint Decision-Making: The Embodied Delivery of Positive Assessments Including the Finnish Particle Ihan “Quite”

Stevanovic

2021

Front. Commun.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Findings from the above-mentioned studies have offered new ways of thinking about the more precise nature of different communicative events and to increase understanding of the specific challenges that different people may have in their interactions with others. Joint decision-making interaction as a potential locus of power and authority, on the one hand, and participation and equality, on the other (Weiste et al, 2020), may be assumed to be specifically relevant interactional context to study in this respect. Thus far, however, there are only few studies on the physiological and affective underpinnings of joint decision-making interaction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite its complexity, joint decision-making has been associated with certain, repeatable communicative events that come across as constitutive of the entire decision-making activity. Specifically, drawing on a rich body of studies in the field of conversation analysis, joint decision-making interaction may be described with reference to sequences of proposals and their subsequent responses (Weiste et al, 2020). A proposal consists of a “formulation of a state of affairs that is of current interest” (Huisman, 2001, p. 72), which in certain activity contexts could involve a mere expression of preference (Stevanovic, 2012a, p. 790).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Making Food Decisions Together: Physiological and Affective Underpinnings of Relinquishing Preferences and Reaching Decisions

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We used a novel interdisciplinary experimental paradigm where two types of dyads—15 dyads with one depressed and one non-depressed participant and 15 dyads with two non-depressed participants—engaged in a series of food-decision-making tasks. We examined how different communicative events during the decision-making process were reflected in the affective responses of the interacting participants, as indicated in their skin conductance (SC) response rates. The participants’ SC response rates were found to be higher during the emergence of the final decision, compared to the other segments during the process. Furthermore, relinquishing one’s initially expressed preferences was associated with SC response rates higher than the baseline. However, during the relinquishment segments, there was a negative interaction between depression diagnosis and SC response rates, which suggests that, compared to their non-depressed comparisons, it is affectively less arousing for the participants with depression to give up their previously expressed preferences.

show abstract

“…Recently, conversation analysis (CA) has offered an interactional perspective to patient involvement in treatment negotiation in psychiatry (Bolden and Angell 2017; Kushida and Yamakawa 2020; Thompson and McCabe 2018; Weiste et al 2020). CA of mental health care has focused especially on the joint decision‐making aspect of patient involvement (Lindholm et al 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Engagement to Disengagement in a Psychiatric Assessment Process

Peräkylä

Voutilainen

Lehtinen

et al. 2021

Symbolic Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a longitudinal conversation analytical (CA) case study, we examined patient engagement in a psychiatric assessment process (nine clinical interviews) with a young woman who eventually received the diagnosis of personality disorder. Based on Goffman, we consider engagement in interaction as consisting of three facets: engagement in the action at hand, bodily engagement with the co‐participant, and engagement with the local moral order of the encounter. The patient begins the assessment process with high engagement and ends it up in low engagement. Yet, during this process, the patient oscillates between moments of high and low engagement. We show how the Goffmanian idea of engagement can be elaborated by CA. On the other hand, the Goffmanian view enriches CA by bringing to the foreground the interconnectedness of the different facets of engagement. A video abstract is available at https://youtu.be/S7BA7HRFvJ0.

show abstract

Introduction: Social Inclusion as an Interactional Phenomenon

Cited by 11 publications

References 101 publications

Three Multimodal Action Packages in Responses to Proposals During Joint Decision-Making: The Embodied Delivery of Positive Assessments Including the Finnish Particle Ihan “Quite”

Three Multimodal Action Packages in Responses to Proposals During Joint Decision-Making: The Embodied Delivery of Positive Assessments Including the Finnish Particle Ihan “Quite”

Making Food Decisions Together: Physiological and Affective Underpinnings of Relinquishing Preferences and Reaching Decisions

From Engagement to Disengagement in a Psychiatric Assessment Process

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About