Most Downloaded Articles
- What healthcare students do with what they don't know: The socializing power of ‘uncertainty’ in the case presentation by Spafford, Marlee M/ Schryer, Catherine F/ Lingard, Lorelei and Hrynchak, Patricia K
- Community as a key to healing after the death of a child by Hastings, Sally O/ Musambira, George W and Hoover, Judith D
- The unjust world problem: A response to Elliot Mishler by Williams, Gareth
- Multilingualism and healthcare in Nigeria: A management perspective by Antia, Bassey E. and Bertin, Fankep D. A.
- Editorial: Interactional expertise in healthcare encounters by Sarangi, Srikant
Communicating for a clinical purpose: Strategy in interaction in healthcare consultations
Citation Information: Communication & Medicine. Volume 2, Issue 2, Pages 111–122, ISSN (Print) 1612-1783, DOI: 10.1515/come.2005.2.2.111, October 2005
- Published Online:
Many studies of communication employ interviewing techniques and conversation analysis, particularly in situations where one participant brings specialist resources. Interviews and recorded interactions are usually handled separately: ethnographic data are introduced once conversation analysis is complete, to validate findings or illustrate their wider significance. However, integrating interview data in conversation analysis has the potential to illuminate analysts’ interpretations, and to enhance professionals’ contributions from analysis through to dissemination.
In this study, interviews highlighted a parameter between professionals who actively used communication to manipulate the consultation’s course, engaging patients at particular points and in particular ways, and professionals whose consultation management was more ‘clinical’ and less dependent on interaction. The different ways professionals talked in interview were paralleled by differences identified from conversation analysis of consultations. For some, ‘clinical’ orientation was more prevalent in the organization of their consultations than ‘active’ manipulation of communication, and their management of the consultation more ‘unilateral’. For others, communication played a more strategic and integral part in clinical practice, and their management of the consultation was more ‘bilateral’.
These contrasts in professionals’ descriptions of their consultation management suggest that at least some features of a ‘bilateral’ approach are consciously employed and may be teachable.