Most Downloaded Articles
- Negotiating frame ambiguity: A study of simulated encounters in medical education by Seale, Clive/ Butler, Christopher C/ Hutchby, Ian/ Kinnersley, Paul and Rollnick, Stephen
- Lexical conflation and edible iconicity: Two sources of ambiguity in American vernacular health terminology by Stvan, Laurel Smith
- ‘Screwed for life’: Examining identification and division in addiction narratives by Jodlowski, Denise/ Sharf, Barbara F/ Nguyen, Loralee Capistrano/ Haidet, Paul and Woodard, Lechauncy D
- Community as a key to healing after the death of a child by Hastings, Sally O/ Musambira, George W and Hoover, Judith D
- Journalists and jabs: Media coverage of the MMR vaccine by Speers, Tammy and Lewis, Justin
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.