Abstract
While joint decision-making is regularly launched by a proposal, it is the recipients’ responses that crucially influence the proposal outcome. This chapter examines how support workers respond to the proposals made by clients during rehabilitation group meetings at the Clubhouse. Drawing on a collection of 180 client-initiated proposal sequences, the paper describes two dilemmas that the support workers face when seeking to take client proposals “seriously.” The first concerns the meeting’s agenda and consists of a tension between providing recognition for the individual client and encouraging collective participation. The second dilemma has to do with agency and consists of a tension between focusing on the client as the originator of the proposal and avoiding treating him or her alone accountable for it. The analysis of these dilemmas contributes to a deeper understanding of group decision-making, in general, while these findings have specific relevance in mental health rehabilitation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Angouri, J., & Marra, M. (2011). Corporate meetings as genre: A study of the role of the chair in corporate meeting talk. Text & Talk, 30(6), 615–636.
Atkinson, J. M., & Drew, P. (1979). Order in court: The organisation of verbal interaction in judicial settings. London, UK: Macmillan.
Boden, D. (1994). The business of talk: Organizations in action. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Enfield, N. (2011). Sources of asymmetry in human interaction: Enchrony, status, knowledge and agency. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 285–312). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Woodstock: Overlook Press.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual. Garden City: Anchor Books.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Greatbatch, D. (1988). A turn-taking system for British news interviews. Language in Society, 17(3), 401–430.
Helmer, H., & Zinken, J. (2019). Das heißt (“That means”) for formulations and Du meinst (“You mean”) for repair? Interpretations of prior speakers’ turns in German. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 52(2), 159–176.
Kendall, S. (1993). Do health visitors promote client participation? An analysis of the health visitor–client interaction. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 2(2), 103–109.
Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A radical view. London: Macmillan.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organisation on the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14.
Sorjonen, M.-L. (2001). Responding in conversation: A study of response particles in Finnish. Amsterdam, NL: Benjamins.
Stevanovic, M. (2012). Establishing joint decisions in a dyad. Discourse Studies, 14(6), 779–803.
Stevanovic, M. (2013). Constructing a proposal as a thought: A way to manage problems in the initiation of joint decision-making in Finnish workplace interaction. Pragmatics, 23(3), 519–544.
Stevanovic, M. (2015). Displays of uncertainty and proximal deontic claims: The case of proposal sequences. Journal of Pragmatics, 78, 84–97.
Stevanovic, M. (2018). Social deontics: A nano-level approach to human power play. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 48(3), 369–389.
Stevanovic, M., & Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3), 297–321.
Stevanovic, M., & Weiste, E. (2017). Conversation analytic data session as a pedagogical institution. Learning, Culture, and Social Interaction, 15, 1–17.
Svennevig, J. (2014). Direct and indirect self-presentation in first conversations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(3), 302–327.
Tannen, D. (2005). Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. New York: Oxford University Press.
Valkeapää, T., Tanaka, K., Lindholm, C., Weiste, E., & Stevanovic, M. (2019). Interaction, ideology, and practice in mental health rehabilitation. Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation and Mental Health, 6(1), 9–23.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Stevanovic, M., Lindholm, C., Valkeapää, T., Valkia, K., Weiste, E. (2020). Taking a Proposal Seriously: Orientations to Agenda and Agency in Support Workers’ Responses to Client Proposals. In: Lindholm, C., Stevanovic, M., Weiste, E. (eds) Joint Decision Making in Mental Health. The Language of Mental Health. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43531-8_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43531-8_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-43530-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-43531-8
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)