Advertisement

Taking a Proposal Seriously: Orientations to Agenda and Agency in Support Workers’ Responses to Client Proposals

  • Melisa StevanovicEmail author
  • Camilla Lindholm
  • Taina Valkeapää
  • Kaisa Valkia
  • Elina Weiste
Chapter
  • 19 Downloads
Part of the The Language of Mental Health book series (TLMH)

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.

Keywords

Agenda management Distribution of agency Participation Proposals Joint decision-making Mental health rehabilitation Conversation analysis Personal pronouns 

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson, J. M., & Drew, P. (1979). Order in court: The organisation of verbal interaction in judicial settings. London, UK: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boden, D. (1994). The business of talk: Organizations in action. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  6. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Woodstock: Overlook Press.Google Scholar
  7. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual. Garden City: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  8. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  9. Greatbatch, D. (1988). A turn-taking system for British news interviews. Language in Society, 17(3), 401–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A radical view. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organisation on the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sorjonen, M.-L. (2001). Responding in conversation: A study of response particles in Finnish. Amsterdam, NL: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Stevanovic, M. (2012). Establishing joint decisions in a dyad. Discourse Studies, 14(6), 779–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Stevanovic, M. (2015). Displays of uncertainty and proximal deontic claims: The case of proposal sequences. Journal of Pragmatics, 78, 84–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Stevanovic, M. (2018). Social deontics: A nano-level approach to human power play. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 48(3), 369–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stevanovic, M., & Weiste, E. (2017). Conversation analytic data session as a pedagogical institution. Learning, Culture, and Social Interaction, 15, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Svennevig, J. (2014). Direct and indirect self-presentation in first conversations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(3), 302–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tannen, D. (2005). Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Melisa Stevanovic
    • 1
    Email author
  • Camilla Lindholm
    • 2
  • Taina Valkeapää
    • 1
  • Kaisa Valkia
    • 1
  • Elina Weiste
    • 3
  1. 1.University of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Tampere UniversityTampereFinland
  3. 3.Finnish Institute of Occupational HealthHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations