Advertisement

Theorising Multidisciplinary Team Meetings in Mental Health Clinical Practice

  • Cordet SmartEmail author
  • Timothy Auburn
Chapter
Part of the The Language of Mental Health book series (TLMH)

Abstract

In this chapter, we seek to examine the implications for multidisciplinary team meetings of adopting an ‘emic’ discursive approach. By specifically employing a conversation analytic framework, we show how meetings are contexts which are endogenously constituted. Meetings display a particular social organisation to which participants orientate and sustain on a turn-by-turn basis. Features unique to the social organisation of meetings include the role of the chair, an agenda and allocation of turns through the chair. These features are illustrated with extracts from team meetings. The implications of this framework for interprofessional working in teams are also considered.

References

  1. Arber, A. (2008). Team meetings in specialist palliative care: Asking questions as a strategy within interprofessional interaction. Qualitative Health Research, 18, 1323–1335.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732308322588.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnes, R. (2007). Formulations and the facilitation of common agreement in meetings talk. Text and Talk, 27, 273–296.  https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2007.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Deppermann, A., Schmitt, R., & Mondada, L. (2010). Agenda and emergence: Contingent and planned activities in a meeting. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1700–1718.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.10.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1992). Talk at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Glenn, P. J. (2003). Laughter in interaction. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Goffman, E. (1983). The interaction order: American sociological association, 1982 presidential address. American Sociological Review, 48, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Griffiths, L. (1998). Humour as resistance to professional dominance in community mental health teams. Sociology of Health & Illness, 20, 874–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  9. Heritage, J., & Watson, R. (1979). Formulations as conversational objects. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 123–162). New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
  10. Lewin, S., & Reeves, S. (2011). Enacting ‘team’ and ‘teamwork’: Using Goffman’s theory of impression management to illuminate interprofessional practice on hospital wards. Social Science and Medicine, 72, 1595–1602.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.03.037.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Pomerantz, A., & Denvir, P. (2007). Enacting the institutional role of chairperson in upper management meetings: The interactional realization of provisional authority. In F. Cooren (Ed.), Interacting and organizing: Analyses of a management meeting (pp. 31–52). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  14. Svennevig, J. (2012). Interaction in workplace meetings. Discourse Studies, 14, 3–10.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611427203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of PsychologyUniversity of PlymouthPlymouthUK

Personalised recommendations