Using Joint Conversation Analysis Between Clinicians and Researchers: Developing Reflexivity in Community Mental Health Teams

  • Cordet SmartEmail author
  • Holly Reed
  • Madeleine Tremblett
  • Nancy Froomberg
Part of the The Language of Mental Health book series (TLMH)


Analysing data in groups is highly beneficial in ensuring the credibility and accuracy of analysis. This chapter detailed how we developed joint Conversation Analysis (CA) groups run with clinicians and researchers. We outline how data groups work when using CA as the main framework for analysis, to ensure the credibility of the analysis. Limited research reports the use of joint analysis groups with participants, service users or clinicians. We review the challenges this approach creates and discuss how we were able to achieve this, and how it added to the research in enhancing confidence in the accuracy of transcriptions, and through ensuring the relevance of the analysis. We provide a protocol to guide how future joint analysis groups could be run.


  1. Baxter, L., Thorne, T., & Mitchell, A. (2001). Small voices big noises. Exeter: Washington Singer Press. This report is also available from the INVOLVE website:
  2. Edwards, D. (2012). Discursive and scientific psychology. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51(3), 425–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Frankham, J., Stronach, I., Bibi-Nawaz, S., Cahill, G., Cui, V., Dymoke, M., …, Mohd Khir, M. (2014). Deskilling data analysis: The virtues of dancing in the dark. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 37(1), 87–100. Scholar
  4. Jefferson, G. (1984). On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. In J. M. Atkinson & J. C. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies of conversation analysis (pp. 191–222). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Millar, S., Chambers, M., & Giles, M. (2015). Service user involvement in mental health care: An evolutionary concept analysis. Health Expectations. Scholar
  6. Mjøsund, N. H., Eriksson, M., Espnes, G. A., Haaland-Øverby, M., Jensen, S. L., Norheim, I., …, Vinje, H. F. (2017). Service user involvement enhanced the research quality in a study using interpretative phenomenological analysis—The power of multiple perspectives. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 73(1), 265–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. NICE. (2011). NICE CG136: Service user experience in adult mental health: Improving the experience of care for people using adult NHS mental health services. London: NICE.Google Scholar
  8. Phoenix, A., Brannen, J., Elliott, H., Smithson, J., Morris, P., Smart, C., …, Bauer, E. (2016, April). Group analysis in practice: Narrative approaches. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research.
  9. Smart, C. A., & Denman, K. (2017). Student and supervisor experiences of learning and teaching conversation analysis and discursive psychology for autism spectrum disorder focused research: A reflective approach. In M. O’Reilly, J. Lester, & T. Muskett (Eds.), A practical guide to social interaction research in autism spectrum disorders. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  10. Stedmon, J., & Dallos, R. (2009). Reflective practice in psychotherapy and counselling. London: McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
  11. Sweeney, A., Greenwood, K. E., Williams, S., Wykes, T., & Rose, D. S. (2013). Hearing the voices of service user researchers in collaborative qualitative data analysis: The case for multiple coding. Health Expectations, 16(4), 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cordet Smart
    • 1
    Email author
  • Holly Reed
    • 1
  • Madeleine Tremblett
    • 1
  • Nancy Froomberg
    • 1
  1. 1.School of PsychologyUniversity of PlymouthPlymouthUK

Personalised recommendations