Inside the Meeting: Discursive Approaches as a Framework for Understanding Multidisciplinary Team Meetings

  • Timothy AuburnEmail author
  • Cordet Smart
  • Madeleine Tremblett
Part of the The Language of Mental Health book series (TLMH)


The aim of this chapter is to set out the methodological framework which underpinned the research projects described in the other chapters of this book. The Authors describe some background to the development of multidisciplinary teamworking (MDTs) in the health and social care sector but draw particular attention to the disjuncture between the aspiration for teamworking and the actuality of its implementation. They argue for an ‘emic’ approach to understanding teamworking and thereby advocate a systematic discursive approach which focuses on the fine details of talk in interaction. The fundamental principles of conversation analysis and discursive psychology are described and illustrated with extracts from MDT meetings and healthcare encounters. The implications of this approach for understanding the ‘machinery’ of MDTs are discussed.


  1. Arber, A. (2008). Team meetings in specialist palliative care: Asking questions as a strategy within interprofessional interaction. Qualitative Health Research, 18(10), 1323–1335. Scholar
  2. Barnard, R. A., Cruice, M. N., & Playford, E. D. (2010). Strategies used in the pursuit of achievability during goal setting in rehabilitation. Qualitative Health Research, 20(2), 239–250. Scholar
  3. Bélanger, E., Rodriguez, C., Groleau, D., Légaré, F., Macdonald, M. E., & Marchand, R. (2014). Initiating decision-making conversations in palliative care: An ethnographic discourse analysis. BMC Palliative Care, 13: 63.
  4. Bokhour, B. G. (2006). Communication in interdisciplinary team meetings: What are we talking about? Journal of Interprofessional Care, 20(4), 349–363. Scholar
  5. Brown, B., Crawford, P., & Darongkamas, J. (2000). Blurred roles and permeable boundaries: The experience of multidisciplinary working in community mental health. Health and Social Care in the Community, 8(6), 425–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crown Copyright. (2012). Health and social care act. London: The Stationary Office.Google Scholar
  7. D’Amour, D., Ferrada-Videla, M., San Martin Rodriguez, L., & Beaulieu, M.-D. (2005). The conceptual basis for interprofessional collaboration: Core concepts and theoretical frameworks. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 19(Sup1), 116–131. Scholar
  8. D’Amour, D., Goulet, L., Labadie, J.-F., San Martín-Rodriguez, L., & Pineault, R. (2008). A model and typology of collaboration between professionals in healthcare organizations. BMC Health Services Research, 2008(8), 188. Scholar
  9. Deady, R. (2012). Studying multidisciplinary teams in the Irish Republic: The conceptual wrangle. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 48, 176–182. Scholar
  10. Drew, P., Chatwin, J., & Collins, S. (2001). Conversation analysis: A method for research into interactions between patients and health-care professionals. Health Expectations, 4, 58–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Edwards, D. (1997). Discourse and cognition. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (2005). Discursive psychology, mental states and descriptions. In H. te Molder & J. Potter (Eds.), Conversation and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Field, K. M., Rosenthal, M. A., Dimou, J., Fleet, M., Gibbs, P., & Drummond, K. (2010). Communication in and clinician satisfaction with multidisciplinary team meetings in neuro-oncology. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience, 17, 1130–1135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Finn, R., Learmonth, M., & Reedy, P. (2010). Some unintended effects of teamwork in healthcare. Social Science and Medicine, 70, 1148–1154. Scholar
  16. Hayashi, M. (2013). Turn allocation and turn sharing. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), Handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  17. Hepburn, H., & Bolden, G. (2013). The conversation analytic approach to transcription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), Handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  18. Heritage, J. (2010). Questioning in medicine. In A. F. Freed & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), “Why do you ask?”: The function of questions in institutional discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Heritage, J., Robinson, J. D., Elliot, M., Beckett, M., & Wilkes, M. (2007). Reducing patients’ unmet concerns: The difference one word can make. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22, 1429–1433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kitzinger, C. (2013). Repair. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), Handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. Kuziemsky, C. E., Borycki, E. M., Purkis, M. E., Black, F., Boyle, M., …, Interprofessional Practices Team. (2009). An interdisciplinary team communication framework and its application to healthcare ‘e-teams’ systems design. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 9, 43.
  22. 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. Scholar
  23. O’Carroll, V., McSwiggan, L., & Campbell, M. (2016). Health and social care professionals’ attitudes to interprofessional working and interprofessional education: A literature review. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 30(1), 42–49. Scholar
  24. Pillay, B., Wootten, A. C., Crowe, H., Corcoran, N., Tran, B., Bowden, P., ... & Costello, A. J. (2016). The impact of multidisciplinary team meetings on patient assessment, management and outcomes in oncology settings: A systematic review of the literature. Cancer Treatment Reviews, 42, 56–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pomerantz, A., & Heritage, J. (2013). Preference. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), Handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  26. Potter, J., & Hepburn, A. (2005). Qualitative interviews in psychology: Problems and possibilities. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2, 281–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Potter, J., & Hepburn, A. (2012). Eight challenges for interview researchers. In J. F. Gubrium, J. A. Holstein, A. B. Marvasti, & K. D. McKinney (Eds.), The Sage handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Potter, J., & te Molder, H. (2005). Talking cognition: Making and mapping the terrain. In H. te Molder & J. Potter (Eds.), Conversation and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Reeves, S., Lewin, S., Espin, S., & Zwarenstein, M. (2010). Interprofessional teamwork for health and social care. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reeves, S., Xyrichis, A., & Zwarenstein, M. (2018). Teamwork, collaboration, coordination, and networking: Why we need to distinguish between different types of interprofessional practice. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 32(1), 1–3. Scholar
  31. Rice, K., Zwarenstein, M., Conn, L. G., Kenaszchuk, C., Russell, A., & Reeves, S. (2010). An intervention to improve interprofessional collaboration and communications: A comparative qualitative study. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 24, 350–361. Scholar
  32. Roulston, K. (2011). Working through challenges in doing interview research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 10(4), 348–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (2 vols.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  34. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schegloff, E. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  37. Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  38. Stokoe, E. (2011). Simulated interaction and communication skills training: The ‘Conversation-Analytic Role-Play Method’. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Applied conversation analysis: Intervention and change in institutional talk. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  39. The Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry. (2013). Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry: Executive summary (Chaired by Robert Francis QC). London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  40. Toefien, M., Irvine, A., Drew, P., & Sainsbury, R. (2011). Should mandatory jobseeker interviews be personalised? The politics of using conversation analysis to make effective practice recommendations. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Applied conversation analysis: Intervention and change in institutional talk. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  41. Watson, C., & Drew, V. (2017). Humour and laughter in meetings: Influence, decision-making and the emergence of leadership. Discourse and Communication, 11(3), 314–329. Scholar
  42. Wiggins, S. (2017). Discursive psychology: Theory, method and applications. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wittenberg-Lyles, E., Oliver, D. P., Demiris, G., & Regehr, K. (2010). Interdisciplinary collaboration in hospice team meetings. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 24(3), 264–273. Scholar
  44. Zwarenstein, M., Goldman J., & Reeves, S. (2009). Interprofessional collaboration: Effects of practice-based interventions on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (3). Art. No.: CD000072.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Timothy Auburn
    • 1
    Email author
  • Cordet Smart
    • 1
  • Madeleine Tremblett
    • 1
  1. 1.School of PsychologyUniversity of PlymouthPlymouthUK

Personalised recommendations