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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1992). Talk at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Glenn, P. J. (2003). Laughter in interaction. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Goffman, E. (1983). The interaction order: American sociological association, 1982 presidential address. American Sociological Review, 48, 1–17.
Griffiths, L. (1998). Humour as resistance to professional dominance in community mental health teams. Sociology of Health & Illness, 20, 874–895.
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Heritage, J., & Watson, R. (1979). Formulations as conversational objects. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 123–162). New York: Irvington.
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.
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.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Svennevig, J. (2012). Interaction in workplace meetings. Discourse Studies, 14, 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611427203.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Smart, C., Auburn, T. (2018). Theorising Multidisciplinary Team Meetings in Mental Health Clinical Practice. In: Smart, C., Auburn, T. (eds) Interprofessional Care and Mental Health. The Language of Mental Health. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98228-1_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98228-1_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-98227-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-98228-1
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)