Advertisement

Inclusive Conversation Analysis with Disabled People

  • Val Williams
  • Marcus Jepson
  • Lisa Ponting
  • Kerrie Ford
Chapter

Abstract

Disability Studies (DS) approaches lie at the heart of this chapter, which concerns itself with an analysis of interactions in which people with the label of intellectual disabilities (ID) engage with social care workers. An intellectual disability, by definition, is a lifelong impairment, which involves cognitive limitations as well as difficulties with social functioning, and coping with everyday life (Emerson & Heslop, 2010). However, the category is very broad, differentiated, and often blurred (Williams, Swift, & Mason, 2015), and there are strong reasons for avoiding a prior impairment-related definition. In Disability Studies, the very notion of disability is critiqued and questioned, with social model adherents following Oliver (1990) in viewing disability as the product of a disabling society which fails to include disabled people. While not denying the embodied reality and impact of impairments on the individual (see Shakespeare, 2006; Shakespeare & Watson, 2001; Thomas, 2004), this chapter is simply more interested in the way in which categories of disability emerge from particular social circumstances, contexts and interactions. In conducting the research, we have worked closely to include people with the label of ID as active participants in the research process, and we aim to explore some different ways in which this can be achieved in research about interaction.

Keywords

Intellectual Disability Intellectual Disability Social Care Disable People Learn Disability 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Antaki, C. (Ed.) (2011). Applied conversation analysis: Intervention and change in institutional talk. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  2. Antaki, C., Walton, C., & Finlay, W. (2007). How proposing an activity to a person with anintellectual disability can imply a limited identity. Discourse and Society, 18(4), 393–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bigby, C., Frawley, P., & Ramcharan, P. (2014). Conceptualizing inclusive research with people with intellectual disability. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 27(1), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bolden, G. (2012). Across languages and cultures: brokering problems of understanding in conversational repair. Language in Society, 41(01), 97–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chappell, A. (2000). Emergence of participatory methodology in learning difficulty research: Understanding the context. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(1), 38–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Department of Health. (2008). Support, advocacy and brokerage. London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
  7. Department of Health (2009) Guidance on direct payments for community care, services for carers and children’s services. London: Department of HealthGoogle Scholar
  8. Dowse, L. (2009). ‘Some people are never going to be able to do that’. Challenges for people with intellectual disability in the 21st century. Disability & Society, 24(5), 571–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Egbert, M. (2011). Conversation analysis applied to user-centred design: A study of who ‘the user’ is. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Applied conversation analysis: Intervention and change in institutional talk (pp. 207–221). Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  10. Emerson, E., & Heslop, P. (2010). A working definition of learning disabilities. Lancaster: Improving Health and Lives (IHAL). As retrieved 4 January 2015 from http://www.improvinghealthandlives.org.uk/.Google Scholar
  11. Goodwin, C. (1987). Forgetfulness as an interactive resource. Social Psychological Quarterly, 50, 115–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goodwin, N. (2011). ‘Can older people with cognitive impairments make effective choices about their health and social care? A commentary on Meinow, Parker and Thorslund from an English perspective’. Social Science and Medicine, 73(9), 1290–1291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in Action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. (2010). Talk in action: Interactions, identities and institutions. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jepson, M. (2011). Who decides? Decision making with people with learning disabilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Bristol, UK.Google Scholar
  16. Kendall, S., & Cameron, A. (2013). Personalisation of adult social care: self-directed support and the choice and control agenda. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(4), 264–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lymbery, M. (2012). Social work and personalization. British Journal of Social Work, 42(4), 783–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marriott, A., & Williams, V. (2011). Inclusive research: People with learning disabilities can be the ‘artists of their lives’. In H. Atherton & D. Crickmore (Eds.), Learning disability: Towards inclusion (pp. 161–177). China: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  19. Mental Capacity Act (England and Wales) (2005, c.9). London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  20. Nind, M., & Vinha, H. (2014). Doing research inclusively: Bridges to multiple possibilities in inclusive research. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(2), 102–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. — (1992). Changing the social relations of research production? Disability & Society, 7(2), 101–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/ dispreferred turn-shapes. In J. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Ponting, L., Ford, K., Williams, V., Rudge, P., & Francis, A. (2010). Training personal assistants. Brighton: Pavilion Publishing.Google Scholar
  25. Redley, M., & Weinberg, D. (2007). Learning disability and the limits of liberal citizenship: interactional impediments to political empowerment. Sociology of Health and Illness, 29(5), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shakespeare, T. (2006). Disability rights and wrongs. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Shakespeare, T., & Watson, N. (2001). The social model of disability: An outdated ideology? Research in Social Science and Disability, 2, 9–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ten Have, P. (2009). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide (2nd edition). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Thomas, C. (2004). How is disability understood? An examination sociological approaches. Disability and Society, 19(6), 569–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Toerien, 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 (pp. 140–160). Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  31. Walmsley, J. (2001). Normalisation, emancipatory research and inclusive research in Learning Disability. Disability & Society, 16(2), 187–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Walmsley, J., & Johnson, K. (2003). Inclusive research with people with learning disabilities: Past, present and futures. London and New York: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. Wehmeyer, M., & Bolding, N. (2001). Enhanced self-determination of adults with intellectual disability as an outcome of moving to community based work or living environments. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 45(5), 371–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Williams, V. (1999). Researching together. British Journal of Learning Disability, 27(2), 48–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. — (2011). Disability and discourse: Analysing inclusive conversation with people with intellectual disabilities. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Williams, V., Ponting, L., Ford, K., & Rudge, P. (2009a). ‘A bit of common ground’: Personalisation and the use of shared knowledge in interactions between people with learning disabilities and their personal assistants. Discourse Studies, 11(5), 607–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. — (2009b). ‘I do like the subtle touch’: Interactions between people with learning disabilities and their personal assistants. Disability and Society, 24(7), 815–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. — (2010). Skills for Support: personal assistants and people with learning disabilities. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(1), 59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Williams, V., & Porter, S. (2016). Third party turns and shared knowledge: supports and challenges to disabled people in social care and research settings. Available from authors.Google Scholar
  40. Williams, V., Swift, P., & Mason, V. (2015). The blurred edges of intellectual disability. Disability & Society, 30(5), 704–716 doi: 10.1080/09687599.2015.1040870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wooffitt, R. (2005). Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: A comparative and critical introduction. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Recommended reading

  1. • Marriott, A., & Williams, V. (2011). Inclusive research: People with learning disabilities can be the ‘artists of their lives’. In H. Atherton & D. Crickmore (Eds.), Learning disability: Towards inclusion (pp. 161–177). China: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  2. • Walmsley J., & Johnson, K. (2003). Inclusive research with people with learning disabilities: Past, present and futures. London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
  3. • Williams, V. (2011). Disability and discourse: Analysing inclusive conversation with people with intellectual disability. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Val Williams, Marcus Jepson, Lisa Ponting, and Kerrie Ford 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Val Williams
  • Marcus Jepson
  • Lisa Ponting
  • Kerrie Ford

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations