Title |
How adults with a profound intellectual disability engage others in interaction
|
---|---|
Published in |
Sociology of Health & Illness, October 2016
|
DOI | 10.1111/1467-9566.12500 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Charles Antaki, Rebecca J. Crompton, Chris Walton, W.M.L. Finlay |
Abstract |
Using video records of everyday life in a residential home, we report on what interactional practices are used by people with severe and profound intellectual disabilities to initiate encounters. There were very few initiations, and all presented difficulties to the interlocutor (support staff; the recording researcher); one (which we call 'blank recipiency') gave the interlocutor virtually no information at all on which to base a response. Only when the initiation was of a new phase in an interaction already under way (for example, the initiation of an alternative trajectory of a proposed physical move) was it likely to be successfully sustained. We show how interlocutors responded to initiations verbally, as if to neuro-typical speakers - but inappropriately for people unable to comprehend, or to produce well-fitted next turns. This mis-reliance on ordinary speakers' conversational practices was one factor that contributed to residents abandoning the interaction in almost all cases. We discuss the dilemma confronting care workers. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 4 | 36% |
United States | 2 | 18% |
Unknown | 5 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Scientists | 5 | 45% |
Members of the public | 4 | 36% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 9% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 56 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 27% |
Student > Master | 10 | 18% |
Student > Bachelor | 5 | 9% |
Researcher | 4 | 7% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
Other | 8 | 14% |
Unknown | 11 | 20% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Psychology | 14 | 25% |
Social Sciences | 12 | 21% |
Linguistics | 5 | 9% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 7% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 4% |
Other | 9 | 16% |
Unknown | 10 | 18% |