Course conclusion
Using the methodology of conversation analysis to explore the fundamentals of how talk works, has allowed us to see how these pervasive turn-taking rules are the backbone of intersubjectivity (Peräklyä, 2012). In other words, the sequential organisation of turns at talk provides the ongoing evidence of how people treat what was just said.
Furthermore, basing our understanding of therapeutic talk on evidence of what actually happens in these interactions offers insights of practices that we might otherwise not notice. In a study of discussions about pain in palliative care, analysts note that:
“Studies using conversation analysis to examine (recordings of) interactions in detail have demonstrated that health communication practices recommended or discouraged in guidance do not always function in the way that guidance suggests; in real-life, linguistic practices are more complex with a range of interactional consequences (Parry 2005; Peräkylä and Vehviläinen 2003). Conversation analysis is uniquely positioned to provide concrete descriptions of known practices and to interrogate (and, where appropriate, correct) the assumptions of communication practice recommendations (Peräkylä and Vehviläinen 2003).”
This course has examined short sequences of interaction in order to focus our attention on the work that is being done turn by turn, moment by moment. These turns are part of longer sequences of interaction, both with a single session and throughout consecutive sessions over time. More recently, CA research has paid attention to sequential development of outcomes in longitudinal data (e.g. Voutilainen, Rossano and Peräkylä, 2018), showing that this type of research not only contributes to our understanding of process, but also has something to say about outcomes and progress in subsequent sequences of therapeutic talk.
“Conversation analysis provides a method to describe in detail what sort of practices of talk are used to reach therapeutic goals in psychotherapy sessions.”
This introductory course has paid more attention to explaining the fundamental mechanisms of conversation, rather than solely looking at therapeutic talk. The first three sections of the talk intentionally focused on ordinary, everyday interactions for three main reasons:
(1) all institutional talk is based on the rules and practices of everyday conversations;
(2) the mechanics of interaction are easier to see if we’re not distracted by our professional lens or expertise (i.e. it’s difficult to watch therapy interactions without critiquing the therapy); and
(3) this course serves as a foundation for ongoing professional learning offered by TALK Seminars that focuses on specific interactional practices in psychotherapy (e.g. question design in therapy talk; alignment and affiliation in therapy talk; emotion and affect in therapy talk; and a membership course that provides regular research reviews).
The practices encountered in this course are familiar to you. You already have considerable expertise and experience in using these practices. The aim of the course was to illustrate that these practices are based on universal interactional devices, and that therapy talk can be understood, turn-by turn, to display speakers’ understanding and stance at every point.
You now have a strong, foundational knowledge of how research in conversation analysis investigates and explains the social practices of talk-in-interaction, and how clinical interactions use these mechanisms for doing the work of therapy.
There is just one more activity to finish the course. Complete the final short reflection, and a copy of your answers will be sent to you as a record of your satisfactory completion of the course.
It's a challenge to find the time and energy for ongoing professional development; I'm delighted and grateful that you choose to spend this effort engaging with research in conversation analysis.
Research updates are available on the TALK Seminars website or on Twitter @TALK_Seminars, and please do get in touch if you have any queries or requests!
