Advertisement

Conversation Analysis of Psychological Formulation Discussions in Adult Learning Disabilities Teams

  • Katherine Peckitt
  • Cordet Smart
Chapter
Part of the The Language of Mental Health book series (TLMH)

Abstract

This research used CA to analyse the interactional processes between clinical psychologists and their healthcare colleagues, specifically with a focus on psychological formulation discussions. CA identified that formulation discussions did not regularly take place, contrary to clinical psychologist professions’ claims that these discussions happen informally through clinicians ‘chipping in’. However, when formulation discussions occurred, some of the interactions appeared to change the understanding about the service users’ difficulties or gave space for the discussion of delicate topics.

References

  1. Antaki, C., Barnes, R., & Leudar, I. (2005). Self-disclosure as a situated interactional practice. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44(2), 181–199.  https://doi.org/10.1348/014466604x1573.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bercelli, F., Rossano, F., & Viaro, M. (2008). Clients’ responses to therapists’ reinterpretations. In Perakyla, A. Antaki, C., Vehvilainen, S., & Leudar I. (Eds.), Conversation analysis and psychotherapy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Berry, K., Barrowclough, C., & Wearden, A. (2009). A pilot study investigating the use of psychological formulations to modify staff perceptions of service users with psychosis. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 37, 39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berry, K., Haddock, G., Kellett, S., Roberts, C., Drake, R., & Barrowclough, C. (2016). Feasibility of a ward-based psychological intervention to improve staff and patient relationships in psychiatric rehabilitation setting. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55, 236–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bolden, G. B., & Angell, B. (2017). The organization of the treatment recommendation phase in routine psychiatric visits. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50(2), 151–170.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2017.1301299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bolden, G. B., Mandelbaum, J. S., & Wilkinson, S. (2012). Pursuing a response by repairing an indexical reference. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(2), 137–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Christofides, S., Johnstone, L., & Musa, M. (2012). ‘Chippin in’: Clinical psychologists’ descriptions of their use of formulation in multidisciplinary team working. Psychology and Psychotherapy; Theory, Research and Practice, 85, 424–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Division of Clinical Psychology. (2010). The core purpose and the philosophy of the profession. Leicester: The British Psychological Society.Google Scholar
  9. Fitzgerald P. (2013). Therapy talk: Conversation analysis in practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.  https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137329530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 299–344). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. (2010). Talk in action: Interactions, identities, and institutions. Oxford: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heritage, J., & Watson, R. (1979). Formulations as conversational objects. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 123–162). New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
  13. Hollingworth, P., & Johnstone, L. (2014). Team formulation: What are the staff views? Clinical Psychology Forum, 257(5), 28–34.Google Scholar
  14. Hood, N., Johnstone, L., & Christofides, S. (2013). The hidden solution? Staff experiences, views and understanding of the use of psychological formulation in multi-disciplinary teams. The Journal of Critical Psychology, Counselling and Psychotherapy, 13(2).Google Scholar
  15. Ingham, B., & Clarke, L. (2009). The introduction of clinical psychology services to an inpatient autistic spectrum disorders and intellectual disabilities service: Impact and reflections. Clinical Psychology Forum, 204, 30–34.Google Scholar
  16. Johnstone, L. (2014). Using formulations in teams. In L. Johnstone & R. Dallos (Eds.), Formulation in psychology and psychotherapy, making sense of people’s problems. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Johnstone, L., & Dallos, R. (2014). Formulation in psychology and psychotherapy, making sense of people’s problems (2nd ed.). Routledge: London.Google Scholar
  18. Pillet-Shore, D. (2010). Making way and making sense: Including newcomers in interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(2), 152–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. QSR International’s NVivo 11 Software, QSR International Pty Ltd. Version 11.Google Scholar
  20. Summers, A. (2006). Psychological formulations in psychiatric care: Staff views on their impact. Psychiatric Bulletin, 30, 341–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tileaga, C, & Stokoe, E. (2015). Discursive psychology: Classic and contemporary issues. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Unadkat, S., Irving Quinn, G., Jones, F. W., & Casares, P. (2015). Staff experiences of formulating within a team setting. Clinical Psychology Forum, 275, 85–88. ISSN 1757-2142 (Extended Online Edition).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of PsychologyUniversity of PlymouthPlymouthUK

Personalised recommendations