Communicative Practices in Staff Support of Adults with Intellectual Disabilities

  • Charles Antaki
  • W. M. L. Finlay
  • Chris Walton
  • Joe Sempik

Abstract

This chapter is about some of the ways in which adults with intellectual disabilities (such as, e.g. those with Down syndrome) communicate with those around them — most specifically, with staff who are charged with supporting them. Such staff help service users live independently, by overseeing their day-to-day household activities, arranging travel, planning leisure outings, and providing accompaniment to institutional appointments. In the United Kingdom (UK),1 recent government policy places great value on the activities of support staff in the promotion of choice, control, and empowerment. The Care Act 2014 (UK Government, 2014) placed a duty on local authorities to promote an individual’s well-being, which includes ‘control by the individual over day-to-day life (including over care and support)’ and ‘participation in work, education, training or recreation’. In doing this, the authority must have regard for ‘the individual’s wishes, views, feelings or beliefs’, with the individual ‘participating as fully as possible in decisions … and being provided with the information and support necessary to enable the individual to participate’.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Antaki, C. (2012). Seven interactional benefits of physical tasks for people with intellectual disability. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 50, 311–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antaki, C. (2013). Two conversational practices for encouraging adults with intellectual disabilities to reflect on their activities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 57(6), 580–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antaki, C., Finlay, W. M. L., Walton, C., & Pate, L. (2008). Offering choice to people with an intellectual impairment: An interactional study. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 52, 1165–1175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beamer, S., & Brookes, M. (2001). Making decisions: Best practice and new ideas for supporting people with high support needs to make decisions. London: VIA.Google Scholar
  5. Edge, J. (2001). Who’s in control?: Decision-making by people with learning difficulties who have high support needs. London: Values Into Action.Google Scholar
  6. Finlay, W. M. L., & Antaki, C. (2012). How staff pursue questions to adults with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 56, 361–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Finlay, W. M. L., Antaki, C., & Walton, C. (2008a). Promoting choice and control in residential services for people with learning disabilities. Disability and Society, 23, 349–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. —. (2008b). Saying no to the staff — An analysis of refusals in a home for people with severe communication difficulties. Sociology of Health and Illness, 30, 55–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Haddington, P. (2010). Turn-taking for turntaking: Mobility, time, and action in the sequential organization of junction negotiations in cars. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43, 372–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harris, J. (2003). Time to make up your mind: Why choosing is difficult. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. HM Government. (2005). The Government’s annual report on Learning Disability, 2005. Valuing people: Making things better. Norwich: TSO.Google Scholar
  12. Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. (2000). Interaction and the standardized interview. The living questionnaire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jenkinson, J., Copeland, C., Drivas, B., Scoon, H., & Yap, M. L. (1992). Decision-making by community residents with an intellectual disability. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 18, 1–8.Google Scholar
  14. Keevallik, L. (2010). Bodily quoting in dance correction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43, 401–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Koshik, I. (2002). Designedly incomplete utterances: A pedagogical practice for eliciting knowledge displays in error correction sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 35, 277–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Learning Disability Taskforce. (2004). Rights, independence, choice and inclusion. London: Learning Disability Taskforce.Google Scholar
  17. Pomerantz, A. (1988). Offering a candidate answer: An information seeking strategy. Communication Monographs, 55, 360–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Prime Minister’s Policy Unit. (2005) Improving the life chances of disabled people.Retrieved on June 2015 at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/strategy/assets/disability.pdfGoogle Scholar
  19. Social Exclusion Unit. (2005) Improving services, improving lives: Evidence and key themes. Interim report. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.Google Scholar
  20. Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. Williams, V. (2010). Disability and discourse: Analysing inclusive conversation with people with intellectual disabilities. Chichester, England: Wiley/Blackwell.Google Scholar
  22. UK Government. (2005). Mental Capacity Act. Retrieved on June 2015 at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/9/contentsGoogle Scholar
  23. —. (2104). Care Act. Retrieved on June 2015 at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/23/contentsGoogle Scholar
  24. Zinken, J., & Ogiermann, E. (2011). How to propose an action as objectively necessary: The case of polish trzeba x (‘One Needs to x’). Research on Language and Social Interaction, 44, 263–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Recommended reading

  1. • Antaki, C., & Wilkinson, R. (2013). Conversation analysis and the study of atypical populations. In T. Stivers & J. Sidnell (Eds.), Handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 533–550). Chichester, UK: Blackwell-Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. • Williams, V. (2010). Disability and discourse: Analysing inclusive conversation with people with intellectual disabilities. Chichester, England: Wiley/Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Charles Antaki, W. M. L. Finlay, Chris Walton, and Joe Sempik 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles Antaki
  • W. M. L. Finlay
  • Chris Walton
  • Joe Sempik

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations