Skip to main content

Becoming a “Good Nurse”: Social Norms of Conduct and the Management of Interpersonal Relations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Interactional Competences in Institutional Settings

Abstract

Within the profession of nursing, an intrinsic aspect of interactional competence is the nurses’ ability to manage interpersonal relations and to act in accordance with cultural and social norms of proper nurse conduct. The focus of this chapter is on how student nurses are socialized into preferred modes of interacting with patients. The data consist of video recordings of a training session in which nursing students at a clinical training center learn to insert peripheral venous catheters. The results of the study show various ways in which the students and their teacher explore social norms of proper nurse conduct by mobilizing the category term “patient,” and how the notion of a “good nurse” thus emerges in interaction between the participants.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Bergmann, J. (1998). Introduction: Morality in discourse. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 31(3–4), 279–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cromdal, J., & Tholander, M. (2014). Morality in professional practice. Journal of Applied Linguistics & Professional Practice, 9(2), 155–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Defibaugh, S. (2014). Management of care or management of face: Indirectness in nurse practitioner/patient interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 67, 61–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dingwall, R. (1977). “Atrocity stories” and professional relationships. Sociology of Work & Occupations, 4(4), 371–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drew, P. (1987). Po-faced receipts of teases. Linguistics, 25, 219–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1489–1522.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, C. (2013). The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 46, 8–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. K., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2011). L2 interactional competence and development. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence & development (pp. 1–15). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath, C. (1989). Pain talk: The expression of suffering in the medical consultation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52(2), 113–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heritage, J., & Lindström, A. (1998). Motherhood, medicine, and morality: Scenes from a medical encounter. Research on Language & Social interaction, 31(3–4), 397–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hindmarsh, J., Hyland, L., & Bannerjee, A. (2014). Work to make simulation work: ‘Realism’, instructional correction and the body in training. Discourse Studies, 16(2), 247–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hindmarsh, J., & Pilnick, A. (2007). Knowing bodies at work: Embodiment and ephemeral teamwork in anaesthesia. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1395–1416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hindmarsh, J., Reynolds, P., & Dunne, S. (2011). Exhibiting understanding: The body in apprenticeship. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 489–503.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt, E. 2007. “I’m eyeing your chop up mind”: Reporting and enacting. In E. Holt & R. Clift (Eds.), Reporting talk. Reported speech in interaction (pp. 47–80). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt, E. (2013). “There’s many a true word said in jest”: Seriousness and nonseriousness in interaction. In P. Glenn & E. Holt (Eds.), Studies of laughter in interaction (pp. 69–89). London: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, S., & Ochs, E. (1995). Co-construction: An introduction. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 28(3), 171–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis. Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koschmann, T., LeBaron, C., Goodwin, C., Zemel, A., & Dunnington, G. (2007). Formulating the triangle of doom. Gesture, 7(1), 97–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linell, P., & Bredmar, M. (1996). Reconstructing topical sensitivity: Aspects of face-work in talks between midwives and expectant mothers. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 29(4), 347–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linell, P., & Rommetveit, R. (1998). The many forms and facets of morality in dialogue: Epilogue for the special issue. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 31(3–4), 465–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • McHoul, A. W. (1990). The organization of repair in classroom talk. Language in Society, 19(3), 349–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mondada, L. (2009). The embodied and negotiated production of assessments in instructed actions. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 42(4), 329–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mondada, L. (2014a). Instructions in the operating room: How the surgeon directs their assistant’s hands. Discourse Studies, 16(2), 131–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mondada, L. (2014b). The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 65, 137–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, H. T. (2006). Constructing ‘expertness’: A novice pharmacist’s development of interactional competence in patient consultations. Communication & Medicine, 3(2), 147–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, H. T. (2007). Rapport building in language instruction: A microanalysis of the multiple resources in teacher talk. Linguistics & Education, 21(4), 284–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, H. T. (2008). Sequence organization as local and longitudinal achievement. Text & Talk, 28(4), 501–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, H. T. (2011). Achieving recipient design longitudinally: Evidence from a pharmacy intern in patient consultations. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence & development (pp. 173–205). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, H. T. (2012). Developing interactional competence. A conversation-analytic study of patient consultations in pharmacy. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ochs, E., & Kremer-Sadlik, T. (2007). Introduction: Morality as family practice. Discourse & Society, 18(1), 5–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pilnick, A., Hindmarsh, J., & Gill, V. T. (2010). Beyond ‘doctor and patient’: Developments in the study of healthcare interactions. In A. Pilnick, J. Hindmarsh, & V. T. Gill (Eds.), Communication in health care settings. Policy, participation & new technologies (pp. 1–16). Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rooney, D., Hopwood, N., Boud, D., & Kelly, M. (2015). The role of simulation in pedagogies of higher education for the health professions: Through a practice-based lens. Vocations & Learning, 8, 269–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez Svensson, M., Luff, P., & Heath, C. (2010). Embedding instruction in practice: Contingency and collaboration during surgical training. In A. Pilnick, J. Hindmarsh, & V. T. Gill (Eds.), Communication in health care settings. Policy, participation & new technologies (pp. 99–116). Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Categories in action: Person-reference and membership categorization. Discourse Studies, 9(4), 433–461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, R. F. (2013). Learning to talk the talk and walk the walk: Interactional competence in academic spoken English. Ibérica, 25, 15–38.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix: Transcription Conventions (Adapted from Jefferson 2004; Mondada 2009)

Appendix: Transcription Conventions (Adapted from Jefferson 2004; Mondada 2009)

[ ]

Overlapping talk.

=

Equal signs indicate no break or gap between the lines.

(0.8) (.)

Numbers in parentheses indicate length of silence in seconds. A dot in parentheses indicates a micropause.

. , ¿ ?

The punctuation marks indicate intonation. The period indicates falling intonation; the comma, continuing intonation; the inverted question mark, slightly rising intonation; and the question mark indicates a rising intonation.

::

Colons are used to indicate prolongation or stretching of the immediately prior sound.

-

A hyphen after a word indicates a cut-off or self-interruption.

w ord

WOrd

Underlining indicates some form of stress or emphasis. The more the underlining, the greater the emphasis. Especially loud talk is indicated by upper case.

° °

The degree signs indicate that the talk between them was quieter than its surrounding talk.

£word£

The pound signs indicate a smile voice.

The up arrow marks a sharp rise in pitch.

< >

Left/right carats indicate that the talk between them is slowed down.

.h .hh

Audible inbreath is shown with a “.h”—the more h’s the more inbreath.

wo(h)rd

Laugh particles.

(( ))

Double parentheses are used to mark transcriber’s descriptions of events.

( )

Empty parentheses indicate that something is being said, but it is incomprehensible.

* *

Gestures and action descriptions are delimited between two identical symbols and are synchronized with corresponding stretches of talk.

->

*->

->*

Gesture or action described continues after excerpt’s end.

Gesture or action described continues across subsequent lines

until the same symbol is reached.

ami

Participant doing the gesture is identified when (s)he is not the speaker.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Melander, H. (2017). Becoming a “Good Nurse”: Social Norms of Conduct and the Management of Interpersonal Relations. In: Pekarek Doehler, S., Bangerter, A., de Weck, G., Filliettaz, L., González-Martínez, E., Petitjean, C. (eds) Interactional Competences in Institutional Settings. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46867-9_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46867-9_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-46866-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-46867-9

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics