Madill (2015)
Madill, A. (2015). Conversation analysis and psychotherapy process research. In O.C.G. Gelo, A. Pritz & B. Rieken (Eds.). Psychotherapy research: Foundations, process, and outcome (pp. 501515). Vienna: Springer
In this chapter, Anna Madill introduces readers to key concepts in conversation analysis, namely: turn taking; sequence organization; repair; word, selection; and action formation. These concepts allow us to understand conversation, including clinical interactions, as a predictable set of social practices rather than idiosyncratic in nature. Readers are introduced to CA’s preoccupation with rigorously empirical approach to data analysis, where any claims must be based in how the speakers themselves are responding to each turn in the unfolding talk. In other words, CA, as Madill points out, is more like a natural science than social science, with painstaking attention to cataloging interactional practices. Data in all conversation analytic research are video recorded observations of typical interactions, with transcriptions, that aim to capture the detail of how talk is done.
That speakers take turns in conversation may seem at first a trivial observation. But in fact, it is the orderliness of this turn taking system that allows for the achievement of intersubjectivity, i.e. we make sense of each other through displays of understanding evident in each subsequent turn.
Speakers may pause within their own turn, but pauses between speakers are remarkably brief within sequences of action/topics. We can anticipate when a turn is almost finished to launch in as the next speaker, using cues of intonation, grammar, and the pragmatic sense of what action is being done, e.g. nodding may suffice as a complete turn of doing the action of agreement.
Sequences in interaction depict that turns are produced not only one after the other, but in relation to the series of prior turns. The most basic sequence is an adjacency pair, where the first part (e.g. question) sets up the relevance of a second pair, part (e.g. answer). Adjacency pairs are exquisitely organized such that there’s a preference for what happens in the second pair part. For example, self deprecation is typically followed by disagreement (Speaker A: “I’m awfully clumsy”. Speaker B: “No youre not!) . This preference organization is done in highly systematic ways. Dispreferred second pair parts are prefaced by some sort of delay and mitigated and speakers provide reasons for not providing the preferred second pair part. What this means is we hear any pause, after an invitation for example, as indicating that acceptance is not coming next. Adjacency pairs, can obviously be expanded on, to expand on the topic or matter at hand. Madill provides examples of particular pairs in psychotherapy, where therapists in second pair parts may provide a formulation or interpretation of what the client has just said. We see that typical practices of conversation are used for therapeutic goals.
Sequences can be expanded where some clarification or addressing misunderstanding is done, which is called repair in conversation analysis. Any trouble in the conversation is addressed almost immediately. This is spectacularly helpful as it means we can assume that unless the other speaker initiates repair, all is well. Speakers can identify, then fix their own talk, or some trouble may be flagged by the other speaker, and perhaps even repaired by the other speaker. If we initiate repair (e.g. huh?) We usually will let the speaker to do the repairing. Psychotherapists may initiate and do the repair as a way of transposing the client’s report (e.g. changing ‘a little uncomfortable’ to ‘a lot uncomfortable’; see Rae, 2008.
Word selection, of key interest to psychotherapists, is studied in conversation analysis, often in relation to membership categorization analysis. In other words, how speakers are attributing characteristics to themselves or others.
Action information is the fifth concept that Madill explains in this chapter in that “conversation analysis demonstrates that the completion of an action is a more useful way of conceptualizing sequence than is topic: that is, considering what the talk is doing, rather than what it is purportedly about.” (p. 511). Managing closings is an action used as an example in this chapter, considering how therapist might design turns that are not contingent on the prior talk as a way of wrapping up the session.
In summary, Madill observes that “conversation analysis may be the method par excellence for raising to awareness tacit skills of both therapist and client in progressing the therapeutic project: fine-grained, moment-by-moment, making the ordinary appear extraordinary… the orientation and observations of conversation analysis may have potential to hone therapists’ skills of attention during their training (Forrester & Reason, 2006)” (p.513).
In explaining key methodological concerns in conversation analysis, Madill shows how this meticulous, systematic, and robust approach to studying interactions illuminates for psychologists the distinct practices they use in therapy with clients. Even though these practices draw on the same mechanisms of everyday talk, Madill is able to illustrate why these mundane practices are the foundation of the clinical tool of interaction in therapy.
