Skip to main content
×
×
Home
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 6
  • Cited by
    This chapter has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Mondada, Lorenza 2018. Longitudinal Studies on the Organization of Social Interaction. p. 287.

    Solem, Marit Skarbø and Skovholt, Karianne 2017. Teacher Formulations in Classroom Interactions. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, p. 1.

    Prior, Matthew T. 2016. Emotion in Multilingual Interaction. Vol. 266, Issue. , p. 1.

    Iversen, Clara 2014. ‘I don't know if I should believe him’: Knowledge and believability in interviews with children. British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 53, Issue. 2, p. 367.

    Whittle, Andrea and Mueller, Frank 2011. The language of interests: The contribution of discursive psychology. Human Relations, Vol. 64, Issue. 3, p. 415.

    Mueller, Frank and Whittle, Andrea 2011. Translating Management Ideas: A Discursive Devices Analysis. Organization Studies, Vol. 32, Issue. 2, p. 187.

    ×
  • Print publication year: 2007
  • Online publication date: November 2009

9 - Members' and analysts' interests: ‘formulations’ in psychotherapy

Summary

Discursive psychology's interests in respecifying the traditional phenomena of psychology is well exemplified, we think, in the way that conversation analysis (which is a mainstay of discursive psychology) can illuminate psychotherapy. This chapter is about two things: what conversation analysis has to say about psychotherapy as an interaction, and what it has to say about psychotherapy as psychotherapy. We want to see what we can say about what therapists are up to: how they achieve what seem (to us) to be their therapeutic objectives.

In looking at therapy that way, we are in what is sometimes called ‘applied CA’. That is to say, we are certainly going to be looking very closely at the exact exchange of talk, and relying on the accumulated insights of CA to see how it works. But, unlike the utterly unmotivated looking of ‘basic’ CA, we do have our eyes open to the institutional work that the talk is likely to be carrying out. Moreover, we are conscious that, in therapy talk, we have something about which institutional representatives themselves have stories to tell: what Peräkylä and Vehviläinen call ‘stocks of interactional knowledge’ (Peräkylä and Vehviläinen (2003). In these circumstances, a CA account can be corrective (it may prove the therapists' account wrong, even on their own terms), or it might be illuminating (it might show they are right, and provide detail), or it might reveal something unsuspected but meaningful to the therapists (again, in their own terms; we leave aside those things that CA reveals about the interaction as an interaction as such, and in which a therapist would have no special interest).

Recommend this book

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this book to your organisation's collection.

Discursive Research in Practice
  • Online ISBN: 9780511611216
  • Book DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611216
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to *
×