No abstract

Diagnostics using next generation sequencing (NGS) requires high-quality interdisciplinary collaboration. In order to gain insight into this crucial collaborative process, we made video recordings of a new multidisciplinary team at work in the clinical genetics department of the University Medical Centre Groningen. Conversation Analysis was used to investigate the ways in which the team members deal with the disciplinary boundaries between them. We found that the team established different 'participation frames' in which to discuss recurring topics. Patients were discussed only by the medical doctors, whereas results of genetic tests were discussed by doctors, molecular biologists and genetic laboratory technicians. Information technology (IT) aspects were discussed by biologists, genetics analysts and bio-informaticians, but not doctors. We then interviewed team members who said they believed that the division of labour embodied in these participation frames contributes to achieving their team's goals.

This article addresses a vital concern in current society by showing what participants themselves may treat as ways to transcend their differences. Actors’ shared understanding has been of longstanding interest across the social sciences. Conversation analysis (CA) treats the procedural infrastructure of interaction as the basis for participants to manage intersubjectivity. The field of dialogue studies has made occasions in which people transform their relationship by discussing their differences, central to their research project, and called them “dialogic moments.” This study draws on CA to investigate “dialogic moments,” but now through the eyes of participants themselves. Using single-case analysis, we argue that such moments require participants to go against normative orientations in talk promoting social solidarity and progressivity, by soliciting differences to understand and transcend them. This “going against the interactional tide” may explain both why dialogue is difficult to achieve and why it is appreciated by participants as dialogue.

No abstract

This paper examines public meetings in the Netherlands where experts and officials interact with local residents on the human health effects of livestock farming. Using Conversation Analysis, we reveal a ‘weapon of the weak’: a practice by which the residents resist experts’ head start in information meetings. It is shown how residents draw on the given question-answer format to challenge experts and pursue an admission of, for example, methodological shortcomings. We show how the residents’ first question functions as a ‘foot-in-the-door’, providing them with a strong basis for skepticism. By systematically challenging the expert responses, the residents exploit the interaction’s sequential organization, with the effect that the goal becomes them being convinced rather than being informed. Consequently, the withholding of consent becomes the residents’ ‘weapon’. Finally, we argue that in an age where expertise is increasingly contested, it is crucial to understand how, and to what end, this contestation may occur.