“…A diagnosis of autism is given if interactional difficulties, which diagnosticians are attempting to elicit, are attributed as a persistent quality of the individual undergoing diagnosis. 1 However, and as others have noted (Turowetz 2015a), interactional difficulty during diagnosis could be located in various other sites which would not presume pathology. Breakdown could, for example, result from the specific interactions between the individual undergoing diagnosis, the diagnostician, and the diagnostic instrument itself.…”
Section: Interactional Resistance and Autismmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…When attributing behaviours during autism diagnosis, Turowetz has elsewhere reported that:clinicians’ representations typically attribute responsibility for successes and failures to the child's personal qualities and characteristics, abstracting from the surrounding environment. (Turowetz : 221)…”
Section: Interactional Resistance and Autismmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…By their nature, such instruments pre‐define specific issues or behaviours as significant. However, as Turowetz has noted, the contribution of these instruments to the production of diagnostic ‘facts’ is generally minimised; they are ‘treated as neutral, autonomous tools of measurement that record data for assessment, rather than contributing to such data’ (Turowetz : 215). The end product of this minimisation is the production of test results as though the presenter ‘acted in a kind of interactional vacuum’.…”
Many characteristics typical of autism, a neurodevelopmental condition characterised by socio-communicative impairments, are most evident during social interaction. Accordingly, procedures such as the Autism Diagnosis Observation Schedule (ADOS) are interactive and intended to elicit interactional impairments: a diagnosis of autism is given if interactional difficulties are attributed as a persistent quality of the individual undergoing diagnosis. This task is difficult, first, because behaviours can be interpreted in various ways and, second, because conversation breakdown may indicate a disengagement with, or resistance to, a line of conversation. Drawing upon conversation analysis, we examine seven ADOS diagnosis sessions and ask how diagnosticians distinguish between interactional resistance as, on the one hand, a diagnostic indicator and, on the other, as a reasonable choice from a range of possible responses. We find evidence of various forms of resistance during ADOS sessions, but it is a resistance to a line of conversational action that is often determined to be indicative of autism. However, and as we show, this attribution of resistance can be ambiguous. We conclude by arguing for reflexive practice during any diagnosis where talk is the problem, and for a commitment to acknowledge the potential impact of diagnostic procedures themselves upon results.
“…A diagnosis of autism is given if interactional difficulties, which diagnosticians are attempting to elicit, are attributed as a persistent quality of the individual undergoing diagnosis. 1 However, and as others have noted (Turowetz 2015a), interactional difficulty during diagnosis could be located in various other sites which would not presume pathology. Breakdown could, for example, result from the specific interactions between the individual undergoing diagnosis, the diagnostician, and the diagnostic instrument itself.…”
Section: Interactional Resistance and Autismmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…When attributing behaviours during autism diagnosis, Turowetz has elsewhere reported that:clinicians’ representations typically attribute responsibility for successes and failures to the child's personal qualities and characteristics, abstracting from the surrounding environment. (Turowetz : 221)…”
Section: Interactional Resistance and Autismmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…By their nature, such instruments pre‐define specific issues or behaviours as significant. However, as Turowetz has noted, the contribution of these instruments to the production of diagnostic ‘facts’ is generally minimised; they are ‘treated as neutral, autonomous tools of measurement that record data for assessment, rather than contributing to such data’ (Turowetz : 215). The end product of this minimisation is the production of test results as though the presenter ‘acted in a kind of interactional vacuum’.…”
Many characteristics typical of autism, a neurodevelopmental condition characterised by socio-communicative impairments, are most evident during social interaction. Accordingly, procedures such as the Autism Diagnosis Observation Schedule (ADOS) are interactive and intended to elicit interactional impairments: a diagnosis of autism is given if interactional difficulties are attributed as a persistent quality of the individual undergoing diagnosis. This task is difficult, first, because behaviours can be interpreted in various ways and, second, because conversation breakdown may indicate a disengagement with, or resistance to, a line of conversation. Drawing upon conversation analysis, we examine seven ADOS diagnosis sessions and ask how diagnosticians distinguish between interactional resistance as, on the one hand, a diagnostic indicator and, on the other, as a reasonable choice from a range of possible responses. We find evidence of various forms of resistance during ADOS sessions, but it is a resistance to a line of conversational action that is often determined to be indicative of autism. However, and as we show, this attribution of resistance can be ambiguous. We conclude by arguing for reflexive practice during any diagnosis where talk is the problem, and for a commitment to acknowledge the potential impact of diagnostic procedures themselves upon results.
“…parents, educators, therapists). Being a competent clinician includes the ability to detect storyable happenings—for example, when a child does something that evinces signs of a disorder—and tell about them in a manner that foregrounds diagnostically relevant information (Turowetz ). Moreover, clinicians monitor each other's stories for such information, and may corroborate or raise questions about them by means of their own stories.…”
Diagnosis is rarely a straightforward process. This is especially so in psychiatry, where diagnoses are not based on organic biomarkers (e.g., blood tests). Diagnosis can be particularly complicated for children, whose symptoms must be disentangled from typical developmental processes. In this paper, we examine how clinicians use narrative as a method for differentiating a child's autism from a possible co-morbid seizure disorder. Our approach is conversation analysis, and we show that narrative is a pervasive and endogenous practice for producing warrantable diagnostic knowledge about patients and, as such, forms part of what we term "the practical epistemology of clinical work."
“…The language used in social interaction plays a critical component in the diagnosis of autism (Maynard & Turowetz, 2017a;Turowetz & Maynard, 2016;Turowetz, 2015). How clinicians examine children with developmental disabilities utilizes testing and standardization with a particular focus on autism spectrum disorders (Maynard & Turowetz, 2017b;Turowetz & Maynard, 2016;Turowetz, 2015). Some work shows the psychometric tests operate to shape the interactive environment and that the interactional environment exerts can influence and impact the performance (Turowetz & Maynard, 2016).…”
Discourse related to autism studies are multidisciplinary, applied, and extensive. Pulling from multiple disciplines and calling for interdisciplinary collaborations, I begin to construct a review of research relevant to move toward a sociology of autism and neurodiversity. I argue that sociology is positioned to utilize its epistemological and phenological strengths to provide insight as well as fill in gaps in the literature related to autism studies. I address controversies and provide structural context to the sociocultural history of the autism and neurodiversity. From Kanner and Asperger through to the DSM‐5, I outline the evolution and social construction of autism and identify sociological programs of scholarship that continue to shape (and be shaped) by understanding autism and neurodiversity. Using theoretical contributions rooted in social psychological principles of symbolic interaction, such as mind, self, solidarity, and stigma—I address how sociology is shaping scholarship related to autism and address interdisciplinary critiques of these programs. I highlight how the next generation of scholars are formulating the cutting‐edge issues for the future of research within these areas and emphasize that research programs should center work on improving the lived experiences of those on the spectrum.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
