Preparing and delivering interpretations in psychoanalytic interaction

Vehviläinen, Sanna

doi:10.1515/text.2003.022

Cited by 89 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…7 In institutional interaction, the practice of 'formulating' is commonly used by the professional in order to carry out institution relevant tasks (see e.g. Tiitinen and Ruusuvuori, 2014;Vehviläinen, 2003), and in meetings, it can be employed to facilitate decision making. For example, in cases studied by Barnes (2007), the formulations were produced by the chairperson to establish a shared understanding of the decision made while closing down the business-at-hand and moving on to the next topical item.…”

Section: Presenting the Final Entry Proposal As A Formulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

From entry proposals to a joint statement: Practices of shared text production in multiparty meeting interaction

Nissi

2015

Journal of Pragmatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Presenting the Final Entry Proposal As A Formulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

From entry proposals to a joint statement: Practices of shared text production in multiparty meeting interaction

Nissi

2015

Journal of Pragmatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Although the pacing has been slow there is a steadily growing number of CA or CA-inspired studies on psychotherapy, counseling and related areas. Issues that have been studied are for example problem formulations, (Davis, 1986;Buttny, 1990Buttny, ,1996Madill et al, 2001), humor (Buttny, 2001), empathy (Wynn & Wynn, 2006), psychoanalytic interpretations (Vehviläinen, 2003;Peräkylä, 2004), diagnostic formulations (Antaki, Barnes, & Leudar, 2005b), cohesion in group therapy (Lepper & Mergenthaler, 2005), self-disclosure (Antaki, Barnes, & Leudar, 2005a;Leudar, Antaki, & Barnes, 2006), therapeutic collaboration (Lepper & Mergenthaler, 2007); resistance in psychoanalytic interaction (Vehviläinen, 2008), therapeutic change (Voutilainen, Peräkylä, & Ruusuvuori, (2011), and present moment work (Kondratyuk & Peräkylä, 2011). Some of these studies (e.g.…”

Section: Conversation Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Therapy talk and talk about therapy : Client-identified important events in psychotherapy

Viklund¹

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Capturing and studying the moments in psychotherapy that clients find most important can help us understand more about how psychotherapy works, what the curative ingredients are, and by what processes they are mediated. Qualitative research in this area has, so far, mainly focused on describing, and categorizing clients' experiences of important factors and events. The methods employed to analyse the data have been rather limited in variation and are usually based on a realist epistemology, according to which data are basically treated as reflections of the clients' actual experiences. This entails a risk of overlooking and obscuring other aspects of therapy and the therapy process that are equally important to explore, for example the microprocesses of interaction within important events, or how clients' accounts of their experiences are shaped and limited by the context in which they are produced. The overall aim of this licentiate thesis was to explore client-identified important events in psychotherapy with a focus on studying therapy talk and talk about therapy from a social constructionist point of view, which would allow a closer exploration of the understudied areas mentioned above.In Study I, Conversation Analysis was used to explore the interaction taking place between seven client-therapist dyads in 16 client-identified important events collected from their third sessions. The analysis identified that 12 of the events contained clients' expressions of disagreement. Three different ways that the therapists handled the disagreement were discerned: The first, and most common, way was to orient to the client's cues of disagreement by inviting the client to elaborate on his or her point of view and to establish a shared understanding acceptable to both participants. The second way was to orient to the client's disagreement cues but define the therapist's own point view as more relevant than the client's, and the third way was a single case in which the therapist did not in any way orient to the client's disagreement cues.In Study II, two qualitative methods based on different epistemologies were used to analyse the same set of eight clients' accounts of 18 important events. The aim was to first identify what types of events clients describe as important, and then explore how their accounts of these events were contextually shaped and organized, and the consequences of this. The first analysis, a content analysis, yielded descriptions of five different types of events, which were similar to the ones found in previous research on important events. The second analysis, a discourse analysis, demonstrated how clients' accounts were not only influenced by the participants' ability to accurately remember and report their experience, but also by what was sayable within the context of the research interview. In conclusion, the two studies demonstrate how qualitative methods based on a socialconstructive perspective can contribute to our understanding of clientidentified important events by highlighting and ...

show abstract

“…In the latter field, the research object deals with the interactional processes through which the therapists and the patients make sense of the "problem" and transform it throughout their encounters (Buttny 1996;Grossen and Salazar Orvig 2006;Peräkylä et al 2008;Vehviläinen 2003). The "problem" which is talked about during a therapeutic session is not conceived of as the client's inner mental world, which is coded (or "translated") into language, but as the result of an intersubjective process implying reciprocal attunement (or alignments).…”

Section: The Co-construction Of Meaningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interaction Analysis and Psychology: A Dialogical Perspective

Grossen

2009

Integr. psych. behav.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interaction analysis is not a prerogative of any discipline in social sciences. It has its own history within each disciplinary field and is related to specific research objects. From the standpoint of psychology, this article first draws upon a distinction between factorial and dialogical conceptions of interaction. It then briefly presents the basis of a dialogical approach in psychology and focuses upon four basic assumptions. Each of them is examined on a theoretical and on a methodological level with a leading question: to what extent is it possible to develop analytical tools that are fully coherent with dialogical assumptions? The conclusion stresses the difficulty of developing methodological tools that are fully consistent with dialogical assumptions and argues that there is an unavoidable tension between accounting for the complexity of an interaction and using methodological tools which necessarily "monologise" this complexity.

show abstract

Preparing and delivering interpretations in psychoanalytic interaction

Cited by 89 publications

References 8 publications

From entry proposals to a joint statement: Practices of shared text production in multiparty meeting interaction

From entry proposals to a joint statement: Practices of shared text production in multiparty meeting interaction

Therapy talk and talk about therapy : Client-identified important events in psychotherapy

Interaction Analysis and Psychology: A Dialogical Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About