Discourse/Conversation Analysis and Autism Spectrum Disorder
Discourse/Conversation Analysis and Autism Spectrum Disorder
复制标题
话语/对话分析和自闭症谱系障碍
DOI：
10.1007/s10803-015-2665-5
复制
发表时间：
2015
影响因子：
3.9
通讯作者：
T. Muskett
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. O’Reilly;J. Lester;T. Muskett
专注于自闭症谱系障碍（ASD）的定性研究很重要，因为它可以完善对与ASD相关的特定问题的理解，并且在应用质量标准的情况下具有实际意义（Bolte 2014）。采用定性方法研究自闭症谱系障碍是让参与者“发声”的一种重要方式，对于赋予弱势群体权力尤其有用（Peters 2010）。心理健康和残疾领域通常是一个通过语言调解的领域（Brown et al. 1996），定性方法倾向于关注语言使用，特别是那些使用话语或对话分析方法的方法。定量证据，无论其形式如何，都为自闭症谱系障碍提供了重要而有价值的证据。然而，至关重要的是，该领域不能仅仅依靠相对狭窄的方法和知识形式来告诉我们如此复杂和多样化的情况。定性方法能够超越建立变量之间关联的可能性，从而理解这种关联的性质以及它们可能被解释为代表的复杂过程。更具体地说，定性方法能够超越什么是有效的，以显示如何以及为什么一个特定的做法是有效的（Rhodes 2011），特别是当考虑到既定的质量标准。在这个特别的部分，我们特别关注话语分析和会话分析，这是一种以语言为导向的定性方法，分析人们实际做什么和说什么，而不是他们报告自己做什么或说什么（McCabe 2006）。纳入的五篇文章以不同的方式使用话语或对话分析，并强调这些分析方法如何追求强大的验证程序，并专注于识别基于自然数据的系统交互模式（McCabe et al. 2002），并采用内置的质量标准。通常，研究人员应用话语或会话分析使用广泛的语料库，这些语料库是在自然环境中收集的社会互动的音频或视频记录（例如，诊所，治疗过程）。然后，分析包括对该环境中所有参与者的互动进行密切、归纳的检查。尽管话语分析和会话分析是类似的方法，并且都广泛地属于定性研究的范畴，因为它们都将语言作为其中心焦点（Bryman 2008），但存在一些重要的实践和认识论差异，这些差异决定了所问问题的性质和所使用的具体分析方法。会话分析（Conversation analysis， CA）是一种专注于研究互动的定性方法。这种方法的核心目的是研究通过谈话产生的互动活动的社会组织（Hutchby和Wooffitt 2008）。换句话说，CA旨在询问人们如何使用语言来执行某些社会行为，例如借口，邀请，抱怨，& Michelle O 'Reilly mjo14@leicester.ac.uk；mjo14@le.ac.uk
Qualitative research focused on autism spectrum disorders (ASD) is important, as it can refine understandings of particular issues related to ASD and be practically relevant provided that quality criteria are applied (Bolte 2014). Employing qualitative methods for the study of ASD is an important way of giving a ‘voice’ to participants and can be particularly useful for empowering vulnerable or disadvantaged people groups (Peters 2010). The field of mental health and disability generally is one that is mediated through language (Brown et al. 1996) and qualitative methods tend to focus on language use, specifically those using discourse or conversation analysis approaches. Quantitative evidence, whatever its form, provides important and valuable evidence about ASD. However, it is crucial that the field does not solely rely on a relatively narrow range of methodologies and forms of knowledge to inform us about such a complex and diverse condition. Qualitative methods are able to go beyond establishing the likelihood of associations between variables, towards understanding the nature of such associations and the complex processes that they may be interpreted to represent. More specifically, qualitative methods are able to go beyond what works to show how and why a particular practice is effective (Rhodes 2011), particularly when taking into account established quality criteria. In this special section, we focus specifically on discourse analysis and conversation analysis, which are languageoriented qualitative approaches that analyse what people actually do and say, as opposed to what they report that they do or say (McCabe 2006). The five included articles use discourse or conversation analysis in varying ways, and highlight how these analytic methods pursue robust validation procedures and focus on identifying systematic patterns of interaction grounded in natural data (McCabe et al. 2002) with built in quality criteria. Typically researchers applying discourse or conversation analysis use extensive corpora of audioor video-recordings of social interactions collected in natural settings (e.g., clinic, therapy session). Analysis then involves a close, inductive examination of the interactions of all the participants in that setting. Although discourse analysis and conversation analysis are similar approaches, and both fall broadly within the landscape of qualitative research in that they treat language as their central focus (Bryman 2008), there are some important practical and epistemological differences which dictate the nature of the questions asked and the specific analytic methods used. Conversation analysis (CA) is a qualitative approach that focuses on the study of interaction. The core aim of this approach is to examine the social organisation of activities that are produced in interaction through talk (Hutchby and Wooffitt 2008). In other words, CA aims to interrogate how people use language to perform certain social actions, such as excusing, inviting, complaining, & Michelle O’Reilly mjo14@leicester.ac.uk; mjo14@le.ac.uk
DOI：
10.1176/appi.ajp.2013.12081103
发表时间：
2014-01
期刊：
The American journal of psychiatry
影响因子：
--
作者：
Bartlett CW;Hou L;Flax JF;Hare A;Cheong SY;Fermano Z;Zimmerman-Bier B;Cartwright C;Azaro MA;Buyske S;Brzustowicz LM
通讯作者：
Brzustowicz LM