Psikoterapi Araştırmalarında Konuşma Çözümlemesi: Yöntemsel Bir Gözden Geçirme

Öz

Konuşma çözümlemesi sosyal bilimler içinde gelişme göstermiş, temel olarak doğal konuşmaları inceleyen ve konuşmacıların etkileşimlerine dair belirli özellikleri açığa çıkaran bir nitel araştırma yöntemidir. Psikoterapi araştırmaları nicel ve nitel pek çok farklı araştırma yöntemini kullanarak psikoterapi süreci ve etkililiğini belirleyen özellikleri anlamayı hedeflemiştir. Psikoterapide uzmanlar ve danışanlar arasındaki etkileşime dair öğeler bu özelliklerden biri olarak görülmüş ve konuşma çözümlemesi de psikoterapi araştırmalarında kullanılan yöntemlerden biri haline gelmiştir. Ülkemizde konuşma çözümlemesi sosyoloji, eğitim bilimleri ve psikolojinin çeşitli alt alanlarında bir araştırma yöntemi olarak daha bilinir olmakla birlikte psikoterapi araştırmaları özelinde konuşma çözümlemesinin ne tür sorulara cevap verebileceği ile ilgili Türkçe kaynak eksikliği bulunmaktadır. Bu nedenle bu yazı konuşma çözümlemesinin psikoterapi araştırmalarında nasıl kullanıldığı ile ilgili temel kuramsal ve yöntemsel konuları ve alan yazındaki çalışmaları gözden geçirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Konuşma çözümlemesini kullanarak psikoterapi etkileşimlerini inceleyen çalışmalar yorumsamacı psikoterapi araştırmaları geleneği içinde değerlendirilmektedir. Konuşma çözümlemesi temel varsayımları ve kendine özgü analiz yöntemleri ile terapist ve danışanların psikoterapi sürecini ortak bir şekilde nasıl inşa ettikleri ve süreçteki değişimlerin hangi konuşma araçları yoluyla hayata geçirildiğine dair çıkarımlar yapmaya imkan vermektedir. Psikoterapi araştırmaları alan yazınında konuşma çözümlemesi kullanılarak yapılan çalışmalar pek çok sorunun cevabını aramaktadır. Şimdiye kadar yapılan araştırmaların terapötik müdahaleler, terapi ilişkisine dair öğeler ve psikoterapinin etkilerini anlamak gibi üç temel çalışma alanı etrafında şekillendiği söylenebilir. Bu yazıda da alan yazındaki bulguların özetlenmesiyle çalışmaların psikoterapi pratiğine dair çıkarımlarına yer verilmekte ve son dönemde ön plana çıkan araştırma eğilimlerinden söz edilmektedir. Aynı zamanda Türkçe bir psikoterapi kesitinin örnek analizine de yer verilmektedir. Son olarak, psikoterapide konuşma analizinin, bireysel ve kültürel olarak uyarlanmış psikoterapi uygulamalarına kayda değer katkıları olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır. Psikoterapide sonuç araştırmaları ve karma yöntemli araştırma tasarımlarının da gelecekte öne çıkacağı düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Konuşma çözümlemesi
• psikoterapi
• psikoterapi araştırması
• araştırma metodu
• nitel araştırma
• sosyal etkileşim

Conversation Analysis in Psychotherapy Research:A Methodological Review

Öz

Conversation analysis is a qualitative research method developed in social sciences that inspects naturally occurring conversations and reveals the particular characteristics of conversationalists’ interactions. Psychotherapy research aims to understand the features that determine the psychotherapy process and its effectiveness by using many different qualitative and quantitative research methods. The characteristics of interactions between psychotherapists and clients in psychotherapy are one of these features, and conversation analysis has become one of the methods used in psychotherapy research. Although conversation analysis in Turkey is better known as a research method in sociology, educational sciences, and various subfields of psychology, there is a lack of Turkish resources on the kind of questions conversation analysis can answer in psychotherapy research. Hence, the current article provides theoretical and methodological information about how conversation analysis is utilized in psychotherapy research and reviews the literature. Studies examining psychotherapy interactions using this method belong to the psychotherapy research tradition based on hermeneutics. Conversation analysis makes inferences about how therapists and clients jointly construct the psychotherapy process and how changes take place using its unique assumptions and analysis methods. In the psychotherapy research literature, conversation analysis studies have sought answers to many questions. The research hitherto has evolved around three main areas of study: therapeutic interventions, elements of the therapeutic relationship, and the effects of psychotherapy. In this paper, the literature findings are summarized and the implications of these studies for the practice of psychotherapy and recent research trends are touched upon. Furthermore, the analysis of a Turkish psychotherapy extract is illustrated. Finally, the article concludes that conversation analysis in psychotherapy makes noteworthy contributions to individually and culturally tailored psychotherapy practice. Research on psychotherapy outcomes and mixed-method designs are expected to become prominent in the future.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Conversation analysis
• psychotherapy
• psychotherapy research
• research methodology
• qualitative research
• social interaction

Kaynakça

1. Ablon, J. S., Levy, R. A. ve Smith-Hansen, L. (2011). The contributions of the psychotherapy process Q-set to psychotherapy research. Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology, Process and Outcome, 14 (1), 14-48. https://doi.org/10.4081/ripppo.2011.46 google scholar
2. Antaki, C. (2008). Formulations in psychotherapy. A. Perakyla, C. Antaki, S. Vehvilainen, ve I. Leudars (Ed.), Conversation analysis and psychotherapy içinde (s. 26-42). Cambridge University Press. google scholar
3. Antaki, C., Barnes, R. ve Leudar, I. (2005). Diagnostic formulations in psychotherapy. Discourse Studies, 7(6), 627-647. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1461445605055420 google scholar
4. Arkonaç, S. A. (2014). Psikolojide söz ve anlam analizi: Niteliksel duruş. Ayrıntı Yayınları. google scholar
5. Arminen, I. (2004). Second stories: The salience of interpersonal communication for mutual help in Alcoholics Anonymous. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 319-347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma. 2003.07.001 google scholar
6. Atkinson, J. M. ve Heritage, J. (1999). Transcript notation - structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Aphasiology, 13(4-5), 243-249. https://doi.org/10.1080/026870399402073 google scholar
7. Avdi, E. veGeorgaca, E. (2007). Discourseanalysisandpsychotherapy:A criticalreview. European Journal of Psychotherapy and Counselling, 9(2), 157-176. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642530701363445 google scholar
8. Baltacı, S. ve Gençöz, F. (2019). Psikolojide Lacanyen söylem analizi yaklaşımı: Madde bağımlılığı ve yasa ilişkisinin terapi sürecinde incelenmesi örneği. AYNA Klinik Psikoloji Dergisi, 6(1), 38-62. https://doi.org/10.31682/ayna.482168 google scholar

9. Barriga, L. ve Villalta, M. (2019). Analysis of the conversation: Psychotherapy of depressed adolescents with attempted suicide in a hospital context. Terapia Psicologica, 37(1), 39-51. http://teps.cl/index. php/teps/article/view/246 google scholar
10. Bartesaghi, M. (2009). Conversation and psychotherapy: How questioning reveals institutional answers. Discourse Studies, 11(2), 153-177. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1461445608100942 google scholar
11. Bercelli, F., Rossano, F. ve Viaro, M. (2008). Clients’ responses to therapists’ reinterpretations. A. Perakyla, C. Antaki, S. Vehvilainen ve I. Leudars (Ed.), Conversation analysis and psychotherapy içinde (s. 43-61). Cambridge University Press. google scholar
12. Biggerstaff, D. (2012). Qualitative research methods in psychology. G. Rossi (Ed.), Psychology: Selected papers içinde (s. 175-206). InTech. google scholar
13. Bordin, E. S. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 16(3), 252-260. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0085885 google scholar
14. Braakmann, D. (2015). Historical paths in psychotherapy research. O. Gelo, A. Pritz ve B. Rieken (Ed.), Psychotherapy research içinde (s. 39-65). Springer. google scholar Breuer, J. ve Freud, S. (1957). Studies on hysteria. Basic Books. google scholar
15. Buchholz, M. B. ve Kachele, H. (2017). From turn-by-turn to larger chunks of talk: An exploratory study in psychotherapeutic micro-processes using conversation analysis. Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology, Process and Outcome, 20,161-178. https://doi.org/10.4081/ripppo.2017.257 google scholar
16. Buchholtz, M. B., Spiekermann, J. ve Kachele, H. (2015). Rhythm and blues- Amalie’s 152nd session: From psychoanalysis to conversation and metaphor analysis-and back again. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 96(3), 877-910. http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-8315.12329 google scholar
17. Bulut, B. P. (2019). Psikanalitik yönelimli psikoterapi seanslarındaki sessizliğin konuşma analizi ile incelenmesi. AYNA Klinik Psikoloji Dergisi, 6(1). 63-84. https://doi.org/10.31682/ayna.503291 google scholar
18. Burbaum, C., Stresing, A. M., Fritzsche, K., Auer, P., Wirsching, M. ve Lucius-Hoene, G. (2010). Medically unexplained symptoms as a threat to patients’ identity?: A conversation analysis of patients’ reactions to psychosomatic attributions. Patient Education and Counseling, 79(2), 207217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2009.09.043 google scholar
19. Büyükgüzel, S. ve Gül, S. (2015). Tartışmada örtüşme ve örtüşmelerin çözümü. Mersin University Journal of Linguistics & Literature/Mersin Üniversitesi Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 12(2), 95-113. http://ded.mersindilbilim.info/tr/pub/issue/19515/207876 google scholar
20. Cardoso, C., Pinto, D. ve Ribeiro, E. (2019). Therapist’s actions after therapeutic collaboration breaks: A single case study. Psychotherapy Research, Advance online publication. https://www.tandfonline. com/doi/full/10.1080/10503307.2019.1633483 google scholar
21. Clarke, V. ve Braun, V. (2018). Using thematic analysis in counselling and psychotherapy research: A critical reflection. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 18(2), 107-110. https://doi. org/10.1002/capr.12165 google scholar
22. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri: Beş yaklaşıma göre nitel araştırma ve araştırma deseni (3. Baskıdan çeviri) (M. Bütün, S. B. Demir, Çev. ed.). Siyasal Kitabevi. google scholar
23. Davis, K. (1986). The process of problem (re)formulation in psychotherapy. Sociology of Health and Illness, 8(1), 44-74. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.ep11346469 google scholar
24. Dilekler, İ. (2018). Intersubjectivity in psychotherapy: Perspectives of sadomasochism and conversation analysis (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Middle East Technical University, Ankara. google scholar
25. Elliott, R. (2010). Psychotherapy change process research: Realizing the promise. Psychotherapy Research, 20(2), 123-135. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503300903470743 google scholar
26. Elliott, R. ve Farber, B. A. (2010). Carl Rogers: Idealistic pragmatist and psychotherapy research pioneer. L. G. Castonguay, J. C. Muran, L. Angus, J. A. Hayes, N. google scholar
27. Ladany ve T. Anderson (Ed.), Bringing psychotherapy research to life: Understanding change through the work of leading clinical researchers içinde (s. 17-27). American Psychological Association. google scholar
28. Emanuela, C. ve Carmela, M. (2013). Clinical psychology and research: Epistemological notes, Mediterranean Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.6092/2282-1619/2013. 1.900 google scholar
29. Emil Öğünç, N. ve Eren, N. (2012). Borderline kişilik bozukluğu gösteren hastalarda psikodinamik grup psikoterapi sürecinin nesne ilişkileri üzerine etkileri. Psikiyatri Hemşireliği Dergisi, 3(1), 3037. 10.5505/phd.2012.20591 google scholar
30. Eysenck, H. J. (1952). The effects of psychotherapy: An evaluation. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 16(5), 319-324. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0063633 google scholar
31. Fitzgerald, P. (2013). Therapy talk: Conversation analysis in practice. Palgrave Macmillan. google scholar
32. Fox, D., Prilleltensky, I. ve Austin, S. (2009). Eleştirel psikoloji (G. Kayacı Sevinç, İ. Demirok, B. Gürsel, Çev.). İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları. google scholar
33. Friedlander, M. L., Sutherland, O., Sandler, S., Kortz, L., Bernardi, S., Lee, H. H. V. ve Drozd, A. (2012). Exploring corrective experiences in a successful case of short-term dynamic psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 49(3), 349-363. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023447 google scholar
34. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall. google scholar
35. Gelso, C. J. ve Hayes, J. A. (2007). Countertransference and the inner world of the psychotherapist: Perils and possibilities. Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum. google scholar
36. Georgaca, E. ve Avdi, E. (2009). Evaluating the talking cure: The contribution of narrative, discourse, and conversation analysis to psychotherapy assessment. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 6(3), 233-247. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780880802146 google scholar
37. Gonçalves, M. M. ve Angus, L. (2017). Narrative measures in psychotherapy research: Introducing the special section. Psychotherapy Research, 27(3), 251-252. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/105 03307.2016.1265687 google scholar
38. Grzanka, P. R. ve Miles, J. R. (2016). The problem with the phrase “intersecting identities”: LGBT affirmative therapy, intersectionality, and neoliberalism. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 13(4), 371-389. 10.1007/s13178-016-0240-2 google scholar
39. Gülüm, İ. V., Soygüt, G. ve Safran, J. D. (2018). A comparison of pre-dropout and temporary rupture sessions in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy Research, 28(5), 685-707. https://doi.org/10.1080/1050 3307.2016.1246765 google scholar
40. Haakana, M. (2010). Laughter and smiling: Notes on co-occurrences. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(6), 1499-1512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.01.010 google scholar
41. Halonen, M. (2008). Person reference as a device for constructing experiences as typical in group therapy. A. Perakyla, C. Antaki, S. Vehvilainen ve I. Leudars (Ed.), Conversation analysis and psychotherapy içinde (s. 139-151). Cambridge University Press. google scholar
42. Harper, D. ve Thompson, (2012). Qualitative research methods in mental health and psychotherapy: A guide for students and practitioners. Wiley-Blackwell. google scholar
43. Heritage, J. (1998). Conversation analysis and institutional talk: Analyzing distinctive turn-taking systems. S. Cmejrkova, J. Hoffmannova, O. Müllerova ve J. Svetla (Ed.). Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of IADA (International Association for Dialog Analysis) içinde (s. 3-17). Niemeyer. google scholar
44. Heritage, J. ve Watson, D. R. (1979). Formulations as conversational objects. G. Psathas (Ed), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology içinde (s. 123-162).Irvington. google scholar
45. Hunsley, J. ve Lee, C. M. (2010). Introduction to clinical psychology: An evidence-based approach. Hoboken:Wiley Global Education. google scholar
46. Hutchby, I. (2005). “Active listening”: Formulations and the elicitation of feelings-talk in child counselling. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(3), 303-329. https://doi.org/10.1207/ s15327973rlsi3803_4 google scholar
47. Hutchby, I. ve Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis. Cornwall: Polity. google scholar
48. Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. G. H. Lerner (Ed.). Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation içinde (s. 13-31). John Benjamins Publishing Company. google scholar
49. Kardaş İşler, N., Şahin, A. E., ve Balaman, U. (2019). Öğrenci katılımına zemin hazırlayan etkileşimsel bir kaynak: Eksik tasarlanmış sözceler. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 45(45), 376-396. google scholar
50. Keselman, H., Osvaldsson Cromdal, K., Kullgard, N. ve Holmqvist, R. (2018). Responding to mentalization invitations in psychotherapy sessions-A conversation analysis approach. Psychotherapy Research, 28(4), 654-666. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2016.1219422 google scholar
51. Kinnell, A. M. K. ve Maynard, D. W. (1996). The delivery and receipt of safer sex advice in pretest counseling sessions for HIV and AIDS. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 24(4), 405-437. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F089124196024004002 google scholar
52. Knox, S. ve Lutz, W. (2014). Quantitative and qualitative methods in psychotherapy research. Routledge. google scholar
53. Kondratyuk, N. ve Perakyla, A. (2011). Therapeutic work with the present moment: A comparative conversation analysis of existential and cognitive therapies. Psychotherapy Research 21(3), 316330. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2011.570934 google scholar
54. Kontunen, J., Weiste, E., Liukkonen, T., Timonen, M. V. ve Aaltonen, J. (2019). Predicting response to interpersonal counselling (IPC) from case formulation: A systematic comparison between recovered and unchanged depressive cases. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, Advance online publication.
55. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09515070.2019.1588101 google scholar
56. Kuş, E. (2007). Sosyal bilim metodolojisinde paradigma dönüşümü ve psikolojide nitel araştırma. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 10(20), 19-41. google scholar
57. Larkin, M. ve Thompson, A. R. (2012). Interpretative phenomenological analysis in mental health and psychotherapy research. A. R. Thompson ve D. Harper (Ed), Qualitative research methods in mental health and psychotherapy: A guide for students and practitioners içinde (s. 99-116). Wiley-Blackwell. google scholar
58. Lemma, A. (2003). Introduction to the practice of psychoanalytic psychotherapy. Wiley. google scholar
59. Lepper, G. ve Mergenthaler, E. (2008). Observing therapeutic interaction in the “Lisa” case. Psychotherapy Research, 18(6), 634-644. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/10503300701442001 google scholar
60. Levitt, H., Korman, Y. ve Angus, L. (2000). A metaphor analysis in treatments of depression: Metaphor as a marker of change. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 13(1), 23-35. https://doi. org/10.1080/09515070050011042 google scholar
61. MacMartin, C. (2008). Resisting optimistic questions in narrative and solution-focused therapies. A. Perakyla, C. Antaki, S. Vehvilainen ve I. Leudars (Ed.), Conversation analysis and psychotherapy içinde (s. 80-99). Cambridge University Press. google scholar
62. Madill, A., Widdicombe, S. ve Barkham, M. (2001). The potential of conversation analysis for psychotherapy research. The Counseling Psychologist, 29(3), 413-434. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0011000001293006 google scholar
63. McGee, D., Vento, A. D. ve Bavelas, J. B. (2005). An interactional model of questions as therapeutic interventions. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31(4), 371-384. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2005.tb01577.x google scholar
64. McHoul, A. ve Rapley, M. (2005). A case of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder diagnosis: Sir Karl and Francis B. slug it out on the consulting room floor. Discourse & Society, 16(3), 419-449. https:// doi.org/10.1177%2F0957926505051173 google scholar
65. Mitchell, S. A. (1988). Relational concepts in psychoanalysis: An integration. Harward University Press. google scholar
66. Mondada, L. (2019). Contemporary issues in conversation analysis: Embodiment and materiality, multimodality and multisensoriality in social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 47-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.016 google scholar
67. Mörtl, K. ve Gelo, O. C. G. (2015). Qualitative methods in psychotherapy process research. O. C. G. Gelo, A. Pritz ve B. Rieken (Ed.). Psychotherapy research: Foundations, process, and outcome içinde (s. 381-428). Springer. google scholar
68. Muntigl, P. ve Horvath, A. O. (2014). “I can see some sadness in your eyes”: When experiential therapists notice a client’s affectual display. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 47(2), 89-108. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2014.900212 google scholar
69. Neustatter, W. L. (1935). The results of fifty cases treated by psychotherapy. The Lancet, 225(5823), 796-799. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(00)56772-5 google scholar
70. O’Reilly, M. ve Lester, J. (2019). Applied conversation analysis for counselling and psychotherapy researchers. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 19, 97-101. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12216 google scholar
71. O’Reilly, M. ve Parker, N. (2013). ‘You can take a horse to water but you can’t make it drink’: Exploring children’s engagement and resistance in family therapy. Contemporary Family Therapy, 35(3), 491-507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-012-9220-8 google scholar
72. Perakyla, A. (2011). A psychoanalyst’s reflection on conversation analysis’s contribution to his own therapeutic talk. C. Antaki (Ed.). Applied conversation analysis: Intervention and change in institutional talk içinde (s. 222-242). Palgrave Macmillan. google scholar
73. Perakyla, A. (2013). Conversation analysis in psychotherapy. J. Sidnell ve T. Stivers (Eds.). The handbook of conversation analysis içinde (s. 551-574). Wiley-Blackwell. google scholar
74. Perakyla, A. (2019). Conversation analysis and psychotherapy: Identifying transformative sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 52(3), 257-280. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813. 2019.1631044 google scholar
75. Perakyla, A., Antaki, C., Vehvilainen, S. ve Leudar, I. (2008). Analysing psychotherapy in practice. A. Perakyla, C. Antaki, S. Vehvilainen ve I. Leudars (Ed.), Conversation analysis and psychotherapy içinde (s. 5-25). Cambridge University Press. google scholar
76. Perakyla, A. ve Vehvilainen, S. (2003). Conversation analysis and the professional stocks of interactional knowledge. Discourse & Society, 14(6), 727-750. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F09579265030146003 google scholar
77. Pittenger, R. E., Hockett, C. F. ve Danehy, J. J. (1960). The first five minutes: A sample of microscopic interview analysis. Paul Martineau. google scholar
78. Potter, J. ve Edwards, D. (2013). Conversation analysis and psychology. J. Sidnell ve T. Stivers (Ed.), The handbook of conversation analysis içinde (s. 701-725). Wiley-Blackwell. google scholar
79. Rapley, M. (2012). Ethnomethodology/Conversation analysis. D. Harper ve A. R. Thompson (Ed.). Qualitative research methods in mental health and psychotherapy: A guide for students and practitioners içinde (s. 177-192). Wiley-Blackwell. google scholar
80. Rieken, B. ve Gelo, O. C. G. (2015). The philosophy of psychotherapy science: Mainstream and alternative views. O. C. G. Gelo, A. Pritz ve B. Rieken (Ed.). Psychotherapy research: Foundations, process, and outcome içinde (s. 67-92). Springer. google scholar
81. Rozenzweig, S. (1936). Some implicit common factors in diverse methods of psychotherapy. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 6(3), 412-415. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.1936.tb05248.x google scholar
82. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (2 Vols.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. google scholar
83. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. ve Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-623550-0.50008-2 google scholar
84. Sarı, S. (2019). Terapi ilişkisinin terapist ve danışanın kaçınma örüntüleri açısından incelenmesi: Bir konuşma analizi çalışması. AYNA Klinik Psikoloji Dergisi, 6(2), 106-126. https://doi.org/10.31682/ ayna.495378 google scholar
85. Scheflen, A. E. (1973). Communicational structure: Analysis of a psychotherapy transaction. Indiana University Press. google scholar
86. Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: Volume 1: A primer. Cambridge University Press. google scholar
87. Sert, O. (2016). Sınıf içi etkileşim ve yabancı dil öğretmeni yetiştirme. Akcan, S. ve Bayyurt, Y. (Ed.). Türkiye’deki yabancı dil eğitimi üzerine görüş ve düşünceler içinde (s. 14-30). Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınevi. google scholar
88. Sert, O., ve Balaman, U. (2015). Çevrimiçi görev-temelli etkileşimde ortaklaşa bilgi yapılandırmasının konuşma çözümlemesiyle incelenmesi. Mersin Üniversitesi Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 12(2), 45-72. google scholar
89. Sert, O., Balaman, U., Daşkın, N. C., Büyükgüzel, S. ve Ergül, H. (2015a). Konuşma çözümlemesi yöntemi. Mersin Üniversitesi Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 12(2), 1-43. google scholar
90. Sert, O., Bozbıyık, M., Elçin, M., ve Turan, S. (2015b). Standart hasta-tıp öğrencisi etkileşiminde ön bilgi iddiaları ve etkileşimsel sorunlar. Mersin Üniversitesi Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 12(2), 4-25. google scholar
91. Shaw, C., Chrysikou, V., Davis, S., Gessler, S., Rodin, G. ve Lanceley, A. (2017). Inviting end-of-life talk in initial CALM therapy sessions: A conversation analytic study. Patient Education and Counseling, 100(2), 259-266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2016.08.024 google scholar
92. Shean, G. D. (2013). Controversies in psychotherapy research: Epistemic differences in assumptions about human psychology. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 67(1), 73-87. https://doi.org/10.1176/ appi.psychotherapy.2013.67.1.73 google scholar
93. Speer, S. (2010). Pursuing views and testing commitments: Hypothetical questions in the psychiatric assessment of transsexual patients. A. F. Freed ve S. Ehrlich (Ed.). Why do you ask: The function of questions in institutional discourse içinde (s. 133-158). Oxford University Press. google scholar
94. Stafford, V., Hutchby, I., Karim, K. ve O’Reilly, M. (2016). “Why are you here?” Seeking children’s accounts of their presentation to Child and Adolescent Mental Health google scholar
95. Service (CAMHS). Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 21(1), 3-18. https://doi.org/10.1177 %2F1359104514543957 google scholar
96. Sutherland, O. ve Strong, T. (2011). Therapeutic collaboration: A conversation analysis of constructionist therapy. Journal of Family Therapy, 33(3), 256-278. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6427.2010.00500.x google scholar
97. Ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide (2nd Edition). Sage google scholar
98. Thompson, A. R. ve Harper, D. (2012). Introduction. D. Harper ve A. R. Thompson (Ed.). Qualitative research methods in mental health and psychotherapy: A guide for students and practitioners içinde (s. 3-8). Wiley-Blackwell. google scholar
99. Vehvilainen, S. (2003). Preparing and delivering interpretations in psychoanalytic interaction. Text, 23(4), 573-606. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2003.022 google scholar
100. Vehvilainen, S. (2008). Identifying and managing resistance in psychoanalytic interaction. A. Perakyla, C. Antaki, S. Vehvilainen ve I. Leudars (Ed.), Conversation analysis and psychotherapy içinde s. 120-138). Cambridge University Press. google scholar
101. Voutilainen, L., Perakyla, A. ve Ruusuvuori, J. (2010). Recognition and interpretation: Responding to emotional experience in psychotherapy. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(1), 85107. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903474799 google scholar
102. Voutilainen, L., Perakyla, A. ve Ruusuvuori, J. (2011). Therapeutic change in interaction: Conversation analysis of a transforming sequence. Psychotherapy Research, 21(3), 348-365. https://doi.org/10.1 080/10503307.2011.573509 google scholar
103. Wallerstein, R. S. (1989). The psychotherapy research project of the Menninger Foundation: An overview. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57(2), 195-205. https://psycnet.apa.org/ doi/10.1037/0022-006X.57.2.195 google scholar
104. Weiste, E., Voutilainen, L. ve Perakyla, A. (2016). Epistemic asymmetries in psychotherapy interaction: Therapists’ practices for displaying access to clients’ inner experiences. Sociology of Health & Illness, 38(4), 645-661. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1467-9566.12384 google scholar
105. Weiste, E. ve Perakyla, A. (2013). A comparative conversation analytic study of formulations in psychoanalysis and cognitive psychotherapy. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46(4), 299-321. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2013.839093 google scholar
106. West, W. (2001). Beyond grounded theory: The use of a heuristic approach to qualitative research. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 1(2), 126-131. https://doi.org/10.1080/147331401123 31385168 google scholar
107. Wise, M. J. ve Rapley, M. (2009). Cognitive behaviour therapy, psychosis and attributions of irrationality: Or, how to produce cognitions as ‘faulty’. The Journal of Critical Psychology, Counselling and Psychotherapy, 9(4), 179-196. google scholar
108. Wynn, R. ve Wynn, M. (2006). Empathy as an interactionally achieved phenomenon in psychotherapy: Characteristics of some conversational resources. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(9), 1385-1397. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.008 google scholar
109. Yao, X. L. ve Ma, W. (2017). Question resistance and its management in Chinese psychotherapy. Discourse Studies, 19(2), 216-233. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1461445617695700 google scholar