TOPLUM ECZANESİNDEKİ ETKİLEŞİMDE KONUŞMA ÇÖZÜMLEMESİ YÖNTEMİ İLE UZMANLIK BİLGİSİ GÖSTERİMİ

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 48 Sayı: 1, 8 - 19, 20.01.2024

Elif Ulutaş Deniz Merve Bozbıyık

https://doi.org/10.33483/jfpau.1353299

Öz

Amaç: Son yıllarda, toplum eczacılığında eczacıların iletişim becerilerini temel alan çalışmaların sayısı giderek artmaktadır. Ancak, toplum eczanesndeki etkileşimde farklı uzmanlık bilgisi sağlama uygulamaları yeterince araştırılmamış bir alandır. Bu makale, bir toplum eczanesindeki etkileşimde uzmanlık gösteriminin nasıl kullanıldığını araştırmayı amaçlamaktadır.
Gereç ve Yöntem: Türkiye'deki bir eczanede 30 saatlik ses ve video kayıtları toplanmış ve Konuşma Çözümlemesi’nin veri güdümlü ve tabandan yukarı işlemlemeye dayalı araştırma bakış açısı ile analiz edilmiştir.
Sonuç ve Tartışma: Çalışmanın bulguları, eczacının uzmanlık bilgisini hasta, eczane personeli ve eczacı tarafından başlatılan üç farklı sıralı organizasyon içinde, genişletilmiş açıklamalar ve tavsiyeler sunma, dış otoriteye atıfta bulunma ve hem mesleki hem de ticari bilgiyi kullanma gibi çok çeşitli etkileşimsel uygulamalar yoluyla sergilediğini göstermektedir. Eczane etkileşimi üzerine yapılan bu mikro-analitik çalışma, eczacılık hizmetleri ve eğitimine önemli bir katkı sağlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Eczane etkileşimi, konuşma çözümlemesi, uzmanlık bilgisinin gösterimi

A CONVERSATION ANALYTIC INVESTIGATION ON EXPERTISE DEMONSTRATION IN COMMUNITY PHARMACY INTERACTION

Öz

Objective: In recent years, there have been incresing numbers of the studies based on pharmacist communication skills in community pharmacy. However, different expertise knowledge provision within community pharmacy interaction is an under-researched area. This article aims to investigate how the expertise demonstration is deployed in a community pharmacy interaction.
Material and Method: 30-hour audio and video recordings were collected in a community pharmacy in Türkiye, and analysed through data-driven and bottom-up research perspective of Conversation Analysis.
Result and Discussion: The findings of the study show that the pharmacist displayed his expertise knowledge within three different sequential organizations initiated by the patient, pharmacy staff and pharmacist through a wide range of interactional practices such as providing extended explanations and advices, referring to external authority, and using both professional and trade knowledge. This micro-analytic study in pharmacy interaction makes an important contribution to pharmacy services and education.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Conversation analysis, display of expertise knowledge, pharmacy interaction

Teşekkür

We extend our gratitude to the pharmacist and pharmacy staff who graciously participated in this study.

Kaynakça

• 1. Sam, A.T., Parasuraman, S. (2015). The nine-star pharmacist: An overview. Journal of Young Pharmacists, 7(4), 281. [CrossRef]
• 2. Greenhill, N., Anderson, C., Avery, A., Pilnick, A. (2011). Analysis of pharmacist-patient communication using the Calgary-Cambridge guide. Patient Education and Counseling, 83(3), 423-431. [CrossRef]
• 3. Ilardo, M.L., Speciale, A. (2020). The community pharmacist: Perceived barriers and patient-centered care communication. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(2), 536. [CrossRef]
• 4. Shitu, Z., Hassan, I., Aung, M.M.T., Kamaruzaman, T.H.T., Musa, R.M. (2018). Avoiding medication errors through effective communication in healthcare environment. Malaysian Journal of Movement, Health & Exercise, 7(1), 113-126. [CrossRef]
• 5. Heritage, J., Sefi, S. (1992). Dilemmas of advice: Aspects of the delivery and reception of advice in interactions between health visitors and first-time mothers. Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, 359-417.
• 6. Nguyen, H.T. (2003). Phd Thesis. The development of communication skills in the practice of patient consultation among pharmacy students. English Language and Linguistics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, USA.
• 7. Pilnick, A. (2003). “Patient counselling” by pharmacists: Four approaches to the delivery of counselling sequences and their interactional reception. Social Science & Medicine, 56(4), 835-849. [CrossRef]
• 8. Stevenson, F.A., Leontowitsch, M., Duggan, C. (2008). Over‐the‐counter medicines: Professional expertise and consumer discourses. Sociology of Health & Illness, 30(6), 913-928. [CrossRef]
• 9. van Braak, M. Huiskes, M. (2022). ‘Doing being an expert’: A conversation analysis of expertise enactments in experience discussions in medical education. Linguistics and Education, 69, 101052. [CrossRef]
• 10. Chuntao, L. (2020). Asymmetrical relationship construction in medical interactions-A case study of advice-giving in mandarin chinese. Communication and Linguistics Studies, 6(1), 10. [CrossRef]
• 11. West, C. (1984). Routine complications: Troubles with talk between doctors and patients. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 57.
• 12. Maynard, D.W. (1991). The perspective-display series and the delivery and receipt of diagnostic news. Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation analysis, 164-192. [CrossRef]
• 13. Bredmar, M., Linell, P. (2008). Reconfirming normality: The constitution of reassurance in talks between midwives and expectant mothers. Talk, Work and Institutional Order: Discourse in Medical, Mediation and Management Settings, 1, 237. [CrossRef]
• 14. Heritage, J., Lindstrom, A. (1998). Motherhood, medicine, and morality: Scenes from a medical encounter. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 31(3-4), 397-438. [CrossRef]
• 15. Linell, P., Adelswärd, V., Sachs, L., Bredmar, M., Lindstedt, U. (2002). Expert talk in medical contexts: Explicit and implicit orientation to risks. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 35(2), 195-218. [CrossRef]
• 16. Nguyen, H.T. (2006). Constructing ‘expertness’: A novice pharmacist’s development of interactional competence in patient consultations. Communication & Medicine, 3(2), 147-160. [CrossRef]
• 17. Lynch, M., Wong, J. (2016). Reverting to a hidden interactional order: Epistemics, informationism, and conversation analysis. Discourse Studies, 18(5), 526-549. [CrossRef]
• 18. Butler, C.W., Potter, J., Danby, S., Emmison, M., Hepburn, A. (2010). Advice-implicative interrogatives: Building “client-centered” support in a children’s helpline. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(3), 265-287. [CrossRef]
• 19. Heritage, J. (2012). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45(1), 30-52. [CrossRef]
• 20. Foppa, K. (1995). On mutual understanding and agreement in dialogues. In: Markova, I., Graumann, C., Foppa, K. eds. Mutualities in Dialogue. Cambridge, UK: Cambrdige University Press, 149-175.
• 21. Stivers, T., Mondada, L., Steensig, J. (2011). Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 3-24.
• 22. Nissi, R., Lehtinen, E. (2016). Negotiation of expertise and multifunctionality: PowerPoint presentations as interactional activity types in workplace meetings. Language & Communication, 48, 1-17. [CrossRef]
• 23. Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction. John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey, 1.
• 24. Dyck, A., Deschamps, M., Taylor, J. (2005). Pharmacists’ discussions of medication side effects: A descriptive study. Patient Education and Counseling, 56(1), 21-27. [CrossRef]
• 25. Ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis. Sage Publications, California. 120. [CrossRef]
• 26. Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols. Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 24-31. [CrossRef]
• 27. Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68(6), 939-967. [CrossRef]
• 28. Lave, J. (1991). Situating learning in communities of practice. In: Resnick. L.B., Levine, J.M., Teasley, S.D. eds. Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition. American Psychological Association, 63-82.
• 29. John, D., Housley, W. (2001). Talk‐in‐interaction in the community pharmacy setting: A conversation analytic approach. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice, 9(S1), 45-45. [CrossRef]
• 30. Herijgers, M., van Charldorp T. (2021). Communicating information packages in institutional face-to-face consultations. Discourse Studies, 23(1), 3-27. [CrossRef]
• 31. Sert, O. (2011). PhD Thesis. A micro-analytic investigation of claims of insufficient knowledge in EAL classrooms. Communication and Language Sciences, School of Education, Newcastle University, Newcastle, England.
• 32. Jacknick, C.M. (2013). Book review: Steve Walsh, exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. Discourse Stuies, 15(3), 362-364. [CrossRef]
• 33. Sert, O. (2019). The interplay between collaborative turn sequences and active listenership: Implications for the development of L2 interactional competence. In Teaching and testing L2 interactional competence. Routledge, 142-146.
• 34. Sarangi, S. (2010). Healthcare interaction as an expert communicative system. New Adventures in Language and Interaction, 167-198. [CrossRef]
• 35. Stevanovic, M., Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45(3), 297-321. [CrossRef]
• 36. Sarangi, S. Clarke, A. (2002). Zones of expertise and the management of uncertainty in genetics risk communication. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 35(2), 139-171. [CrossRef]
• 37. Nguyen, H.T. (2012). Developing interactional competence: A conversation-analytic study of patient consultations in pharmacy. Palgrave MacMillan; 250-64.
• 38. Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. Structures of Social Action, ed. J.H. J. Maxwell Atkinson. Cambridge University Press, 299-345. [CrossRef]
• 39. Solem, M.S. (2016). Negotiating knowledge claims: Students’ assertions in classroom interactions. Discourse Studies, 18(6), 737-757. [CrossRef]
• 40. Haakana, M. (2001). Laughter as a patient’s resource: Dealing with delicate aspects of medical interaction. Text & Talk, 21(1-2), 187-219. [CrossRef]
• 41. Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shaped. Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 57-101. [CrossRef]
• 42. Schegloff, E.A. (1996). Third turn repair. Towards a Science of Language: Papers in Honor of William Labov. 1996, Amsterdam: Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 31-45.
• 43. Ford, C.E. (1994). Dialogic aspects of talk and writing: Because on the interactive-edited continuum. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 14(4), 531-554. [CrossRef]
• 44. Schutz, A. (1962). Common-sense and scientific interpretation of human actions: Phenomenology and the social sciences. The Hague, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff. 118-139. [CrossRef]
• 45. Ten Have, P. (1991). Talk and institution: A reconsideration of the “asymmetry” of doctor-patient interaction. Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis, 138-163.
• 46. Sert, O., Jacknick, C.M. (2015). Student smiles and the negotiation of epistemics in L2 classrooms. Journal of Pragmatics, 77, 97-112. [CrossRef]
• 47. Heritage, J., Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1), 15-38. [Crossref]
• 48. Korsch, B.M., Gozzi, E.K., Francis, V. (1968). Gaps in doctor-patient communication: I. Doctor-patient interaction and patient satisfaction. Pediatrics, 42(5), 855-871. [CrossRef]
• 49. Mathews, J.J. (1983). The communication process in clinical settings. Social Science & Medicine, 17(18), 1371-1378. [Crossref]
• 50. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A. (1995). Lectures on conversation: Volumes I & II. 1995: Wiley Online Library, 67-125.