Week 2 (February 14-20)
Individual versus Collaborative Models of Face-to-Face Dialogue
Introduction
To study communication in psychotherapy is to study face-to-face dialogue. However, the field of psychotherapy has devoted little attention to the study of communication as face-to-face dialogue, preferring instead an individual view of communication wherein one participant in a dialogue is thought to share the information in his mind with another person who absorbs and processes it, and then responds by sharing back what is in his/her mind. In this individual view, the communicative acts are thought to be a relatively neutral conduit between the two participants.
However, in recent years the field of psycholinguistics has been examining contrasting theories that focus on face-to-face dialogue. The theories are the individual and the collaborative models. This week you will read a summary of these two models of the nature of communication in face-to-face dialogue and which is better supported by the experimental evidence. These theoretical issues and the findings from the research have important implications for practice. The evidence offers little support for common assumptions about communication in the field of psychotherapy such as active listening or the significance and meaning of body language. Two of your readings this week contrast the individual and collaborative models, with one summarizing the research evidence that supports the collaborative model.
Being able to think about dialogue as collaborative rather than as an individual activity is as important to doing microanalysis as it is to learn and use ELAN software. That is, microanalysis requires using your mind as if it is a technical tool as well. The exercise this week focuses on sharpening your ability to recognize the differences between an individual and a collaborative perspective on therapeutic dialogues. You will experience the contrast between the two models by approaching the same dialogue by making three sets of comparisons. Each comparison will involve contrasting a perspective with the individual model and one consistent with the collaborative model.
Learning Objectives
Readings
Bavelas, J. B. (2012). Connecting the lab to the therapy room: Microanalysis, co-construction, and solution-focused brief therapy. In C. Franklin, T. S. Trepper, W. J. Gingerich, & E. E. McCollum (Eds.), Solution-focused brief therapy: A handbook of evidence-based practice (pp. 144-162). New York: Oxford University Press. [Read pp. 144-154 for this week.]
Bavelas et al., (2016). Microanalysis of face-to-face dialogue …, section entitled “Dialogue as Joint Action” [Read p. 136 + Example 2, Figure 9.2 ; Example 3, Figure 9.3 ; Example 4, Figure 9.4 ; Example 5 ; Figure 9.5 found on pp. 130, 134 -136]. (Note: You already downloaded this document for Week 1 and, therefore, should have it in your week 1 subfolder in the course folder on your desktop.)
”Different Perspectives,” a two-page pdf document.
Exercise
Posting
1. Questions (Title your post "Questions")
In your first post for this week, address these questions:
a.) Which of the experiments described in the assigned chapter was most convincing for you? Why?
b.) Was the exercise or parts of it difficult to do? If so, explain.
c.) Did you find it useful? If so, what was useful?
Note: The deadline for your "Questions" post is the same as for uploading your completed ELAN files, midnight Saturday evening, February 18.
2. Comparisons (title the post "Comparisons")
For your second post for this week, do the following:
Download two or three other class members' completed exercises in ELAN for this week to your desktop (download both their .eaf and .pfsx files). After reviewing their ELANs, pick one and compare the observations you made from each of the six perspectives to those made by that course member. In your second post for this week, answer the following questions about your comparisons:
a. Did you make the same or different observations as the other course member?
b. What did you learn from the other person's observations?
Note: The deadline for your "Comparisons" post is midnight Monday evening, February 20.
PDF of Week 2 instructions
To study communication in psychotherapy is to study face-to-face dialogue. However, the field of psychotherapy has devoted little attention to the study of communication as face-to-face dialogue, preferring instead an individual view of communication wherein one participant in a dialogue is thought to share the information in his mind with another person who absorbs and processes it, and then responds by sharing back what is in his/her mind. In this individual view, the communicative acts are thought to be a relatively neutral conduit between the two participants.
However, in recent years the field of psycholinguistics has been examining contrasting theories that focus on face-to-face dialogue. The theories are the individual and the collaborative models. This week you will read a summary of these two models of the nature of communication in face-to-face dialogue and which is better supported by the experimental evidence. These theoretical issues and the findings from the research have important implications for practice. The evidence offers little support for common assumptions about communication in the field of psychotherapy such as active listening or the significance and meaning of body language. Two of your readings this week contrast the individual and collaborative models, with one summarizing the research evidence that supports the collaborative model.
Being able to think about dialogue as collaborative rather than as an individual activity is as important to doing microanalysis as it is to learn and use ELAN software. That is, microanalysis requires using your mind as if it is a technical tool as well. The exercise this week focuses on sharpening your ability to recognize the differences between an individual and a collaborative perspective on therapeutic dialogues. You will experience the contrast between the two models by approaching the same dialogue by making three sets of comparisons. Each comparison will involve contrasting a perspective with the individual model and one consistent with the collaborative model.
Learning Objectives
- Distinguish between the individual and collaborative models of communication in face-to-face dialogue.
- Become familiar with the methods and findings of experiments in psycholinguistics that support or do not support the individual and collaborative models.
- Learning that, depending on which perspective you use, you will see different things happening in the video.
Readings
Bavelas, J. B. (2012). Connecting the lab to the therapy room: Microanalysis, co-construction, and solution-focused brief therapy. In C. Franklin, T. S. Trepper, W. J. Gingerich, & E. E. McCollum (Eds.), Solution-focused brief therapy: A handbook of evidence-based practice (pp. 144-162). New York: Oxford University Press. [Read pp. 144-154 for this week.]
Bavelas et al., (2016). Microanalysis of face-to-face dialogue …, section entitled “Dialogue as Joint Action” [Read p. 136 + Example 2, Figure 9.2 ; Example 3, Figure 9.3 ; Example 4, Figure 9.4 ; Example 5 ; Figure 9.5 found on pp. 130, 134 -136]. (Note: You already downloaded this document for Week 1 and, therefore, should have it in your week 1 subfolder in the course folder on your desktop.)
”Different Perspectives,” a two-page pdf document.
Exercise
- Be sure to do the required reading first as it will serve as a guide to the other activities.
- Download the video titled “Week 2 exercise demonstration" from the Week 2 sub-folder in the Dropbox folder named “Downloads, IMA online course.” Watch the video as it demonstrates how to complete this week's ELAN analysis.
- Download the "MIke and William Miller" video from the Week 2 sub-folder in the Dropbox folder named "Downloads, IMA Online Course." Open a new ELAN file linking to this video once you have downloaded the video to the Week 2 sub-folder on your desktop.
- Create a tier for each of the six perspectives identified in the reading, “Different Perspectives:” Inferred Mental Processes, Observable Communicative Behaviors, Global Impressions, Specific Moments, Individual Behaviors, and Interactive Behaviors.
- As the reading and demonstration video for this exercise emphasizes, we want you to think of the six perspectives as making up three separate pairs. Each pair involves contrasting one perspective from the individual model with one from the collaborative model, that is: a) observing the video for inferred mental processes versus observing for observable communicative behaviors; b) observing the video for global impressions versus observing for specific moments; and c) observing for individual behaviors versus observing for interactive behaviors. Keep this framework in mind while doing the exercise; do not get involved in other comparisons such as comparing observable communicative behaviors to specific moments for differences. Doing so would become confusing and move you away from the purpose of the exercise. So, with the framework of the six perspectives formed into three pairs in mind, do the following:For each tier (perspective), select and annotate two observations that might be made from that perspective. (Look at the document "Different Perspectives" for examples.) Note: When you annotate your global impressions of the video they will not have a link to any specific part of the video so you can annotate them anywhere on the "global impressions" tier.
- Once you have completed your analysis for this week, save your completed ELAN as “Mike and William Miller, Week 2-pdj” (i.e. include your initials). Upload your completed ELAN files (both the .eaf and.pfsx files) to the Week 2 sub-folder in the Dropbox folder: “Uploads, IMA Online Course.” The deadline for uploading ELAN files is midnight Saturday evening in your time zone (February 18).
Posting
1. Questions (Title your post "Questions")
In your first post for this week, address these questions:
a.) Which of the experiments described in the assigned chapter was most convincing for you? Why?
b.) Was the exercise or parts of it difficult to do? If so, explain.
c.) Did you find it useful? If so, what was useful?
Note: The deadline for your "Questions" post is the same as for uploading your completed ELAN files, midnight Saturday evening, February 18.
2. Comparisons (title the post "Comparisons")
For your second post for this week, do the following:
Download two or three other class members' completed exercises in ELAN for this week to your desktop (download both their .eaf and .pfsx files). After reviewing their ELANs, pick one and compare the observations you made from each of the six perspectives to those made by that course member. In your second post for this week, answer the following questions about your comparisons:
a. Did you make the same or different observations as the other course member?
b. What did you learn from the other person's observations?
Note: The deadline for your "Comparisons" post is midnight Monday evening, February 20.
PDF of Week 2 instructions
© International Microanalysis Associates