TY - CONF
T1 - "Risky business"
T2 - IIEMCA (The International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis)
AU - Nielsen, Ann Merrit Rikke
AU - Jørgensen, Sabine Ellung
AU - Nielsen, Mie Femø
PY - 2024/6/27
Y1 - 2024/6/27
N2 - This paper investigates risk talk in social work encounters. People with dual diagnosis (mental illnessand a comorbid substance use disorder), often find themselves in vulnerable and marginalizedpositions in society and many regularly engage in what can conventionally be labelled ‘risk behavior’.In this paper we explore the discursive construction of risk in encounters between people with dualdiagnosis and the social workers tasked with supporting them, and how this underpins an ongoingnegotiation and construction of practical trust (González-Martínez & Mlynář, 2019).Data are from a large corpus of audio recordings of naturally occurring interactions at a municipalsocial psychiatric housing facility for people with dual diagnosis and are collected in the project Trustin (re)socializing interactions (#TIES). Using Conversation Analysis we explore the interactionalstrategies and practices employed by social workers and citizens when talking about risks and riskbehavior. Previous studies have pointed to interactional strategies for managing risk such as uptake totroubles talk (Jefferson & Lee, 1981); mirroring (Ferrera, 1994; Lindwall, 2022) in talk about B-56events (Labov & Fanshel, 1977); and delivering advice as information to avoid advice giving in talkabout risk (Silverman, 1997). However, the interactional work of upgrading, downgrading, andnormalizing risk in social work talk about behavior and circumstances conventionally linked to risk isunderstudied.In our data we show how interactants discuss, evaluate, and relativize the residents' risk behavior;what we in these interactions may infer about the vulnerability of the residents, and thus how anongoing negotiation and in situ orientation to both individual trustworthiness(Nielsen & Nielsen,2022) and mutual trust (Jørgensen, 2017, 2018) may be accomplished. We see participants normalizerisk factors by means of itemized positive assessments, integrating high- and low-risk factors ininteractional strategies such as lists and if-then construction, as well as absence of delicacy marking,addressing risk as merely a matter of inconvenience, financial challenge, or discomfort, and howexplanation slots and accounts are deployed. Our findings contribute to the understanding of risk talkin social work settings as well as the interactional construction of practical trust.
AB - This paper investigates risk talk in social work encounters. People with dual diagnosis (mental illnessand a comorbid substance use disorder), often find themselves in vulnerable and marginalizedpositions in society and many regularly engage in what can conventionally be labelled ‘risk behavior’.In this paper we explore the discursive construction of risk in encounters between people with dualdiagnosis and the social workers tasked with supporting them, and how this underpins an ongoingnegotiation and construction of practical trust (González-Martínez & Mlynář, 2019).Data are from a large corpus of audio recordings of naturally occurring interactions at a municipalsocial psychiatric housing facility for people with dual diagnosis and are collected in the project Trustin (re)socializing interactions (#TIES). Using Conversation Analysis we explore the interactionalstrategies and practices employed by social workers and citizens when talking about risks and riskbehavior. Previous studies have pointed to interactional strategies for managing risk such as uptake totroubles talk (Jefferson & Lee, 1981); mirroring (Ferrera, 1994; Lindwall, 2022) in talk about B-56events (Labov & Fanshel, 1977); and delivering advice as information to avoid advice giving in talkabout risk (Silverman, 1997). However, the interactional work of upgrading, downgrading, andnormalizing risk in social work talk about behavior and circumstances conventionally linked to risk isunderstudied.In our data we show how interactants discuss, evaluate, and relativize the residents' risk behavior;what we in these interactions may infer about the vulnerability of the residents, and thus how anongoing negotiation and in situ orientation to both individual trustworthiness(Nielsen & Nielsen,2022) and mutual trust (Jørgensen, 2017, 2018) may be accomplished. We see participants normalizerisk factors by means of itemized positive assessments, integrating high- and low-risk factors ininteractional strategies such as lists and if-then construction, as well as absence of delicacy marking,addressing risk as merely a matter of inconvenience, financial challenge, or discomfort, and howexplanation slots and accounts are deployed. Our findings contribute to the understanding of risk talkin social work settings as well as the interactional construction of practical trust.
KW - social work and social conditions
KW - Conversation Analysis
KW - Risk
KW - Substance use
KW - Vulnerability
KW - dual diagnosis
KW - social psychiatry
M3 - Paper
SP - 55
EP - 56
Y2 - 25 June 2024 through 28 June 2024
ER -