Authority in therapeutic interaction: A conversation analytic study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A paradigmatic shift toward postmodern, collaborative practice in family therapy raises questions about how therapists can use professional authority to facilitate change and how clients can assert their knowledge and agency. We used conversation analysis to investigate how the authority to know and to determine here-and-now action (i.e., who does what, and how, in therapy) was negotiated and accomplished in 10 sessions of emotion-focused therapy involving chair work. Therapists were observed to rely on a particular interactional sequence structure: stepwise entry into a directive, in which directives were preceded by a question-answer sequence. We show how instances where clients' views were elicited prior to the delivery of a directive resulted in different interactional consequences from instances where therapists straightforwardly directed clients to perform some action. The study offers evidence concerning how therapists can facilitate chair work collaboratively and responsively.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it