Therapist and patient accountability through tactility and sensation in medical massage sessions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v3i1.120251Keywords:
Physical theraphy, Accountability, Tactile perception, Proprioception, Knowledge, Experience, Self-careAbstract
This paper looks at the issue of therapists’ and participants’ accountability regarding a perceived problem in routine medical massage sessions. Specifically, it shows how therapists and patients communicate their tactile perception and sensation of the problem by negotiating their accountability for the current state of the treated body part. Drawing on video-recorded data of 12 routine medical massage sessions at home and five sessions at a clinic, this paper demonstrates that there is a normative order with regard to the participants’ accountability for the patients’ problems. In routine sessions, patients presumably have a problem (e.g., body stiffness or tension) that needs to be treated. The physical therapists’ accountability for the problem is usually displayed via direct access to the treated body part for their attentiveness to as well as validation of the patient’s claimed problem, making the medical treatment relevant. The patients are also accountable for their own problems as they are expected to have the primary right and obligation to look after their own health. Through multimodal and sensorial practices, therapists balance their medical and professional authority with their patients’ concerns, for which the patients claimed to have first-hand experience and independent access to the problem. The data is in Japanese.
References
Cekaite, A. & Holm, M. K. (2017). The comforting touch: Tactile intimacy and talk in managing children’s distress. Research in Language and Social Interaction, 50(2), 109–127.
Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633.
Goodwin, M. H. (2017). Haptic sociality: The embodied interactive construction of intimacy through touch. In C. Meyer, J. Streeck & J. S. Jordan (Eds.), Intercorporeality Emerging Socialities in Interaction (pp. 73–102). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Goodwin, M. H., & A. Cekaite, (2018). Embodied Family Choreography. Practices of Control, Care, and Mundane Creativity. New York, US: Routledge.
Halkowski, T. (2006). Realizing the illness: patients' narratives of symptom discovery, In J, Heritage and D, Maynard, (Eds.), Communication in Medical Care: Interaction between primary care physicians and patients. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hayano, K. (2011). Claiming epistemic primacy: yo-marked assessments in Japanese. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation (pp. 58–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hayano, K. (2016). Subjective Assessments: Managing Territory of Experience in Conversation. In J. D. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in Social Interaction (pp. 207–236). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Hayano, K. (2017). When (not) to claim epistemic independence: The use of ne and yone in Japanese conversation. East Asian Pragmatics, 22(2), 163–193.
Heritage, J. (1988). Explanations as accounts: A conversation analytic perspective. In C. Antaki (ed.), Analysing everyday explanation: A casebook of methods (pp. 127– 144). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Heritage, J., & J. D. Robinson. (2006). Accounting for the visit: giving reasons for seeking medical care. In J. Heritage & D. W. Maynard (Eds.), Communication in Medical Care: Interaction Between Primary Care Physicians and Patients (pp. 48–85). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, J., & T. Stivers, (1999). Online commentary in acute medical visits: A method of shaping patient expectations. Social Science & Medicine, 49, 1501–1517.
McArthur, A. (2018). Getting pain on the table in primary care physical exams. Social science & medicine, 200, 190-198.
McArthur, A. (2019). Pain and the collision of expertise in primary care physical exams. Discourse Studies, 21(5), 522-539.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. Translated by Colin Smith. New York: Routledge.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1968). The visible and the invisible. Translated by Alphonso Lingis. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Meyer, C., J. Streeck, & J. S. Jordan. (2017). Intercorporeality: Emerging socialities in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mori, J. (1999). Negotiating agreement and disagreement in Japanese: Connective expressions and turn construction. Amsterdam, Netherland: John Benjamins.
Nishizaka, A. (2007). Hand touching hand: Referential practice at a Japanese midwife house. Human Studies, 30(3), 199–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-007-9059-4
Nishizaka, A. (2016). Syntactical constructions and tactile orientations: Procedural utterances and procedures in massage therapy. Journal of Pragmatics, 98, 18–35.
Nishizaka, A. (2018). Perception that matters in interaction. Plenary address presented at The 5th International Conference of Conversation Analysis. Loughborough University. July 11-15.
Nishizaka, A. (2019). Perception and action construction. Unpublished manuscript.
Peräkylä, A. (2006). Communicating and responding to diagnosis. In J. Heritage & D. Maynard (Eds.), Communication in Medical Care: Interaction Between Primary Care Physicians and Patients (pp. 214–247). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, J. D. (2016). Accountability in social interaction. In J. D. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in social interaction (pp. 1-44). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sakai, E. (2019). Medical communication during home care visits: How are patients' accounts solicited during massage sessions? Unpublished manuscript.
Schegloff, E. A. (1991). Reflections on talk and social structure. In D. Boden & D. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and social structure. Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (pp. 44–70). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment and affiliation during storytelling: when nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(1), 31–57.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Author and Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
We follow the Budapest Open Access Initiative's definition of Open Access.
The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions.
The journal allows software/spiders to automatically crawl the journal content (also known as text mining)
The journal provides article level metadata to DOAJ
The journal allows readers to read, download, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of its articles and allow readers to use them for any other lawful purpose.
