Moving closer. A Conversation Analytic Perspective on how a Psychotherapeutic Dyad Works on Closing their Encounters
This pilot study analyzes a blank space of research: How is the actual therapeutic session closed and how do single closings contribute to the over-all process of therapy? Data corpus is a completely transcribed single short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy. All 28 closing sequences were fully analyzed with Conversation Analysis. The over-all structure of therapy is unfolded in closings in three ways: i) as a joint activity with ‘audible’ steps, describable as scheme of closing, ii) as alignment organization that reveals three closing types: compact, stretched and commented closings. (These types can be seen as manifest realizations of an implicit communicative problem, the coda dilemma: How to close a session with open topics?) And iii) thirdly, therapist and patient typically display their interactional affiliation towards the therapeutic process with joint evaluation of therapeutic help (JETH). Clinical relevant learnings of this study are: i) closing section is to be unilaterally initiated by the therapist while the patient actively suppresses open topics, ii) therapist has deontic authority only and his action is subject to approval, iii) psychotherapeutic dyad establishes a social relationship by projecting closing and iv) therapy is co-actively and locally produced when expansions after closings are taken as a comment on the therapeutic situation.
Buchholz, M. B. (2016). Conversational errors and common ground activities in psychotherapy: Insights from conversation analysis. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 134, 134-154.
Button, G. (1987). Moving out of closings. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (101-151). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Button, G. (1991). Conversation-in-a-series. In D. Boden & D. H. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and social structure. Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (pp. 251-277). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Clark, H. H. (2006). Social actions, social commitments. In N. J. Enfield & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Roots of human sociality. Culture, cognition and interaction (pp. 126–150). New York, NY: Berg.
Clayman, S. E. (1989). The production of punctuality: Social interaction, temporal organization, and social structure. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 659-691.
Davidson, J. (1978). An instance of negotiation in a call closing. Sociology, 12, 123-133.
Enfield, N. J. (2006). Social consequences of Common Ground. In N. J. Enfield & SEE C. Levinson (Eds.), Roots of human sociality. Culture, cognition and interaction (pp. 399-430). Oxford, New York, NY: Berg.
Erickson, F., & Shultz, J. J. (1982). The counselor as gatekeeper: Social interaction in interviews. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Fonagy, P., & Allison, E. (2015). Psychic reality and the nature of consciousness. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 97, 1-20.
Frankel, Z., Levitt, H. M., Murray, D. M., Greenberg, L. S., & Angus, L. (2006). Assessing silent processes in psychotherapy: An empirically derived categorization system and sampling strategy. Psychotherapy Research, 16, 627-638.
Hartford, B. S., & Bardovi‐Harlig, K. (1992). Closing the conversation: Evidence from the academic advising session. Discourse Processes, 15, 93-116.
Helmer, H. (2011). Die Herstellung von Kohärenz in der Interaktion durch Turnanschlüsse mit dann. Mannheim, Germany: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.
Holmes, J. (1997). 'Too early, too late': Endings in psychotherapy - an attachment perspective. British Journal of Psychotherapy, 14, 159-171.
Jucker, A. H. (1993). The discourse marker well: A relevance-theoretical account. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 435-452.
Lakoff, R. T. (1980). Psychoanalytic discourse and ordinary conversation. Interfaces, 8, 2-7.
Levinson, SEE C. (2006). On the human "interaction engine.” In N. J. Enfield & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Roots of human sociality. Culture, cognition and interaction (pp. 39-69). New York, NY: Berg.
Peräkylä, A., & Vehviläinen, S. (2003). Conversation analysis and the professional stocks of interactional knowledge. Discourse & Society, 14, 727-750.
Raitaniemi, M. (2014). Die Beendigung von finnischen und deutschen Telefonaten. Eine interaktionslinguistische, kontrastierende Untersuchung. Berlin, Germany: Peter Lange.
Safran, J. D., & Muran, J. C. (2000). Negotiating the therapeutic alliance: A relational treatment guide. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Issues of relevance for discourse analysis: Contingency in action, interaction and co-participant context. In Computational and conversational discourse (pp. 3-35). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closingsee Semiotica, 8, 289-327.
Searle, J. R. (1995). The Construction of Social Reality. New York, NY: Free Press.
Stevanovic, M., & Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45, 297-321.
Stommel, W., & te Molder, H. (2015). Counseling online and over the phone: When preclosing questions fail as a closing device. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48, 281-300.
Thompson, SEE A., Fox, B. A., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). Grammar in everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
West, C. (2006). Coordinating closings in primary care visits: Producing continuity of care. In J. Heritage & D. W. Maynard (Eds.), Communication in medical care. Interaction between primary care physicians and patients (pp. 379-415). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
White, J. C., Rosson, C., Christensen, J., Hart, R., & Levinson, W. (1997). Wrapping things up: A qualitative analysis of the closing moments of the medical visit. Patient Education and Counseling, 30, 155-165.
This is an Open Access journal. All material is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence, unless otherwise stated.
Please read our Open Access, Copyright and Permissions policies for more information.