Reflexivity, the ‘ethnographic vignette’ and the自反性“民族志”的插曲.pptVIP

As a critical care nurse I recognise this as a common pattern of communication in this context. An ejection fraction of 15% is indicative of very poor cardiac function and carries a poor prognosis. The emphasis and holding of gaze both emphasises this fact, and also signals a recognition of Mr. Richards as a person who is not expected to survive (and thus that Nurse G should turn her focus towards his palliative care needs, preparing the family members for his probably death and so on). So much is simple assertion. The prosodic and paralinguistic features referred to here such as the holding of gaze, pause and change in intonation appear to describe serve as signalling mechanisms, or “contextualization cues” which indicate how speakers mean what they say Gumperz (1986, 1999). The crucial part of Gumperz argument that I want to highlight is that “speech communities” share expectations regarding how such cues are to be interpreted. My own practitioners understanding informs the analysis of this interaction, but this perspective on the data allows for a “tying down” of this analysis. Data can be examined to determined whether I was recognised as a member of the same speech community, Was I recognised as such? Did others share my interpretation ? Enables a form of triangulation? Recording the cues heard (rather than my uptake regarding their significance) allows for testing of the (examinable) possibility that others interpretation is different. Some comparisons may be made between this data and that which may have been captured using alternative methods of data collection. ? Features of Nurse 2’s gaze, duration of the pauses, intonation are not recorded for future analysis and detailed description. BUT, whether 0.5, one or 4 seconds long, the pause was significant enough to be taken as a cue by a member of that speech community. The key question is that of which context was being indicated as appropriate, or the intended uptake. This is a matter