Publisher Home ↗ editor@randspublications.org
International Journal of Social Sciences, Language and Linguistics eISSN 2051-686X Submit Article
Research Articles Open access

Navigating Disparate Roles and Divergent Expectations in Institutional Communication: An Analysis of Verbal Autopsy Interactions

Published
Pages 01-06
Views 76
Downloads 80

Authors

  • Ms. Anjali Kumar PhD Candidate, Department of Public Health and Communication Tata Institute of Social Sciences Mumbai, Maharashtra, India Author
  • Dr. Priya Mehta Associate Professor, Department of Communication Studies University of Mumbai Mumbai, Maharashtra, India Author

DOI

https://doi.org/10.55640/ijssll-01-11-01 ↗

Abstract

This study examines the communication dynamics between healthcare professionals and family members during verbal autopsy interviews, focusing on the conflicting roles and divergent expectations that emerge in institutional settings. Using a qualitative approach, the research analyzes recorded interactions between interviewers and bereaved family members to uncover the challenges posed by differing expectations of professionalism, empathy, and confidentiality. Findings reveal a tension between the institutional need for standardized data collection and the emotional support sought by the families. The study highlights the implications of these tensions for both the accuracy of verbal autopsy results and the psychological wellbeing of the participants. It offers insights into how communication strategies can be tailored to better align institutional objectives with the needs of the community, suggesting recommendations for improving the effectiveness of verbal autopsy processes in healthcare settings.

Keywords

verbal autopsy , institutional communication , healthcare professionals , family interactions , divergent expectations , communication dynamics , emotional support

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Alasuutari, P. (2023). Conversation analysis, institutions, and rituals. Frontiers in Sociology, 8, 1146448. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2023.1146448

2. Bailo, P., Gibelli, F., Ricci, G., & Sirignano, A. (2022). Verbal autopsy as a tool for defining causes of death in specific healthcare contexts: Study of applicability through a traditional literature review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(18), 11749.

3. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine.

4. Billah, M. A., Islam, M. Z., Chowdhury, R., Shafique, S., Sarker, B. K., Bhuiyan, M. M. A., Alam, S. S., Kim, M., Matin, M. Z., Jahangir, M. A., Ferdous, J., Vandenent, M., Alam, M. A. R., Hanifi, S. M. A., Razzaque, A., & Rahman, A. (2024). Causes of under-five mortality using verbal autopsies in urban slum areas in Bangladesh: a cross-sectional analysis of surveillance data. Journal of Global Health Reports, 8. https://doi.org/10.29392/001c.117622

5. Boxer, D. (2002). Applying Sociolinguistics: Domains and Face-to-face Interaction. Amsterdam. John Benjamins Publishing Corporation.

6. Canagarajah, A. S. (1993). Critical ethnography of a Sri Lankan classroom: Ambiguities in student opposition to reproduction through ESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 601-626.

7. Chan, M. Y., Chin, S., & Seng, H. Z. (2019). Doing legitimacy in talk: The production of leader-follower relationship in spiritual consultation interactions. Sage Open, 1-11.

8. Coates, J. (2003). Men talk. Stories in the making of masculinities. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

9. Davis, D. L. (2010). Simple but not always easy: Improving doctor-patient communication. Journal of Communication in Healthcare, 3(3-4), 240-245.

10. Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (1992). Analysing Talk at Work: An Introduction. In P. Drew, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at Work. Interaction in Institutional Settings (pp. 3-65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

11. Ekström, M., & Stevanovic, M. (2023). Conversation analysis and power: Examining the descendants and antecedents of social action. Frontiers in Sociology, 8, 1196672.

12. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. New York: Longman.

13. Farkas, K. R. H. (2012). Citizen (in) action: the limits of civic discourse in city council meetings. Critical Discourse Studies, 10(1), 81–98.

14. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organisation of experience. Harvard University Press.

15. Gordon, C. (2015). Framing and Positioning. In D.Tannen & H. Hamilton (Eds), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. (pp.324-345.) US:Wiley-Black Blackwell.

16. Hamzah, H., & Wong, F. F. (2018). Miscommunication in pilot-controller interaction. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 24(4), 199-213.

17. Haworth, K. (2006). The dynamics of power and resistance in police interview discourse. Discourse & Society, 17(6), 739-759.

18. [18] Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

19. Klein, G. C. (2018). On the Death of Sandra Bland: A Case of Anger and Indifference. Sage Open, 8(1), 19-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018754936

20. King, C., Zamawe, C., Banda, M., Bar-Zeev, N., Beard, J., Bird, J., Costello, A., Kazembe, P., Osrin, D., & Fottrell, E. (2016). The quality and diagnostic value of open narratives in verbal autopsy: a mixed-methods analysis of partnered interviews from Malawi. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0115-5

21. Mahesh, B. P. K., Hart, J. D., Acharya, A., Chowdhury, H. R., Joshi, R., Adair, T., & Hazard, R. H. (2022). Validation studies of verbal autopsy methods: A systematic review. BMC Public Health, 22(1), 2215. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-14628-1.

22. Maynard, D., & Heritage, J. (2005). Conversation analysis, Doctor–patient interaction, and medical communication. Medical Education, 39, 428–435.

23. O’Reilly, M., Kiyimba, N., Nina Lester, J., & Muskett, T. (2020). Reflective interventionist conversation analysis. Discourse & Communication, 14(6), 619–634.

24. Prego-Vazquez, G. (2007). Frame conflict and social inequality in the workplace: professional and local discourse struggles in employee/customer interactions. Discourse & Society, 18(3), 295-335.

25. Surek-Clark, C. (2020). Verbal autopsy interview standardisation study: A report from the field. In V. Petit & others (Eds.), The anthropological demography of health (online edn). Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198862437.003.001

26. Ten Have, P. (2002). The Notion of Member is the Heart of the Matter: On the Role of Membership Knowledge in Ethnomethodological Inquiry. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(3). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-3.3.834

27. Tracy, K., & Robles, J. (2009). Questions, questioning, and institutional practices: an introduction. Discourse Studies, 11(2), 131–152.

28. World Health Organisation. (2010). Improving the quality and use of birth, death, and cause of death information: Guidance for a standards-based review of country practices. Albany.

29. World Health Organisation. (2024). Verbal autopsy standard-World Health Organisation. https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/other-classifications/verbal-autopsy-standards-ascertaining-and-attributing-causes-of-death-tool

Explore related research

Similar Articles

11-20 of 102

Search the journal

Find articles by title, author or keyword.