IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v39y1994i7p955-965.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multi-dimensional interaction analysis: A collaborative approach to the study of medical discourse

Author

Listed:
  • Charon, Rita
  • Greene, Michele G.
  • Adelman, Ronald D.

Abstract

This paper reviews the conceptual frameworks of several research approaches to the study of medical interactions. Two methods are discussed: process analysis and microanalysis. Adapted from Robert Bales's study of the behavior of small groups, process analysis sorts and tallies such interviewing processes as questioning and informing, achieving analysis of large numbers of interviews at the expense of attention to the content or context of the interview. When used in medical interaction research, process analysis seeks correlation between processes documented in the interview and outcomes of the interview. The methods of conversation analysts and discourse analysts, microanalyses subject medical conversations to close linguistic study and contextualization. This review focuses on the underlying assumptions, generalizability of findings, and the types of subjective judgment applied by the methods. It then describes the Multi-Dimensional Interaction Analysis (MDIA) system, a linguistic analytic instrument that combines features of process analysis and microanalysis to capture content, process, and context of medical conversations. The MDIA's validity and reliability are reported and implications for future research are outlined.

Suggested Citation

  • Charon, Rita & Greene, Michele G. & Adelman, Ronald D., 1994. "Multi-dimensional interaction analysis: A collaborative approach to the study of medical discourse," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 955-965, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:39:y:1994:i:7:p:955-965
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(94)90207-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:39:y:1994:i:7:p:955-965. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.