Epistemic and Deontic Authority in Parent–Teacher Conference: Referring to the Expert as a Discursive Practice to (Jointly) Undermine the Teacher’s Expertise

Abstract

This article investigates the interactional constitution of a phenomenon recurrently reported by teachers who complain about a loss of authority, a systematic delegitimization of their role. Adopting a conversation analysis informed approach to a single-case study from a corpus of parent–teacher conferences, we illustrate how challenging the teachers’ expertise is accomplished by participants as an outcome of some identifiable communicative practices. Particularly, we analyze the practices of “quoting” and “referring to the expert” as interactional resources differently exploited by participants: While parents challenge the teachers’ epistemic authority and lay the foundation for claiming the right to decide what do to with their son in the classroom, teachers contribute to this epistemic positioning and cede their expert knowledge-based deontic rights, that is, the right to decide the best practices to adopt in the classroom. In the discussion, we advance that the participants’ interactive competence in navigating the complex epistemic landscape of the encounter profoundly impacts on the local definition of reciprocal epistemic and deontic rights and responsibilities. Indications for teachers’ education are provided in the conclusion.

Keywords

case study discourse analysis practice-based teacher education video analysis partnerships

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baker

Keogh

(1995). Accounting for achievement in parent–teacher interviews. Human Studies, 18(2–3), 263–300.

Bensing

J. M.

Verhaak

P. F. M.

van Dulmen

A. M.

Visser

(2000). Communication. The royal pathway to patient-centered medicine. Patient Education and Counseling, 39, 1–3.

Bolden

G. B.

(2009). Implementing incipient actions: The discourse marker “so” in English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(5), 974–998.

Brody

E. L.

Mills

C. J.

(1997). Gifted children with learning disabilities: A review of the issues. US National Library of Medicine, 30(3), 282–296.

Bruïne

Willemse

T. M.

Franssens

van Eynde

Vloeberghs

Vandermarliere

(2018). Small-scale curriculum changes for improving pre-service teachers’ preparation for Family-School Partnerships. Journal of Education for Teaching, 44(3), 381–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2018.1465667

Budach

Kell

Patrick

(2015). Objects and language in trans-contextual communication. Social Semiotic, 25(4), 387–400.

Caronia

(2022). Reported speech in problem telling: Doing epistemic and moral work in parent–teacher conferences. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 15, 134–159.

Caronia

Dalledonne Vandini

(2019). Assessing a (gifted) child in parent–teacher conference: Participants’ resources to pursue (and resist) a no-problem trajectory. Language & Dialogue, 9, 125–148.

Cedersund

Svensson

L. G.

(1996). A “Good” or a “Bad” student: A study of communication in class assessment meetings. Language and Education, 10(1), 132–150.

10.

Christenson

Sheridan

M. S.

(2001). Schools and families. Creating essential connection for learning. The Guilford Press.

11.

Clark

H. H.

Gerring

R. J.

(1990). Quotation as demonstrations. Language, 66(4), 764–805.

12.

Collins

Evans

(2007). Rethinking expertise. University of Chicago Press.

13.

Cooren

(2010). Action and agency in dialogue: Passion, incarnation, and ventriloquism. John Benjamins.

14.

Couper-Kuhlen

(2007). Assessing and accounting. In Holt

Clift

(Eds.), Reporting talk: Reported speech in interaction (pp. 81–119). Cambridge University Press.

15.

Drew

(1998). Complaints about transgressions and misconduct. Research on Language & Social Interaction, Research on Language & Social Interaction, 31(3–4), 295–325.

16.

Drew

(2018). Epistemics in social interaction. Discourse Studies, 20(1), 163–187.

17.

Drew

Heritage

(1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge University Press.

18.

Epstein

J. L.

(2018). School, family, and community partnerships in teachers’ professional work. Journal of Education for Teaching, 44(3), 397–406. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2018.1465669

19.

Epstein

J. L.

Salinas

C. K.

(2004). Partnering with families and communities. A well-organized program of family and community partnerships yields many benefits for schools and their students. Schools as Learning Community, 61(8), 12–18.

20.

Fraser

(2010). Pragmatic competence: The case of hedging. In Kaltenbock

Mihatsch

Schneider

(Eds.), New approaches to hedging (pp. 15–34). Emerald Group.

21.

Garcia-Sanchez

Orellana

M. F.

(2006). The construction of moral and social identity in immigrant children’s narratives-in-translation. Linguistic and Education, 17, 209–239.

22.

Garfinkel

(1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall.

23.

Garfinkel

Wieder

D. L.

(1992). Two incommensurable, asymmetrically alternate technologies of social analysis. In Watson

Seiler

R. M.

(Eds.), Text in context: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 175–206). SAGE.

24.

Goffman

(1984). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press.

25.

Goodwin

(1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633.

26.

Goodwin

(2000). Action and embodiment situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatic, 32(10), 1489–1522.

27.

Heritage

(1997). Conversation analysis and institutional talk: Analyzing data. In Silverman

(Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (pp. 222–245). Sage Publications.

28.

Heritage

(2004). Conversation analysis and institutional talk: Analyzing data. In Silverman

(Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (pp. 223–245). SAGE.

29.

Heritage

(2005). Revisiting authority in physician-patient interaction. In Duchan

J. F.

Kovarsky

(Eds.), Diagnosis as cultural practice (pp. 83–102). Mouton de Gruyter.

30.

Heritage

(2012a). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29.

31.

Heritage

(2012b). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 30–52.

32.

Heritage

Clayman

(2010). Talk in action: Interactions, identities, and institutions. Oxford University Press.

33.

Heritage

Raymond

(2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68, 15–38.

34.

Heritage

Raymond

(2006). The epistemics of social relationships: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society, 35(5), 677–705.

35.

Holt

(2009). Reported speech. In Hondt

Ostman

J. O.

Verschueren

(Eds.), The pragmatics of interaction (pp. 190–201). John Benjamins.

36.

Holt

Clift

(2007). Reporting talk. Reported speech in interaction. Cambridge University Press.

37.

Horvat

Weininger

B. E.

Lareau

(2003). From social ties to social capital: Class differences in the relations between home and school and parents networks. American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 319–351.

38.

Howard

M. K.

Lipinoga

(2010). Closing down openings: Pretextuality and misunderstanding in parent–teacher conferences with Mexican immigrant families. Language and Communication, 30(1), 33–47.

39.

Jefferson

(2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Lerner

G. H.

(Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–23). John Benjamins.

40.

Kotthoff

(2015). Narrative constructions of school-oriented parenthood during parent–teacher-conferences. Linguistics and Education, 31, 286–303.

41.

Lakoff

(1972). Language in context. Language, 48(4), 907–927.

42.

Landmark

A. M.

Gulbrandsen

Svennevig

(2015). Whose decision? Negotiating epistemic and deontic rights in medical treatment decisions. Journal of Pragmatics, 78, 54–69.

43.

Lareau

Weininger

E. B.

(2003). Cultural capital in educational research: A critical assessment. Theory and Society, 32(5), 567–606.

44.

Lawrence-Lightfoot

(2003). The essential conversation: What parent and teachers can learn from each other. Random House.

45.

MacLure

Walker

B. M.

(2000). Disenchanted evenings: The social organization of talk in parent–teacher consultations in UK secondary schools. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 21(1), 5–25.

46.

McGrath

D. J.

Kuriloff

P. J.

(1999). “They’re going to tear the doors off this place”: Upper-middle-class parent school involvement and the educational opportunities of other people’s children. Educational Policy, 13(5), 603–629. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904899013005001

47.

McGrath

D. J.

Peter

Kuriloff

P. J.

(1999). The perils of parent involvement: Tracking, curriculum, and resource distortions in a middle school mathematics program, research in middle level. Education Quarterly, 22(3), 59–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/10848959.1999.11670150

48.

Milani

(2012). Sconfinamenti e connessioni. Per una nuova geografia dei rapporti fra scuole e famiglie [Crossing borders and making connections. For a new geography of relationships between schools and families]. Rivista Italiana di Educazione Familiare, 1, 25–37.

49.

Moran

Canavan

(Eds.). (2019). Realizing children’s rights through supporting parents. UNESCO Child and Family Research Centre.

50.

Pallotti

(2007). Conversation analysis: Methodology, machinery and application to specific settings. In Bowles

Seedhouse

(Eds.), Conversation analysis and language for specific purposes (pp. 1–31). Peter Lang.

51.

Perakyla

(1998). Authority and accountability: The delivery of diagnosis in primary health care. American Sociological Association, 61(4), 301–320.

52.

Pfeiffer

I. S.

Petscher

(2008). Identifying young gifted children using the gifted rating scales-preschool/ kindergarten form. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(1), 19–29.

53.

Pillet-Shore

(2003). Doing okay: On the multiple metrics of an assessment. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36(3), 285–319.

54.

Pillet-Shore

(2012). The problems with praise in parent–teacher interaction. Communication Monographs, 79, 181–204.

55.

Pillet-Shore

(2015). Being a good parent in parent–teacher conferences. Journal of Communication, 65(2), 373–395.

56.

Pillet-Shore

(2016). Criticizing another’s child: How teachers evaluate students during parent–teacher conferences. Language and Society, 45, 33–58.

57.

Pomerantz

(1986). Extreme case formulation: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies, 9, 219–229.

58.

Raymond

(2004). Prompting action: The stand-alone “So” in ordinary conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37(2), 185–218.

59.

Schegloff

E. A.

(1987). Analyzing single episodes of interaction: An exercise in conversation analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50:, 101–114.

60.

Schegloff

E. A.

(1995). Discourse as an interactional achievement III: The omnirelevance of action. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28, 185–211.

61.

Schegloff

E. A.

(2007). The organization of preference/dispreference. In Schegloff

E. A.

(Ed.), Sequence organization in interaction. A prior in conversation analysis (pp. 59–96). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/101017/CBO09780511791208.006

62.

Stevanovic

Peräkylä

(2012). Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3), 297–321.

63.

Stivers

McCabe

(2021). Dueling in the clinic: When patients and providers disagree about healthcare recommendations. Social Science and Medicine, 290, 1–5.

64.

Stivers

Timmermans

(2020). Medical authority under siege: How clinicians transform patient resistance into acceptance. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 61(1), 60–78.

65.

Stivers

(2008). Stance, alignment and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(1), 31–57.

66.

Subotnik

Olszewski-Kubilius

Worrell

F. C.

(2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3–54.

67.

Willemse

Thompson

Vanderlinde

Mutton

(2018). Family-school partnerships: A challenge for teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 44(3), 252–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2018.1465545