Assessing suitability for adoptive parenthood: hypothetical questions as part of ongoing conversation

Abstract

Social workers with the Dutch Child Protection Board use hypothetical questions as a means to assess the suitability of prospective adoptive parents for adoption. In particular, while talking about the future, prospective adoptive parents are assessed on their educational skills, knowledge and awareness with regard to adoption-specific problems. In our study we analysed the preliminary conversational work that has to be done in order to pose a hypothetical question. We distinguished between 1) patterns that start with an eliciting question as a way of collecting topics with which to build a hypothetical question, and 2) patterns that start with a retrieving question, using themes from earlier conversation. Follow up questions are part of the preparatory work and form a bridge between the elicitation of topics and the actual hypothetical question. These follow up questions can be asked both before and after the introduction of the hypothetical question. Follow-up questions in post-position allow the social worker to challenge parents' answers to hypothetical questions.

Keywords

assessment conversation analysis hypothetical questions institutional communication international adoption

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Button, G. (1990) `On Varieties of Closings', in G. Psathas (ed.) Interaction Competence, pp. 93-148. Lanham, MD: University Press of America .

CPB (2001) Norms 2000, Version 2. Policy Rules with Regard to Procedures of the Child Protection Board. Utrecht: Child Protection Board.

Curl, T. , Drew, P. and Ogden, R. (forthcoming) Linguistic Resources for Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Drew, P. and Curl, T. (2006) `Conversation Analysis: Overview and New Directions' , in V. Bhatia , J. Flowerdew and R. Jones (eds) Advances in Discourse Studies, pp. 22-35. London: Routledge.

Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (1992) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Elbers, E. (1991) `The Development of Competence and Its Social Context' , Educational Psychology Review 3: 73-94.

Heinemann, T. (2006) ```Will You or Can't You?'' Displaying Entitlement in Interrogative Requests' , Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1081-104.

Heritage, J. (1984) `A Change-of-state Token', in J. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis, pp. 299-345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Holt, E. (1996) `Reporting on Talk: The Use of Direct Reported Speech in Conversation' , Research on Language and Social Interaction 29: 219-45.

10.

Jefferson, G. (1981) `Caveat Speaker': A Preliminary Exploration of Shift Implicative Recipiency in the Articulation of Topic. London: Social Science Research Council.

11.

Jefferson, G. (1984) `On Stepwise Transition from Talk about a Trouble to Inappropriately Next-positioned Matters', in J. Atkinsn and J. Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, pp. 347-69. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

12.

Jefferson, G. (2004) `Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction' , in G. Lerner (ed.) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, pp. 13-31. Amsterdam : John Benjamins.

13.

Komter, M. (1991) Conflict and Cooperation in Job Interviews. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

14.

Maynard, D. (1992) `On Clinicians Co-implicating Recipients' Perspective in the Delivery of Diagnostic News', in P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, pp. 331-58. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

15.

Noordegraaf, M. , van Nijnatten, C. and Elbers, E. (forthcoming) `Future Talk: Discussing Hypothetical Situations with Prospective Adoptive Parents' , Qualitative Social Work.

16.

Peräkylä, A. (1995) Aids Counselling: Institutional Interaction and Clinical Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

17.

Sawyer, K. (2004) `Creative Teaching: Collaborative Discussion as Disciplined Improvisation' , Educational Researcher 33(2): 12-20.

18.

Schegloff, E. (1995) `Sequence Organization', Department of Sociology, UCLA .

19.

Speer, S.A. and Parsons, C. (2006) `Gatekeeping Gender: Some Features of the Use of Hypothetical Questions in the Psychiatric Assessment of Transsexual Patients' , Discourse & Society 17(6): 785-812.

20.

Van Nijnatten, C. (2006) `Meta Communication in Institutional Talks' , Qualitative Social Work 5(3): 333-49.

21.

Van't Hof, S. (2006) From Text to Talk: Answers and Their Uptake in Standardised Survey Interviews. Utrecht: LOT.