Rule-breaking occurs in healthcare settings and is typically pro-social. However, rule-breaking within a hospice setting has not been previously studied. This study investigates rule-breaking within hospice multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings using Conversation Analysis. Eight video and audio recordings of approximately 45-minute-long MDT meetings at one UK hospice were systematically analysed to identify how staff break rules. Rule-breaking was present throughout the data and was characterised by the minimisation of accountability through collectivising pronouns, extreme formulations and laughables. These three features supported rule-breakers to voice potentially transgressive opinions and recommendations that may have provoked criticism from MDT members. Rule-breakers were therefore able to evade social and professional sanctions whilst carrying out pro-social actions that benefit hospice patients, meeting participants, as well as the organisation and progression of the meeting itself. These findings contribute to the existing understanding of rule-breaking and have implications for how institutions understand and address it.
BatlleJ (2023) Hosting collectivity: ‘We’ as a person reference in interactional reflective practice in peer observation sessions. Linguistics and Education73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2023.101147
2.
BháirdCNXanthopoulouPBlackG, et al. (2016) Multidisciplinary team meetings in community mental health: A systematic review of their functions. Mental Health Review Journal21(2): 119–140.
3.
BorgstromECohnSDriessenA, et al. (2021) Multidisciplinary team meetings in palliative care: An ethnographic study. BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care14(1): 448–451.
4.
BorryELHendersonAC (2020) Patients, protocols, and prosocial behavior: Rule breaking in frontline health care. American Review of Public Administration50(1): 45–61.
5.
BrossF (2020) Why do we shake our heads?: On the origin of the headshake. Gesture19(2–3): 269–298.
6.
BruunAWhiteNOostendorpL, et al. (2024) Time estimates in prognostic discussions: A conversation analytic study of hospice multidisciplinary team meetings. Palliative Medicine38(5): 593–601.
7.
CantonR (2016) Why do people commit crimes? In: Probation: 12 Essential Questions. London: Routledge, pp.9–34.
8.
CoserRL (1959) Some social functions of laughter: A study of humor in a hospital setting. Human Relations12(2): 171–182.
9.
DrewP (2003) Precision and Exaggeration in Interaction. American Sociological Review68(6): 917–938.
10.
EdwardsD (2000) Extreme case formulations: Softeners, investment, and doing nonliteral. Research on Language and Social Interaction33(4): 347–373.
11.
FischerPKruegerJIGreitemeyerT, et al. (2011) The bystander-effect: A meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies. Psychological Bulletin137(4): 517–537.
12.
GarfinkelH (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Hoboken, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
GlennP (2003) Laughter in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.
GlennPHoltE (2017) Conversation analysis of humor. In: AttardoS (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Language and Humor. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge, pp.295–309.
16.
GoffmanE (1955) On face-work. Psychiatry, 18(3), pp. 213–231.
17.
GoffmanE (1983) The interaction order: American Sociological Association, 1982 presidential address. American Sociological Review, 48(1): 1–17.
18.
GravengaardGRimestadL (2012) Elimination of ideas and professional socialisation: Lessons learned at newsroom meetings. Journalism Practice6(4): 465–481.
19.
HeritageJ (1998) Conversation analysis and institutional talk: Analyzing distinctive turn-taking systems. In: CmejrkováSet al. (eds) Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of IADA. London: Routledge, pp.3–17.
20.
HoeyEM (2018) How speakers continue with talk after a lapse in conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction51(3): 329–346.
21.
HoltE (2013) ‘There’s many a true word said in jest’: Seriousness and nonseriousness in interaction. In: GlennPHoltE (eds) Studies of Laughter in Interaction. London: Bloomsbury, pp.69–91.
IrshadMBartelsJMajeedM, et al. (2022) When breaking the rule becomes necessary: The impact of leader–member exchange quality on nurses pro-social rule-breaking. Nursing Open9(5): 2289–2303.
24.
JeffersonG (1972) Side sequences. In: SudnowD (ed.) Studies in Social Interaction. London: Free Press, pp.294–338.
25.
JeffersonG (1979) A technique for inviting laughter and its subsequent acceptance/declination. In: PsathasG (ed.) Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. London: Irvington, pp.79–96.
26.
JeffersonG (2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In LernerGH (ed.) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp.13–31.
27.
KearnsEKurshidZAnjaraS, et al. (2021). P92 Power dynamics in healthcare teams – A barrier to team effectiveness an patient safety: A systematic review. BJS Open5(Suppl_1): 91.
28.
KeltnerDYoungRCHeereyEA, et al. (1998) Teasing in hierarchical and intimate relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology75(5): 1231–1247.
29.
KleinCDiazGranadosDSalasE, et al. (2009) Does team building work?Small Group Research40(2): 181–222.
NikopoulosJ (2017) The stability of laughter. Humor30(1): 1–21.
35.
NoyesAL (2021) Navigating the hierarchy: Communicating power relationsips in collaborative healthcare groups. Management Communication Quarterly36(1): 62–91.
36.
PeleckisKPeleckienėVPeleckisK (2015) Nonverbal communication in business negotiations and business meetings. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences62: 62–72.
37.
PomerantzA (1986) Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies9(2–3): 219–229.
38.
RogersLDe BrúnABirkenSA, et al. (2020) The micropolitics of implementation; a qualitative study exploring the impact of power, authority, and influence when implementing change in healthcare teams. BMC Health Services Research20(1): 1–13.
39.
SacksHSchegloffEAJeffersonG (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language50(4): 696–735.
40.
SaxenaAMeschinoDHazeltonL, et al. (2019) Power and physician leadership. BMJ Leader3(3): 92–98.
41.
SeurenLMStommelWvan AsseltD, et al. (2019) Multidisciplinary meetings at the emergency department: A conversation-analytic study of decision-making. Social Science and Medicine242. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112589
42.
ShapinS (1994) A social history of truth : civility and science in seventeenth-century England. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
43.
SidnellJ (2004) There’s risks in everything: Extreme-case formulations and accountability in inquiry testimony. Discourse & Society15(6): 745–766.
44.
SoukupTMurtaghGLambBW, et al. (2021) Degrees of multidisciplinarity underpinning care planning for patients with cancer in weekly multidisciplinary team meetings: Conversation analysis. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare14: 411–424.
45.
StokoeE (2008) Dispreferred actions and other interactional breaches as devices for occasioning audience laughter in television ‘sitcoms.’Social Semiotics18(3): 289–307.
46.
TabernaMMoncayoFGJané-SalasE, et al. (2020) The multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach and quality of care. Frontiers in Oncology10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.00085
47.
TaylorCAtkinsLRichardsonA, et al. (2012) Measuring the quality of MDT working: An observational approach. BMC Cancer12(1): 1–10.
48.
ten HaveP (2007) Doing Conversation Analysis. 2nd edn.London: Sage.
49.
TimothyJJanschewitzK (2008) The pragmatics of swearing. Journal of Politeness Research4(2): 267–288.
50.
WalkerG (2013) Young children’s use of laughter after transgressions. Research on Language and Social Interaction46(4): 363–382.
Wittenberg-LylesEOliverDPDemirisG, et al. (2010) Interdisciplinary collaboration in hospice team meetings. Journal of Interprofessional Care24(3): 264–273.
53.
WoodANiedenthalP (2018) Developing a social functional account of laughter. Social and Personality Psychology Compass12(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12383
