English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

In the present article, we investigate the extent to  which professional theories that underlie, inform, and guide the interviewing  practices of two psychiatrists (a neuropsychiatrist and a psychoanalyst) are  discursively displayed in their ways of conducting a psychiatric interview. This  study analyses excerpts from two audio-recorded psychiatric interviews held at  the Institute of Psychiatry of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. It  follows theoretical and methodological frameworks derived from interactional  sociolinguistics. Ethnographic data and research interviews with both clinicians  also ground our discussion. Using frame analysis as a central tool, we found  that the psychiatrist who subscribes to a neuropsychiatric orientation displays  a concern on assessing the patient’s cognitive processes, and shifts topics away  from the patient’s delusions to (re)introduce the institutional frame of the  psychiatric interview. By contrast, the psychiatrist who holds a psychoanalytic  orientation towards interviewing not only listens attentively to very personal  topics introduced by the patient, but also sustains and develops these topics.  Most of all, she proposes and stays within conversational frames. In keeping a  dual understanding about their practices in the interview situation, both  doctors balance the need to follow the institutional agenda and the need to  listen to the patient, despite their different theoretical  orientations.

‘Let the heart speak out’—Interviewing practices by psychiatrists from two different traditions