Wayne A. Beach
Professor, School of Communication
COM 201A; 619-594-4948
Office Hours: T, 1:30-2:00 & Th, 1:30-3:00 (and by appointment) wbeach@mail.sdsu.edu
Adjunct Professor, Department of Surgery
Member, Moores Cancer Center
University of California, San Diego http://psfa.sdsu.edu/faculty.php
School of Communication Website: http://communication.sdsu.edu/ http://www.kpbs.org/news/2013/apr/10/cancer-play-reality-theatre/
Learning Objectives
The six learning objectives for this class are:
1) To introduce students to the research method “Conversation Analysis (CA)”: A resource for observing, describing, and explaining the detailed organization of everyday communication in systematic and powerful ways.
2) To illustrate how CA might be employed to closely examine diverse ordinary conversations comprising daily living.
3) To better understand a primary social problem in contemporary society – how family
members communicate about cancer on the telephone, in their home environments – which is exceedingly common, yet largely taken for granted as a set of interactional practices and achievements.
4) To increase knowledge about how basic knowledge about family cancer phone calls might become integrated with the Arts – a project entitled Conversations about Cancer
(CAC), including a theatrical production entitled When Cancer Calls...
1

5) To enhance skills for disseminating When Cancer Calls…, and for assessing the impacts these performances (both live and through DVD screenings) might have on diverse audiences.
6) To envision possible educational applications of CAC for improving communication skills among cancer patients, family members, and medical professionals.
Course Background and Description
The materials for this class are comprised of a sampling of phone calls in the San Diego
Conversation Library (SDCL) entitled "The Malignancy Series" – a corpus of 61 recorded and transcribed conversations, over a 13 month period, involving family members who have been informed that their mother's tumor has been diagnosed as "malignant". The calls begin with dad "delivering the news" to son and ongoing conversations with other family members (including the mom/patient), friends, and service providers as the cancer develops.
This study is the first natural history, in the social and medical sciences, of a family talking through cancer from initial diagnosis until death of a loved one. This investigation was initially funded by the American Cancer Society under the title “Conversations about cancer: Understanding how families talk through illness” (#ROG-98-172-01). Two subsequent and ongoing projects, “Conversations about cancer: A theatrical production” (#
1R41CA144235-01A1; # 2 R42 CA144235-02 ) have been funded by the National Institutes of
Health/National Cancer Institute.
After more than a decade of research on these materials, a book emerged entitled A Natural
History of Family Cancer: Interactional Resources for Managing Illness (Hampton Press, 2009):
2

The book was awarded the 2010-2011 Outstanding Book Award from the National
Communication Association (Health Communication Division), as well as the 2010-2011
Outstanding Scholarship Award (Language & Social Interaction Division).
Book Description
A family. A phone call. A diagnosis...One family’s journey through cancer.
Family members and cancer patients routinely talk about and through cancer on the telephone. Yet little is known about the social organization of these conversations and how cancer diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis impact everyday living. The culmination of a decade of research, this volume offers close examination of the first
natural history of one family’s 13 month journey through a wife/mother/sister’s terminal cancer. Analysis of these family phone recordings (and transcriptions) offers primal insights about the fundamental importance of communication, and how family members rely on one another when navigating through complex social, emotional, technical, and biomedical concerns associated with cancer: Updating and assessing emerging news, being stoic, claiming and defending knowledge, reporting and responding to ongoing troubles, making airline reservations, adjusting to stable yet ambiguous health circumstances, displaying frustration, commiserating, maintaining a
‘state of readiness’, evaluating doctors and medical care, telling and retelling stories, being humorous and playful, and constructing hope as an alternative to despair. These interactions reveal no small measures of personal challenges, emotional turmoil, humorous exchanges, endearing actions, and resolute efforts to remain hopeful in the progressive face of bad cancer news.
Moments such as these are extraordinary and mundane...foreign yet strikingly familiar to all who have encountered them when matters of illness, disease, life, and death move to the forefront and require our attention. Readers will not only gain enhanced understandings of ordinary human interactions, but a deep appreciation for managing the trials, tribulations, hopes and triumphs of cancer – and all human illness journeys shaped by communication in everyday life.
Conversations about Cancer (CAC): When Cancer Calls…
3

Basic communication research has identified a major social problem: Communicating about cancer from diagnosis through death of a loved one. Over the past decade, an investigation into how family members talk through cancer on the telephone has been transformed into a theatrical production entitled Conversations about Cancer (CAC): All dialogue in When Cancer
Calls… is drawn from naturally occurring (transcribed) interactions between family members as they navigate their way through the trials, tribulations, hopes and triumphs of a cancer journey. This dramatic performance explicitly acknowledges the power of the arts as an exceptional learning tool for extending empirical research, exploring ordinary family life, and exposing often taken-for-granted conceptions of health and illness. We assesses the feasibility of educating and impacting cancer patients, family members, and medical professionals who viewed When Cancer Calls… as a live performance and through DVD screenings. Pre-post survey measures were created to solicit audience feedback, talkback sessions occurred following viewings, and selected audience members participated in focus-group meetings.
Survey results are reported that demonstrate unequivocal and positive impacts for changing opinions about the perceived importance, and attributed significance, of family communication in the midst of cancer. Implications are raised about ongoing efforts to design and implement a national effectiveness trial, and future applications of the CAC program for advancing research, education, and training across diverse academic and health care professions.
Three Phases for this Course
The semester will be organized into three class phases. An overview of each phase is described below. (See also ‘Grading & Evaluation”, below.)
All paper handouts are listed under Assignments on Blackboard.
1. Overview of CA: Sample Analysis of Family Phone Calls & Transcriptions
While some class activities will involve lectures and discussions on extant literature, primary attention will be given to “informal data/listening sessions” – repeated, rigorous, and grounded attempts to identify and substantiate patterns of human conduct-ininteraction. Analysis of naturally occurring phone calls, through repeated listenings and in unison with transcriptions, yields a rich understanding of the primary interactional patterns employed by family members when working through the trials and tribulations of cancer – and a host of other interesting phenomena. Emphasis will be given to close examinations of single instances as well as analysis of "collections" of interactional phenomena. (See Appendix A – Transcription Symbols, and Appendix B – Adjacency
Pairs).
4

Group Project #1 will focus on analyzing selected moments from these cancer calls, and writing a paper identifying communication patterns and findings (see below).
2. Viewing and Assessing Impacts and Possibilities for When Cancer Calls…
From nearly 7 hours of family phone calls, an 80 minute stage production has been produced using only natural dialogue from selected calls. As with other audience members that have participated in the CAC project, class members will a) view When Cancer Calls…, and b) conduct their own ‘talk back’ sessions. Attention will also be given to c) identifying future implications and applications for CAC/When Cancer Calls…, strategies for dissemination, and relevant public relations/marketing/sales strategies for diverse audiences.
Group Project #2 will analyze and produce a written report summarizing these data (see below).
3. More Key Social Actions: ‘Sharing Commiserative Space’, Hope, and Other Practices
We will return to the findings from the book and analyze more and related key social actions, including how family members commiserate and share hope with one another.
These and other overviews will be assessed in the Final Exam.
Blackboard & Text(s)
The primary text for this class is:
Beach, W.A. (2009). A natural history of family cancer: Interactional resources for managing
illness. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc.
This book is required reading for this course, and is available at the Aztecs Bookstore. I may also forward additional PDF’s to class participants as the semester progresses.
Availability of additional readings will be discussed in class.
The syllabus, assignments (written and digitized audio/video clips), data handouts, and related materials are available on SDSU’s Blackboard.
5

An overview of my research activities is available at: http://advancement.sdsu.edu/marcomm/features/2008/cancer.html
Downloaded PDF’s from my website are available at: http://www.rohan.sdsu.edu/~wbeach/index.htm
Media files may be downloaded from Blackboard and: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~wbeach/media/
Appendices A & B (below) describe “Transcription Symbols” and “Adjacency Pairs”.
Grading & Evaluation:
Students not attending the first or second classes of the semester will have 25 points (for each day) deducted from their final/total score for the semester.
Midterm Exam
Group Project #1
Group Project #2
100 points
100 points
100 points
Final Exam
Exercise Points
100 points
100 points
----------
500 points total
(90% = 450; 80% = 400; 70 % = 350; 60% =300)
Overview of Midterm & Final Exam, Group Projects, & Exercise Points
The Midterm & final Exams (100 points each) will be comprised of a series of multiple choice items drawn from readings, lectures, and excerpts of human interaction (recorded and transcribed). A variety of exam items will be based on analysis of provided data/transcriptions, analyzed in class and/or readings. Students will be required to read, inspect, and respond to questions about these data excerpts. Exams in this class will not be returned. However, you are welcome to make an appointment to see and review your exam. All exams will be destroyed at the end of the following semester.
6

Group Project #1 (100 points) involves the following steps (see also handout on
Blackboard)
1) Read through the ‘Subject Index’ in Natural History.
2) Identify a key topic/social action that is analyzed at different places/chapters in the book (e.g., delivering/receiving good/bad news, managing uncertainty, reporting about doctors, claiming epistemic knowledge, commiseration, hope).
3) Build a small collection of instances. the number of instances can vary across groups, and will be discussed in class.
4) Examine each set of moments, and select a small sample of these materials to analyze in detail.
5) Write a short (10 pages, double space, 12 font) paper which a) integrates key literature/quotes, b) overviews and analyses these moments, c) describes their significance in managing family cancer, and d) raises key issues about how understandings of these moments both advances research and might be utilized to improve how cancer patients, family members, and medical experts might talk through cancer journeys.
Group Project #2 (100 points) involves the following steps (see also Blackboard)
1) Groups and the class as a whole will function as a research team to assess reactions and impacts from viewing When Cancer Calls....
2) Each group or groups will focus on analyzing classroom talkback sessions and discussions.
3) Groups will integrate findings and design a strategy for disseminating the play to a national/international audience.
4) Envision how CAC/The Cancer Play might be effectively disseminated and employed for diverse educational purposes.
5) Select a specific application (e.g., universities, medical/cancer centers, community cancer groups, churches, family/neighborhood organizations).
6) Describe specific steps – e.g., recruitment, assessment/evaluation, public relations, marketing, advertising, sales, etc. – that might be employed to accomplish your goals/objectives.
Exercise Points
7

In order to understand how to analyze data excerpts of human interaction, regular and prompt attendance to classes is necessary. Prior students will attest to the fact that this is not a typical lecture course, where students can simply gain “lecture notes” from others and read materials independently before taking exams – especially when there are not exams for this class!
Classes will be devoted to a) data sessions directly related to the analytic papers, and b) discussions of relevant literature/studies. Thus, you are strongly encouraged to come to class expecting that each day will facilitate your independent analytic and writing efforts, skills which you will need as a contributing research member of your teams.
To encourage regular attendance and participation, on a random basis students will be asked to form into groups and engage in various exercises (which will vary, including critical examinations of literature, detailed analyses of data, responses to watching videos, etc.). If you are in attendance that day, and participate in the exercise that is assigned, you will be assigned a full 10 points for your engagement and commitment to class. There will be 10 Exercises throughout the semester – allowing each student, with perfect attendance, to receive 100 total Exercise Points to enhance their final grade. Thus, 1 Exercise absence =
90 points, 2 absences = 80 points, etc.
Classroom Comportment
The School of Communication, as a representative of SDSU and higher education, expects students to engage in behaviors enhancing classroom learning environments.
The Instructor is responsible for optimizing learning not only for individual students, but for all students comprising a class. Behaviors disruptive to the classroom instruction are thus not tolerated. Among the actions that are considered disruptive to the learning environment are:
 The use of cell phones, and/or computers/laptops/tablets, not directly related to the course and its instructional objectives, materials, or contents (e.g., using social media or Facebook for conversation, correspondence, emailing, texting, tweeting, or other activities).
 Conversations with other students, during class lectures and related activities, that are distracting to shared attention and collaborative learning.
 Reading, sleeping, harassing, bullying, or related activities exhibiting disrespect to the instructor or fellow students.
8

 Consistently entering late, leaving early, or leaving often from class.
 Activities that are grossly inappropriate, threatening or dangerous.
When students’ actions distract from learning objectives, instructors may be required to intervene to minimize disruptive conduct. For example, if a student is observed texting in class, Instructor may request that the cell phone be turned in for the remainder of class. Or if a student is using a laptop to access Facebook or e-mail, Instructor may ask the student to close the technology until the end of class. Each Instructor will clearly describe and enforce these inappropriate behaviors.
Should repeat offenses occur, with fair warning, each Instructor will determine fair and appropriate consequences for these disruptive behaviors. Should an emergency occur or require monitoring, or if students observe violations of these policies distracting to their learning, they are encouraged to inform the instructor as soon as possible.
Certain other activities may be acceptable, but only with permission or by direction of the Instructor. Such activities include:
 Filming, taping, or otherwise recording the class;
 Accessing the Internet to elaborate or clarify class content;
 Requesting that computers/laptops/tablets may be permitted. If a student is found to be surfing the net unrelated to classes, for example, they will be asked to be seated in the front row(s) of the classroom when using their laptop.
Plagiarism & Academic Dishonesty Policy
 Plagiarism is theft of intellectual property. It is one of the highest forms of academic offense because in academe, it is a scholar’s words, ideas, and creative products that are the primary measures of identity and achievement. Whether by ignorance, accident, or intent, theft is still theft, and misrepresentation is still misrepresentation. Therefore, the offense is still serious, and is treated as such.
Overview:
In any case in which a Professor or Instructor identifies evidence for charging a student with violation of academic conduct standards or plagiarism, the presumption will be with that instructor’s determination. However, the faculty/instructor(s) will confer with the director to substantiate the evidence.
Once confirmed, the evidence will be reviewed with the student. If, following the review with the student, the faculty member and director determine that academic dishonesty has occurred, the evidence will be submitted to the Office of
Student Rights and Responsibilities. The report “identifies the student who was
9

found responsible, the general nature of the offense, the action taken, and a recommendation as to whether or not additional action should be considered by the campus judicial affairs office .” (CSSR Website [1] ).
[1] http://www.sa.sdsu.edu/srr/academics1.html
Intellectual Property:
The syllabus, lectures and lecture outlines are personal copyrighted intellectual property of the instructor, which means that any organized recording for anything other than personal use, duplication, distribution, or profit is a violation of copyright and fair use laws.
Proper source attribution
Proper attribution occurs by specifying the source of content or ideas. This is done by (a) providing quotation marks around text, when directly quoted, and
(b) clearly designating the source of the text or information relied upon in an assignment.
Specific exemplary infractions and consequences: a. Reproducing a whole paper, paragraph, or large portions of unattributed materials (whether represented by: (i) multiple sentences, images, or portions of images; or (ii) by percentage of assignment length) without proper attribution, will result in assignment of an “F” in the course, and a report to Student Rights and Responsibilities. b. Reproducing a sentence or sentence fragment with no quotation marks but source citation, or subsets of visual images without source attribution, will minimally result in an “F” on the assignment.
Self-plagiarism
Students often practice some form of ‘double-dipping,’ in which they write on a given topic across more than one course assignment. In general, there is nothing wrong with double-dipping topics or sources, but there is a problem with double-dipping exact and redundant text. It is common for scholars to write on the same topic across many publication outlets; this is part of developing expertise and the reputation of being a scholar on a topic. Scholars, however, are not permitted to repeat exact text across papers or publications except when noted and attributed, as this wastes precious intellectual space with repetition and does a disservice to the particular source of original presentation by
‘diluting’ the value of the original presentation. Any time that a writer simply ‘ cuts-and-pastes’ exact text from former papers into a new paper without proper
10




 attribution, it is a form of self-plagiarism. Consequently, a given paper should never be turned in to multiple classes. Entire paragraphs, or even sentences, should not be repeated word-for-word across course assignments. Each new writing assignment is precisely that, a new writing assignment, requiring new composition on the student’s part.
Secondary citations
Secondary citation is not strictly a form of plagiarism, but in blatant forms, it can present similar ethical challenges. A secondary citation is citing source A, which in turn cites source B, but it is source B’s ideas or content that provide the basis for the claims the student intends to make in the assignment. For example, assume that there is an article by Jones (2006) in the student’s hands, in which there is a discussion or quotation of an article by Smith (1998). Assume further that what Smith seems to be saying is very important to the student’s analysis. In such a situation, the student should always try to locate the original Smith source. In general, if an idea is important enough to discuss in an assignment, it is important enough to locate and cite the original source for that idea. There are several reasons for these policies: (a) Authors sometimes commit citation errors, which might be replicated without knowing it; (b) Authors sometimes make interpretation errors, which might be ignorantly reinforced (c) Therefore, reliability of scholarly activity is made more difficult to assure and enforce; (d)
By relying on only a few sources of review, the learning process is shortcircuited, and the student’s own research competencies are diminished, which are integral to any liberal education; (e) By masking the actual sources of ideas, readers must second guess which sources come from which citations, making the readers’ own research more difficult; (f) By masking the origin of the information, the actual source of ideas is misrepresented. Some suggestions that assist with this principle:
When the ideas Jones discusses are clearly attributed to, or unique to,
Smith, then find the Smith source and citation.
When the ideas Jones is discussing are historically associated more with
Smith than with Jones, then find the Smith source and citation.
In contrast, Jones is sometimes merely using Smith to back up what Jones is saying and believes, and is independently qualified to claim, whether or not
Smith would have also said it; in such a case, citing Jones is sufficient.
Never simply copy a series of citations at the end of a statement by Jones, and reproduce the reference list without actually going to look up what those references report—the only guarantee that claims are valid is for a student to read the original sources of those claims.
Solicitation for ghost writing:
11






Any student who solicits any third party to write any portion of an assignment for this class (whether for pay or not) violates the standards of academic honesty in this course. The penalty for solicitation (regardless of whether it can be demonstrated the individual solicited wrote any sections of the assignment) is F in the course.
TurnItIn.com
The papers in most Communication courses will be submitted electronically in
Word (preferably 2007, .docx) on the due dates assigned, and will require verification of submission to Turnitin.com.
Specific exemplary infractions and consequences
Course failure: Reproducing a whole paper, paragraph, or large portions of unattributed materials without proper attribution, whether represented by: (a) multiple sentences, images, or portions of images; or (b) by percentage of assignment length, will result in assignment of an “F” in the course in which the infraction occurred, and a report to the Center for Student Rights and
Responsibilities (CSRR 2 ).
Assignment failure: Reproducing a sentence or sentence fragment with no quotation marks, but with source citation, or subsets of visual images without source attribution, will minimally result in an “F” on the assignment, and may result in greater penalty, including a report to the CSRR, depending factors noted below. In this instance, an “F” may mean anything between a zero (0) and
50%, depending on the extent of infraction.
Exacerbating conditions--Amount: Evidence of infraction, even if fragmentary, is increased with a greater: (a) number of infractions; (b) distribution of infractions across an assignment; or (c) proportion of the assignment consisting of infractions.
Exacerbating conditions--Intent: Evidence of foreknowledge and intent to deceive magnifies the seriousness of the offense and the grounds for official response. Plagiarism, whether ‘by accident’ or ‘by ignorance,’ still qualifies as plagiarism—it is all students’ responsibility to make sure their assignments are not committing the offense.
Exceptions: Any exceptions to these policies will be considered on a caseby-case basis, and only under exceptional circumstances.
HOWEVER, THERE ARE NO EXCUSES ALLOWED BASED ON
IGNORANCE OF WHAT CONSTITUTES PLAGIARISM, OR OF WHAT
12

THIS POLICY IS
Additional descriptions and resources include the following:
I.
SDSU Resources
SDSU Plagiarism: The crime of intellectual property by SDSU librarian Pamela Jackson http://infotutor.sdsu.edu/plagiarism/index.cfm
Avoiding plagiarism at SDSU - guides for faculty to include in their Blacboard course http://infodome.sdsu.edu/infolit/learningpackets.shtml
Academic Senate - University Academic Policies on Cheating and Plagiarism http://senate.sdsu.edu/policy/pfacademics.html
Center for Student Rights and Responsibilities - Reporting a case of suspected plagiarism to Judicial Procedures Office http://www.sa.sdsu.edu/srr/complaint1.html
II.
External Resources
Plagiarism: How to avoid it http://www.aresearchguide.com/6plagiar.html
Cyberplagiarism: Detection and Prevention from Penn State. Wholesale Copying, Cut &
Paste, Inappropriate Paraphrase, Citation Guidelines, Practice Exercise http://tlt.its.psu.edu/suggestions/cyberplag/cyberplagexamples.html
Detecting and Preventing Classroom Cheating: Promoting Integrity in Assessment by
Gregory J. Cizek http://tinyurl.com/CizekPromotingIntegrity
Anti-Plagiarism Strategies for Research Papers by Robert Harris. http://www.virtualsalt.com/antiplag.htm
Video Primers in an Online Repository for e-Teaching & Learning from Indiana
University (See Reducing Plagiarism and Online Writing Activities) http://www.indiana.edu/~icy/media/de_series.html
The task of the modern educator is not to cut down jungles but to irrigate deserts.
C.S. Lewis, 1947
Beach/COM 465: Conversational Interaction
(Preliminary Topics/Readings)
13

A. Overview & Introduction
Book Reviews (back cover and front of book), Foreword (by Douglas M. Maynard),
and Introduction in Natural History
Wayne A. Beach (2007). Understanding how family members talk through cancer. In B. Whaley and W. Sampter (Eds.), Advancements in
communication theory & research (330-350). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
(pdf/Blackboard)
B. Communication, Cancer, and Family Interactions
Chapter 1, “Communication and Family Cancer Journeys”, in Natural History
C. Overview & Perspectives: Psychosocial Research in ‘Family’ Cancer
Linda J. Kristjanson & Terri Ashcroft (1994). The family’s cancer journey: A literature review. Cancer Nursing, 17, 1-17. (pdf/e-mail)
J. Michael Gotcher (1993). The effects of family communication on psychosocial adjustment of cancer patients. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 21,
176-188. (pdf/Blackboard)
D. The “Malignancy” Phone Calls & Fundamental Assumptions of CA Research
Chapter 2, “The Malignancy Phone Call Corpus: Analyzing Episodic and
Longitudinal Interactions”, in Natural History
E. Chapter 3, “Between Dad and Son: Delivering, Receiving, and Assimilating
Bad Cancer News”, in Natural History
Chapter 4, “Between Mom and Son: Talking About “The Verdict”, in
14

Natural History
F. The Delivery and Reception of “Good and Bad News”
Douglas W. Maynard (1996). On “realization” in everyday life: The forecasting of bad news as a social relation. American Sociological Review, 61, 109-131.
(pdf/Blackboard)
Douglas W. Maynard (1997). The news delivery sequence: Bad news and good news in conversational interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 30,
93-130. (pdf/Blackboard)
G. Chapter 5, “Making the Case for Airline Compassion Fares: The Serial Organization of Problem Narratives”, in Natural History
Chapter 6, “Stability and Ambiguity: Living in Flux with Mom’s Cancer”, in Natural History
Chapter 7, “State of Readiness: Figurative Expressions and the Social
Construction of Emergency Preparedness,” in Natural History
H. Uncertainty and Illness
Babrow, A. S., Kasch, C. R., & Ford, L. A. (1998). The many meanings of
uncertainty in illness: Toward a systematic accounting. Health Communication,
10, 1-23. (pdf/Blackboard)
I. Chapter 8, “So What’s the Doctor Have to Say”: Lay Reportings about Doctors,
15

Medical Staff, and Technical Procedures”, in Natural History
Chapter 9, “She Likes the Doctor…

J. Chapter 10, “Sh:i:t…Yeah $I Know.$”: Sharing Commiserative Space and
Claiming Epistemic Authority”, in Natural History
Chapter 11, “Stories-in-a-Series: Tellings and Retellings about Cigarettes,
Devastation, and Hair”, in Natural History
Chapter 12, “Social, Scientific, and Spiritual Conceptions of Hope (and
Optimism)”, in Natural History
Chapter 13, “Well Where’s Our Magic Wand Mom…

Me

: The Interactional Organization of Hope and Optimism”, in Natural History
K. Alternative Examinations of Hope and Optimism
Elisabeth Kubler-Ross (1969). Hope (Ch.13, pp.138-156). In On death and
dying. New York:Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. (in 1969 book only)
Anssi Perakyla (1991). Hope work in the care of seriously ill patients. Qualitative
Health Research, 1, 407-433. (pdf/Blackboard)
Elizabeth Holt (1993). The structure of death announcements: Looking on the bright side of death. Text, 13, 189-212. (pdf/Blackboard)
16

L. Chapter 14, “Epilogue: Journeying Through Cancer Interactionally”, in
Natural History
Chapter 15, “Retrospective Interview with Family Members: Eighteen
Years Following Diagnosis”, in Natural History
M. Beach, W.A., Buller, M.K., Dozier, D. et al., (2012). Conversations about cancer
(CAC): Assessing feasibility and audience impacts from viewing The
Cancer Play. Manuscript.
Beach, W.A., Cherpeski, E., Gutzmer, K., & Strahm, C. (2011). Literature Review:
Cancer, family communication and edutainment. Manuscript.
[More readings may be assigned at a later date.]
Sampling of Related Readings
Social Aspects of Illness, Death, & Dying
David Sudnow (1967). Introduction (pp.1-11); On bad news (Ch.5, pp.117-152). In
Passing on: The social organization of dying. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall, Inc. (pdf/e-mail)
Elisabeth Kubler-Ross (1969). Attitudes toward death and dying (Chp. 2, pp.11-
37.). In On death and dying. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.
(pdf/e-mail)
The Noticeable Absence of Interactional Research
Beach, W.A. (2001). Introduction: Diagnosing lay diagnosis. Text, 21, 13-18. (wb website)
Irving Rootman & Larry Hershfield (1994). Health communication research:
17

Broadening the scope. Health Communication, 6, 69-72. (pdf/e-mail)
Other Readings
Wayne A. Beach (1996). Editor’s Preface and Introduction (pp.ix-xvii); Finding bulimia (Ch.1, pp.1-19); Interaction and social problems (Ch.5, pp.101-112).
In Conversations about illness: Family preoccupations with bulimia. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Wayne A. Beach (1995). Preserving and constraining options: “Okays” and `official’ priorities in medical interviews. In G.H. Morris & R. Cheneil (Eds.). The talk of the clinic: Explorations in the analysis of medical and therapeutic discourse
(pp.259-289). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc
Jorg R. Bergmann (1992). Veiled morality: Notes on discretion in psychiatry. In Drew
& Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp.137-
162). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Graham Button & Neil Casey (1984). Generating topic: The use of topic initial elicitors. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp.167-190). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Graham Button & Neil Casey (1988/89). Topic initiation: Business-at-hand. Research on
Language and Social Interaction, 22: 61-92.
Paul Drew and John Heritage (1992). Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In Paul
Drew & John Heritage (Eds.), Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings
(pp.3-65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jean-Francois Duval (July, 1997). Elisabeth Kubler-Ross: The final stage. Shambala Sun,
Arthur W. Frank (1969). The wounded storyteller: Body, illness, and ethics. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
Richard M. Frankel (1995). Some answers about questions in clinical interviews. In
G.H. Morris & R. Cheneil (Eds.). The talk of the clinic: Explorations in the analysis of medical and therapeutic discourse (pp.233-258). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
J. Michael Gotcher (1995). Well-adjusted and maladjusted cancer patients: An examination of communication variables. Health Communication, 7, 21-33.
Jay F. Gubrium & James A. Holstein (1990).What is family? & A new perspective:
Social constructivism (Chps. 1 & 2, pp.1-34). What is family? Mountain View,
CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.
Christian Heath (1992). The delivery and reception of diagnosis in the general-practice consultation. In Paul Drew & John Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp.235-267). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18

John Heritage & Sue Sefi (1992). Dilemmas of advice: Aspects of the delivery and reception of advice in interactions between health visitors and first-time mothers.
In Paul Drew & John Heritage (Eds.), Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional
Settings (pp.359-417). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gail Jefferson (1984a). On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage
(Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp.191-222).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gail Jefferson (1984b). On the organization of laughter in talk about troubles. In J.
Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp.346-369). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Charlotte M. Jones & Wayne A. Beach (1995). Therapists’ techniques for responding to unsolicited contributions by family members. In G.H. Morris & R. Cheneil (Eds.).
The talk of the clinic: Explorations in the analysis of medical and therapeutic discourse (pp.49-70). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Charlotte M. Jones & Wayne A. Beach (in press). “I just wanna know why”: Patients’ attempts and doctors’ responses to premature solicitation of diagnostic information. To appear in Madeline Maxwell (Ed.), Diagnosis as Cultural
Practice, Mouton de Gruyter Publishers (2002).
Don Lattan (July, 1997). Second thoughts. San Francisco Chronicle.
Karen Lutfey & Douglas W. Maynard (1998). Bad news in an oncology setting: How a physician talks about death and dying without using those words. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 61, 321-341.
Douglas W. Maynard (1988). Language, interaction, and social problems. Social
Problems, 35, 311-334.
Douglas W. Maynard (1992). On clinicians co-implicating recipients' perspective in the delivery of diagnostic news. In Drew & Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp.331-358). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Douglas W. Maynard & Richard M. Frankel (in press). On the edge of rationality in primary care medicine: Bad news, good news, and uncertainty. In John Heritage
& Douglas W. Maynard (Eds.), Practicing medicine: Structures and process in primary care encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Anssi Perakyla (1993). Invoking a hostile world: Discussing the patient’s future in AIDS counseling. Text, 13, 302-338.
Anita M. Pomerantz (1984). Giving a source or basis: The practice in conversation of telling `how I know'. Journal of Pragmatics, 8:607-625.
Emanuel A. Schegloff (1988). On an actual virtual servo-mechanism for guessing bad news: A single-case conjecture. Social Problems, 35: 442-457.
19

Appendix A: Transcription Symbols
The transcription notation system employed for data segments is an adaptation of Gail Jefferson's work (see Atkinson & Heritage (Eds.), 1984, pp.ix-xvi; Beach (Ed.), 1989, pp.89-90). The symbols may be described as follows:
: Colon(s): Extended or stretched sound, syllable, or word.
Underlining: Vocalic emphasis.
(.) Micropause: Brief pause of less than (0.2).
(1.2) Timed Pause: Intervals occuring within and between same or different speaker's utterance.
(( )) Double Parentheses: Scenic details.
( ) Single Parentheses: Transcriptionist doubt.
. Period: Falling vocal pitch.
?
 
Question Marks: Rising vocal pitch.
Arrows: Pitch resets; marked rising and falling shifts in intonation.
° ° Degree Signs: A passage of talk noticeably softer than surrounding talk.
= Equal Signs: Latching of contiguous utterances, with no interval or overlap.
[ ] Brackets: Speech overlap.
[[ Double Brackets: Simultaneous speech orientations to prior turn.
!
-
Exclamation Points: Animated speech tone.
Hyphens: Halting, abrupt cut off of sound or word.
> < Less Than/Greater Than Signs: Portions of an utterance delivered at a pace noticeably quicker than surrounding talk.
OKAY CAPS: Extreme loudness compared with surrounding talk.
hhh .hhh H’s: Audible outbreaths, possibly laughter. The more h’s, the longer the aspiration. Aspirations with periods indicate audible inbreaths
(e.g., .hhh). H’s within (e.g., ye(hh)s) parentheses mark within-speech aspirations, possible laughter pt Lip Smack: Often preceding an inbreath.
hah heh hoh Laugh Syllable: Relative closed or open position of laughter
$ Smile Voice: Laughing/chuckling voice while talking
20

Appendix B
Adjacency Pairs & Sequential Organization
The ‘adjacency pair’ is the fundamental building block of all human, social understanding
(Harvey Sacks, Lectures on Conversation)
Overview
 Focus is on how speakers construct, place, and participate within sequences of practical action

Participants orient to the turn-within-sequence character of utterances-in-context – the very basis of social understanding

Every utterance occurs within some structurally defined place in talk-in-interaction

Generally, a speaker’s turn-at-talk will be heard as directed to a prior speaker’s turnat-talk

Producers of turns will be heard as displaying an analysis of what prior speaker was heard and understood to be doing – treating as meaningful not just any, but particular understandings of achieved social actions

Speaking proposes a here-and-now definition of the situation, to which subsequent talk will be oriented to
Sequential Organization of Turns

A current turn projects a relevant next action, or range of actions, to be accomplished by another speaker in next turn

Sequential Implicativeness: Projection of a relevant next action may be accomplished by the production of the first pair-part of an adjacency pair structure:
1 st Pair Part
2 nd Pair Part

Some current “first” action projects some appropriate “second/next” action

Next speaker’s response displays Conditional Relevance: Not just any, but particular actions were projected by speaker’s prior turn-at-talk – i.e., a second action is “due”

Recipient’s uptake displays their hearings and understandings of what prior speaker made available and relevant – and in response, can produce actions such as agreeing, disagreeing, avoiding/evading, withholding, etc.
21

Basic Examples of Adjacency Pairs:
1 st PP Greeting
2 nd PP Reciprocal Greeting (or Withholding)
1 st PP Question
2 nd PP Answer (or Second Question)
1 st PP Invitation
2 nd PP Acceptance/Rejection
Conclusions
 Both first and second/next speakers deal in systematically organized ways with whatever actions are co-produced

Utterances cannot be understood in isolation of surrounding actions, or through
“literal meanings” – i.e., as “stripped” from its local context

“Context” is built in and through utterances and actions – not separated apart from sequential organization

Communicative action is doubly contextual:
Context Renewing
Context Shaping

Thus, three fundamental assumptions:
1) Interaction is structurally organized
2) Contributions to interaction are contextually oriented
3) No order of detail can be dismissed, a priori, as disorderly, accidental, or irrelevant
22