Does indirect speech promote nondirective genetic counseling? Results of a sociolinguistic investigation

• Published in: American journal of medical genetics 2001, Vol.106 (3), p.199-207
• Main Authors: Benkendorf, Judith L., Prince, Michele B., Rose, Mary A., De Fina, Anna, Hamilton, Heidi E.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Decision Making; discourse analysis; genetic counseling; Genetic Counseling - psychology; Humans; indirect speech; nondirectiveness; Person-Centered Therapy; politeness theory; Prenatal Diagnosis - psychology; Professional-Patient Relations; sociolinguistics; Speech
• ISSN: 0148-7299; 1096-8628
• DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.10012

To date, research examining adherence to genetic counseling principles has focused on specific counseling activities such as the giving or withholding of information and responding to client requests for advice. We audiotaped 43 prenatal genetic counseling sessions and used data‐driven, qualitative, sociolinguistic methodologies to investigate how language choices facilitate or hinder the counseling process. Transcripts of each session were prepared for sociolinguistic analysis of the emergent discourse that included studying conversational style, speaker–listener symmetry, directness, and other interactional patterns. Analysis of our data demonstrates that: 1) indirect speech, marked by the use of hints, hedges, and other politeness strategies, facilitates rapport and mitigates the tension between a client‐centered relationship and a counselor‐driven agenda; 2) direct speech, or speaking literally, is an effective strategy for providing information and education; and 3) confusion exists between the use of indirect speech and the intent to provide nondirective counseling, especially when facilitating client decision‐making. Indirect responses to client questions, such as those that include the phrases “some people” or “most people,” helped to maintain counselor neutrality; however, this well‐intended indirectness, used to preserve client autonomy, may have obstructed direct explorations of client needs. We argue that the genetic counseling process requires increased flexibility in the use of direct and indirect speech and provide new insights into how “talk” affects the work of genetic counselors. © 2001 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.