Shaping a moral body in family dinner talk: Children's socialization to good manners concerning bodily conduct.

The family meal has been extensively investigated as a site for children's acquisition of eating-related behaviors and attitudes, as well as culture-specific rules and assumptions. However, little is known about children's socialization to a constitutive dimension of commensality and even social life: good manners concerning bodily conduct. Drawing on 20th century scholarship on body governmentality and good manners, and building on recent studies on family meal as a socialization site, the article sheds light on this overlooked dimension of family commensality. Based on a corpus of more than 20 h of videorecorded family dinner interactions collected in Italy, and using discourse analysis, the article shows that family mealtime constitutes a relevant arena where parents control their children's conduct through the micro-politics of good manners. By participating in mealtime interactions, children witness and have the chance to acquire the specific cultural principles governing bodily conduct at the table, such as "sitting properly", "eating with cutlery", and "chewing with mouth closed". Yet, they are also socialized to a foundational principle of human sociality: one's own behavior must be self-monitored according to the perspective of the generalized Other. Noticing that forms and contents of contemporary family mealtime talk about good manners are surprisingly similar to those described by Elias in his seminal work on the social history of good manners, the article documents that mealtime still constitutes a privileged cultural site where children are multimodally introduced to morality concerning not only specific table manners, but also more general and overarching assumptions, namely the conception of the body as an entity that should be (self)monitored and shaped according to moral standards.

Epistemic Trust as an Interactional Accomplishment in Pediatric Well-Child Visits: Parents' Resistance to Solicited Advice as Performing Epistemic Vigilance.

Epistemic trust - i.e. the belief in knowledge claims we do not understand or cannot validate - is pivotal in healthcare interactions where trust in the source of knowledge is the foundation for adherence to therapy as well as general compliance with the physician's suggestions. However, in the contemporary knowledge society professionals can no longer count on unconditional epistemic trust: boundaries of the legitimacy and extension criteria of expertise have become increasingly fuzzier and professionals must take into account laypersons' expertise. Drawing on a conversation analysis-informed study of 23 videorecorded pediatrician-led well-child visits, the article deals with the communicative constitution of healthcare-relevant phenomena such as: epistemic and deontic struggles between parents and pediatricians, the local accomplishment of (responsible) epistemic trust, and the possible outcomes of blurred boundaries between the layperson's and the professional's "expertise." In particular, we illustrate how epistemic trust is communicatively built in sequences where parents request the pediatrician's advice and resist it. The analysis shows how parents perform epistemic vigilance by suspending the immediate acceptance of the pediatrician's advice in favor of inserting expansions that make it relevant for the pediatrician to account for her advice. Once the pediatrician has addressed parents' concerns, parents perform (delayed) acceptance, which we assume indexes what we call responsible epistemic trust. While acknowledging the advantages of what seems to be a cultural change in parent-healthcare provider encounters, in the conclusion we advance that possible risks are implied in contemporary fuzziness of the legitimacy and extension criteria of expertise in doctor-patient interaction.

Challenging the interprofessional epistemic boundaries: The practices of informing in nurse-physician interaction.

Interprofessional management of knowledge in health care settings appears to be particularly vital for the ways in which information circulates, medical decisions are taken, and nursing practices are implemented. Drawing on an extensive ethnographic fieldwork in an Italian Intensive Care Unit, this article investigates how the nurses orient to and concurrently challenge the nurse-physician epistemic boundaries by the different ways through which they perform "informing", and make it work as a diagnostic-relevant activity. Adopting an ethnographic-nurtured discursive approach to a dataset of video-recorded morning briefings, we analyze the nurses' informing contributions in terms of sequential position, turn-taking and turn design. We identify five practices of informing and show how they display different degrees of agency and differently impact on the team's "infectious diseases diagnostic reasoning". This article contributes to nurse-physician interaction studies by showing how the epistemic imbalance at play is interactionally accomplished by participants one interaction at a time. Particularly, the analysis demonstrates that the nurses actively contribute to the teamwork by a skillful management of knowledge that precedes the exercise of the physicians' epistemic and deontic rights implied in diagnosing and planning. Our findings illustrate how the nurses: a) exert their interactional agency without crossing the institutionally sanctioned epistemic and deontic boundaries to which they are observably oriented to; b) cautiously challenge the epistemic imbalance at play in nurse-physician interaction and c) actively contribute in setting the premises of the team's collective decisions. Conclusion and practical implications are proposed.

Knowledge and agency in interprofessional care: How nurses contribute to the case-construction in an Intensive Care Unit.

This paper focuses on the epistemic and interactional resources displayed by nurses participating in medical case construction and the ways through which they make a difference in the unfolding of this activity. This paper draws on an ethnographic research in an Italian Intensive Care Unit (ICU) selected according to a purposeful sampling approach out of a national sample of 40 ICUs participating in a larger research project. Our dataset, collected over a period of six months of ethnographic observations, consisted of the observers' field notes and log-books, audio and video-recordings of morning briefings, in-depth interviews, informal conversations and shadowing of bedside practices. For the purpose of this article, we analyzed the video-recorded morning briefings, involving nine attending physicians and three specialized nurses. Adopting a conversational analysis approach, this paper identifies the epistemic activities through which the nurses orient the physicians' ongoing reasoning. It illustrates how the nurses' contributions display different degrees of agency depending on the type of activity, the turn taking and the turn design. We contend that the nurses' interactional competence in managing their epistemic resources and rights related to their professional territory of knowledge makes their knowledge relevant and contributes in constituting the case construction as an interprofessional activity. Implications, limitations and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Struggles Over Antibiotics: Physicians' Stance-Taking Toward a Nonconforming Policy in an Intensive Care Unit.

One of the most pressing contemporary health care challenges consists in rethinking antibiotic use to contrast the increase of multidrug resistant bacteria. Drawing on an ethnographic fieldwork in an Intensive Care Unit that adopts a nonconforming policy of antibiotic stewardship, this article analyzes doctor-doctor interaction concerning infectious disease diagnosis and antibiotic treatment. By analyzing examples of medical decision-making from a corpus of video-recorded morning briefings, we focus on physicians' stance-taking toward the ward's nonconforming policy and illustrate how it is contingently situated along a continuum from strong commitment to overt resistance. We suggest that physicians' oscillating stance-taking is favored by the moral load of following an extreme and "off-label" policy and, in turn, impacts on the way this policy is practically accomplished as a highly reflective interactional achievement by the team members.