English (pdf)
Article in xml format
Automatic translation
Send this article by e-mail
Permalink
introduction
This study tackled the boundary of ableism by conducting philosophical dialogue with young people with intellectual disabilities (IDs). There have been some attempts at such dialogue, and they commonly recognized its importance and value (Backman et al., 2019; Cassidy et al., 2018; Gardelli et al., 2023; Lukey, 2004). In this study, I explored the possibility of inclusive dialogue with the participation of people with IDs.
The significance of this study is its contribution to the democratization of philosophical dialogue. The interest in the philosophical dialogue to include minorities is growing (e.g., Kizel, 2024). This process often brings about various kinds of conflict and discord (Inoue & Kado, 2022). With an increasingly diverse set of stakeholders, consensus becomes more difficult to achieve. Including marginalized people while facing conflict becomes the norm.
The present study aimed to address the following question: What is the difficulty to overcome when considering the possibility of dialogue that includes people with IDs? I emphasize the possibility for many people with IDs to have meaningful interactions. Indeed, their competency is often misunderstood. The gaps between people with IDs and non-disabled people lie in the bias non-disabled people have and the difference in the mode of conversation. Because of power inequality, these gaps are often perceived as impossibilities for people with IDs.
Gardelli et al. (2023) called the negative evaluation that some professionals have for philosophy for/with children (P4wC) diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) an “impossibility view” that must be challenged. They accounted for doubts about the interest and ability for dialogue of children with ASD and showed that “impossibility view” is pure prejudice. I propose reversing this perspective-that is, the matter of “impossibility” or “ability” lies in non-disabled people.
Thus, the research question from my position is as follows: What do non-disabled researchers not know regarding dialogues by people with IDs? I used ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (EMCA) to take a closer look at the actual conversations in the dialogues. I came up with this idea through the accumulation of EMCA research on people with IDs. Such research has clarified the competency of people with IDs in conversation. These studies have also shown that the communication styles of people with IDs are often misunderstood by non-disabled people.
ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (emca)
The concept of ethnomethodology emerged from critique of sociology at the time for its failure to account for the possibility of a common basis of society. Ethnomethodology posits that social order is continuously made by people. According to Garfinkel (1967), one of the founders of ethnomethodology, it treats people’s everyday practices as observable and accountable.
Their central recommendation is that the activities whereby members produce and manage settings of organized everyday affairs are identical with members’ procedures for making those settings “account-able.” The “reflexive,” or “incarnate” character of accounting practices and accounts makes up the crux of that recommendation. When I speak of accountable my interests are directed to such matters as the following. I mean observable-and-reportable, i.e. available to members as situated practices of looking-and-telling. (Garfinkel, 1967, p. 1)
Ethnomethodology seeks to describe people’s practice, which is “endless, ongoing, contingent accomplishment” (Garfinkel, 1967, p. 1). Social interactions have “seen but unnoticed” (Garfinkel, 1967, p. 37) backgrounds, describing which can lead to a rediscovery of seemingly ordinary practices.
Drawing on Garfinkel’s ethnomethodology, Harvey Sacks proposed a way to describe conversation: conversation analysis. With this method, Sacks (1985) attempted to find the order people jointly keep and obey, arguing that “sociology can be a natural observational science” (p. 21). He used the term “machine” to describe his position.
Thus is it not any particular conversation, as an object, that we are primarily interested in. Our aim is to get into a position to transform, in an almost literal, physical sense, our view of “what happened,” from a matter of a particular interaction done by particular people, to a matter of interactions as products of a machinery. We are trying to find the machinery. In order to do so we have to get access to its products. At this point, it is conversation that provides us such access […]. (Sacks, 1985, pp. 26-27)
EMCA studies view social interactions as accomplished jointly by all participants, with focus on the sequence of conversations. A notable feature of EMCA is that it does not consider what the participants are thinking. In this study, I simply focused on what the participants were doing and avoided estimating their “true intentions,” which can easily lead to biased evaluation by researchers. Instead, I recorded and transcribed the conversations. This process can demonstrate the kind of practice the participants are jointly accomplishing. By focusing on the method used by the participants, this study reflects on the viewpoints of ID and formulates implications for inclusive P4wC.
review of previous research
For this study, I reviewed two types of studies: 1) research of P4wC in people with IDs and 2) EMCA studies of people with IDs, especially ASD. The first type showed the conflicts faced by study facilitators and the significance of this practice. The second type highlighted a constructive side of ID and the competency of people with ASD.
p4wc research
Lukey (2004) shared frankly about the difficulty of P4C with children with autism, pointing out the difficulty of “group discussion, or even communication,” because of their “extreme uniqueness.” Although his view of autism inclines essentialism, his experience of P4C with them seemed to provide him with an opportunity to re-think dialogues. Lukey examined different modes of thought; for example, P4C uses language to think of abstraction, whereas visual clues are easier to understand for children with autism. He struggled with conflict between achieving the educational goals of P4C and adapting to the mode of interaction among these children. He adopted to compromise the P4C style and evaluation of dialogues to make interactions more open and suitable for children with autism. The following calls into question the facilitator’s own perceptions:
There is a certain child who is very content in his own little world and who often seems deep in thought, wondering about things to himself in slight murmurs. I may never understand how he perceives the world or what he thinks about, but whenever he gives one of his highly original answers or solutions, I consider it a P4C success. (Lukey, 2004, p. 29)
There are some successful attempts of P4wC with participants with IDs. Cassidy et al. (2018) used CoPI with PwC for children with special needs (having Social, Emotional, and Behavioural Needs or ASD). Children contributed to the dialogue by speaking and listening and showed skills for engagement. These research findings support the possibility of children with special needs engaging in a structured style of dialogue.
Gardelli et al. (2023) conducted P4wC in children with ASD and non-disabled children. With the “Luleå model of PwC,” two facilitators-one leading and the other participating-played different roles in encouraging participants to discuss with ease. They also implemented various strategies, such as flexibly applying the rules, using visuals, and taking breaks. They quantitatively and qualitatively proved the efficacy of P4wC for children with ASD.
Though there are differences within method and participants, these studies commonly showed the importance of creative facilitation and flexible involvement. Besides, these studies imply difficulty of evaluation for participation and the community. The method to grasp its fruitfulness is the remaining issue.
EMCA studies on disabilities in communication
Conversation analysis studies have examined the interaction among participants with communication difficulties (e.g., aphasia, deafness, Down’s syndrome, autism, schizophrenia, and personality disorders) since the 1970s (Antaki, 2012) . These studies have contributed to the development of the field of “atypical interaction.” Wilkinson (2019) reviewed this field of studies and introduced three “generic types” of atypical interaction. These are "(1) atypical forms of delay in the progressivity of turn-constructional units" (TCUs, the unit of one speaker take turn of talk), "(2) atypical problems of understandability, intelligibility and hearing, and (3) atypical actions" (Wilkinson, 2019, p. 281). These studies have clarified how disabilities emerge in interaction. Antaki (2012) noted that studies have highlighted the significance of how non-disabled carers interact with people with IDs (e.g., Walton et al., 2020).
These studies also have revealed common ground people with IDs share with people without IDs in interaction. Especially in the case of ASD, research has revealed the social aspects of people with ASD, who are often understood as being unsocial. For example, Dickerson et al. (2005) disproved the “deficit accounts” for autism, which is often thought to impair the use of nonverbal behavior. By analyzing video data of conversations of children with autism, they showed that children with autism skillfully used their gaze to draw the interlocutors’ attention and change the situation.
From the perspective of EMCA, IDs emerge in interaction, thereby leading to the critique of “deficit accounts” for IDs. Rapley (2004) dealt with the matter of competency of people with IDs, criticizing the tendency in psychological and sociological literature “to account for the conduct of intellectually disabled people in terms of inherent, individual, dispositional characteristics - rather than of the situations or circumstances in which the objects of their study find themselves” (p.⠀78). For example, one of the common beliefs is an “acquiescence bias” for people with IDs. When asked questions, people with IDs do not seem to answer appropriately. However, Rapley (2004), using conversation analysis, examined interactions in interviews and showed that the aforementioned bias was “interpretable as a complex interplay of respondents’ strategy and interviewer demand” (p. 108). He questioned researcher's setting of test question, and paid attention to fluidity of identity, including IDs:
[…] we should acknowledge that the ascription of “real” identities - such as “intellectually disabled person” - is both to engage in the (contestable) construction of a version of “identity”’ (as an enduring, dispositional, characteristic of persons) and also to oversimplify the complexity of the manner in which the deployment of versions of personal identity is a central component of all members’ interaction-management. (Rapley, 2004, p. 140)
Maynard (2005) clearly criticized the “deficit account” for ASD. He proposed the idea of “autistic intelligence” and examined its characteristics hypothetically. Figure 1 gives a transcript of a Brigance test for screening children with special needs.
Figure 1 Brigance test with Tony (CL Clinician/Special Education; TO Tony) from Maynard (2005, p. 503)
The answer to the question in line 7 is notable. Although the suggested answer is “what to do,” Tony answers with the generic consequence (“You gets fwozen (frozen)” in lines 9-10, 20). This answer is slightly strange, but it is natural as a sequence turn. Maynard (2005) pointed out that “the interpretive practice that Tony employs when he answers incorrectly can in some sense be located within ordinary commonsense competence” (p. 516).
The matter is separation of “autistic intelligence” and “ordinary common sense,” although autism emerges in interaction:
Further, as deficit accounts, they say what autism lacks rather than what is present in the reasoning of the autistic person and in the particulars of the talk shared between that person and the commonsense actor. Moreover, deficit accounts draw a boundary between commonsense and autistic intelligence that misses relations between them. (Maynard, 2005, p. 518)
There have been a few attempts to use EMCA to analyze educational settings with dialogues. Ferreira and Bottema-Beutel. (2024) conducted such a study with children with ASD. The children made their own “Idea Diary,” which consists of their “ideas, interests, and knowledge about their experiences in different social contexts to the school context” (p. 1931), and then shared it with other members in a small group. Ferreira and Bottema-Beutel (2024) demonstrated that the participants understood the structure of the conversation well and used it skillfully. They revealed that letting the children hold “epistemic authority” has the effect of enhancing participation in group work.
These studies reveal details of the features of “atypical interaction” and provide criticism for the “deficit account.” We need to consider, that the majority of the settings examined by these researchers are between persons with IDs and able-bodied carers. Among communities based on diversity, what is considered “atypical” would change.
implications for the present research
In sum, scholars have clarified, the possibility of P4wC with people with IDs. They can engage in meaningful dialogues and there are educational benefits. It provides the opportunity to think about what is the condition of dialogue and make it flexible.
If “autistic intelligence” or various kinds of “intelligence” appears in conversation, dialogue is rather suitable for people with IDs, because the process of engagement is the matter. EMCA studies make it clear that, in analyzing, we can use the same tool as “ordinary” conversation. The hint to fill the gap is in the dialogue itself.
kobe university program for inclusion (KUPI)
KUPI is an experimental higher education program for young people with IDs. Commissioned by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), KUPI was launched in 2019 to make a model case for lifelong learning for people with IDs. Japan has few programs that accommodate the learning of adults with IDs at the university level.
KUPI aims to address the educational needs of adults with IDs. Japan has schools for children with special needs, but only up to the upper secondary school level. After graduating at 18 years old, people with special needs work in “employment for the disabled” or in supported employment. Compared with non-disabled people, people with IDs have a very low university enrollment rate. According to a survey by MEXT, in 2024, 535,721 students from normal high schools enrolled in university, whereas only two students from schools for special needs did so. In line with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and to deal with the issue of education concluding at the age of 18 years, MEXT implemented a policy to create learning spaces for adults with IDs (Akagi et al., 2023).
A unique aspect of KUPI is its inclusivity. Participants of KUPI (henceforth, KUPI students) learn at and use the resources of Kobe University. KUPI runs annually, from October to the beginning of February, with three night sessions (Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday) every week. The sessions contain lectures from researchers (Tuesday), classes with “general” students (Wednesday), and discussions among KUPI students (Friday). In each day, some students offer support as mentors.
KUPI students and mentors
KUPI students are young people (from their late teens to their 30s) who graduated high school for special needs. The majority are in their 20s. While they commonly have certificates of ID (called Ryoiku-techo in Japan), they have diverse types and degrees of disability. Some KUPI students are same-school alumni or colleagues, and they easily become friends. Although KUPI is a single-year program lasting four months, most students tend to participate for several years.
The mentors (the author used to be one of them) play significant roles in KUPI. They support KUPI students to learn. After each day of the program, the mentors reflect on their support and observation of KUPI students. Proposals to improve the program often came from these experiences. Mentors mainly consist of undergraduate and graduate students at Kobe University’s Faculty of Global Human Sciences, studying pedagogy or psychology. Many of them aspire to be teachers. They don’t know the diagnosis of each KUPI student. By being involved in KUPI, they develop skills to interact with people with IDs and, more significantly, come to understand each KUPI student as “a person,” rather than characteristics of disabilities (Akagi et al., 2023). They experience conflict, often about understanding KUPI students’ attitudes and ways of thinking, and then become friends with KUPI students.
introduction of p4cHI and role of KUPI students
The implementation of p4c Hawaii’i (p4cHI) in KUPI was proposed by a KUPI mentor in the first year of the program. Following its method, discussions in KUPI began to be held by having participants sit in a circle, making a community ball together. Once a week, at the Friday program, the program sets a time for discussion and reflection. Mentors played the role of facilitator and supporters of KUPI students. This style continues to be practiced in KUPI.
p4cHI method was selected because it considers the diversity of participants. p4cHI includes criticism of P4C, which Matthew Lipman originally introduced. According to Thomas Jackson, one of the founders of p4cHI, Lipman’s approach focused on Western philosophical traditions and culture, making it “suitable only for adults and an activity best practiced by professors in university departments of philosophy” (Jackson 2012, p. 5). He termed it “Big-P philosophy” and introduced the approach of “little-p philosophy,” which focuses on the diversity and uniqueness of individuals:
The content of little-p philosophy is the set of beliefs that we all possess to make sense of the world; the activity of little-p philosophizing is the process of reflecting on these beliefs as part of our larger interactions with the world. In important ways the content of little-p philosophy is unique to each of us. It is the result of the particularities of what some philosophers refer to as our “situatedness” in the world and our responses to them. (Jackson, 2012, p. 5)
It emphasizes listening to other members’ thoughts. Jackson (2019), called it “gently Socratic inquiry” as follows:
Dialogue’s first interest is not to counter, debate, disagree, lead, or expose, but to genuinely and simply listen. This quality of listening requires setting aside one's own thoughts in order to be truly open to what the other is saying. This is especially important because, in gently Socratic inquiry, the “other” will often be a child, and gentleness must be foremost in one's mind if one hopes to be privileged with an authentic response from a child, or anyone, for that matter. (Jackson, 2019, p. 5)
p4cHI mainly focuses on developing a “safe community” and it seemed achievable for KUPI students. The mentors did not suggest philosophical themes at first. Simply sitting in a circle and taking turns with the community ball had a clear effect on KUPI students. For example, some KUPI students who could not stop talking for a long time gradually shortened their turn to make time for other participants.
methods
about the case
The present research was conducted in February 2022, during the final session of KUPI’s third year. In that year, the program had a KUPI student with a severe disability (Student A, hereafter). Student A used a wheelchair and required constant care and assistance, attending KUPI with a carer or his mother. The most significant challenge was that Student A could not speak. Thus, when he participated in p4cHI, the carer looked at Student A, and shared information about him or guessed what he would say from his usual condition. At times, Student A suddenly uttered sounds and moved his arms, which surprised other KUPI students at first. By spending time with Student A, the other students got used to it and became friendlier with him.
As the final p4cHI session in that year’s KUPI, in which the mentors recorded data, the mentors (including the author) proposed the following theme: What kind of person is Student A for you? We had not asked KUPI students how they felt about Student A. We discussed the possibility that this theme would be harmful, and asked Student A’s mother opinion for this. Since KUPI students appeared to have developed good rapport with Student A, and consent of Student A’s mother was obtained, we decided to set this theme.
The dialogue involved 19 people in total: 13 KUPI students who consented to participate, Student A’s mother, four mentors (including the author) and supporters, and one facilitator. The dialogue was held in person and online at the same time, as this was during the COVID-19 pandemic. Three KUPI students (including Student A) and Student A’s mother participated online (Student A and his mother were in the same room), whereas all other members participated in person at the university. Zoom was used, and a 360-degree camera was set up at the face-to-face participation venue. The dialogue was conducted in Japanese, thus transcripts were translated.
ethical consideration
This research (including explanatory materials for KUPI students) was reviewed by Human Ethics Committee of Graduate School of Human Development and Environment (Kobe University) and permission was obtained. Before the intervention I explained to all KUPI students the purpose and procedure of the research, how data would be used, and the risks in simple words to ensure that all KUPI students could understand them. I told them that they could talk to their families or KUPI coordinator and change their minds if they were not sure about this research or their decision. Dialogue was conducted with the informed consent of the participants and, where necessary, of their parents. Consent was denied by one KUPI student; therefore, not all KUPI students participated in this dialogue.
results
dialogue procedure
The dialogue was conducted in a friendly atmosphere throughout. At first, we (KUPI students and mentors (including this author)) looked at photos and reflected on KUPI’s activities and Student A. Next, we began the dialogue. KUPI students expressed clear and diverse impressions, exceeding the mentors’ expectations. Examples are “a cheerful person,” “quiet and kind,” and “a person with good vibes.” Next, the dialogue turned to questions about Student A for Student A’s mother. Although the topic became more spread out eventually, the dialogue showed KUPI students’ high level of interest in Student A.
change in mode and its effects
Extract 1 (this starts around 25 minutes from beginning of the dialogue) shows the trigger to the change in the mode of conversation. During Student M’s turn, Student M (an online participant) asks a question to Student A, marking the first time in the dialogue when Student A is asked directly. In line 22, Student M remarks on the mode change. Lines 23-26 give the in-person participants’ nods and follow-up questions. They show interest and elicit the next utterance.
After waiting for the end of the reaction, Student M asks a question about Student A (line 27). The question in line 27 can be interpreted as either a second- or third-person question in Japanese (“Student A, do you watch professional baseball?” is also possible). The conversation shows some turn-allocational techniques, in this case taking the form of the current speaker’s selection (Sacks et al., 1974, p. 703) for Student A. This is answered by Student A’s mother in line 33.
A notable aspect in the lines between 27 and 33 is that Student A’s mother does not take for granted the role of speaking for Student A, although Student A’s carer and mother had often played the role of estimating or explaining Student A’s feelings throughout KUPI program in that year. The shift in line 32 is particularly striking. Before answering, Student A’s mother looks back at Student A, who is in the same room. This move is effective in showing Student A’s co-existence in this conversation, because it shows the preference of taking the next turn of Student A.
Extract 1: Student M asks Student A a question and the conversation with Student A’s mother starts[20220204_KUPI_talk-part][00:25:04-00:25:43]
A: (Student A) Online participant, the theme of the dialogue
AM: Student A’s mother, participates in the same room as Student A
F: Facilitator
T, M: Online participant (KUPI students)
D, H: In-person participants (KUPI students)
K: One of the mentors (author)
22 M: A kun ni:: shitsumon ga arimasu "I have a question to:: A"
23 F: hun= "Hmm"
24 K: =ho::ho::= "ho ho"
25 H: =(e touiu)= "oh what kind of…"
26 D: =(hunhun) "Hmm Hmm"
27 M: eto::(1.2)A kun wa:(0.4)tproyakyu:: wa mimasuka "errr:: does A watch professional baseball?"
28 (1.5)
29 AM: eh
"eh"
30 (2.5)
31 M: nh pupu(.)proyakyuu(0.8)[proyakyuu:= "pu, pu, professional baseball, professional baseball"
32 AM: [((instantly look back at A))
33 AM: =nhe A kun wa proyakyuu zenzen minaidesu:: "A doesn't watch professional baseball at all."
34 (0.6)
35 ((some participants laugh))
36 D: yappari na
"I knew it"
37 (2.8)
38 AM: °moune° imamo Anpanman wo mitemasu: huhu[(suru)
"Now (A is) watching Anpanman"
39 M: [kodomoka!= "child!"
40 AM: =h kodomodesu: hu "(A is a)child."
41 ((Everyone besides M laughs. M smiles.))
Starting from line 22, the conversation takes the form of an “informative” (Clark & Carlson, 1982) conversation between Student M and Student A’s mother. It initially seems to be a closed conversation between two people but, in fact, the speakers give information to the other non-speaking participants. This form is close to the traditional Japanese comic duo, manzai. In manzai, participants take the roles of “funny man” and “straight man.” When the funny man says ridiculous things, the straight man corrects or reproaches them to make punchlines, and this action of the straight man is called tsukkomi. Okamoto (2018), referring to the concept of “informative,” called the style of manzai “open communication.” Okamoto (2018) explained that “open communication” has double directivity-one is an interlocutor and the other is the audience. To perform tsukkomi, the straight man often adopts an “empathy channel” that makes it easier to share the context of the manzai topic with the audience (Okamoto, 2018).
In line 38, Student A’s mother says that Student A does not watch professional baseball and that he is currently watching Anpanman (a popular animation for children in Japan). Before the utterance ends, Student M strongly says, “Child!” This utterance follows the format of tsukkomi, but it does not elicit laughs from the other participants. Even if network latency is taken into account, the laugh that comes is somewhat delayed, coming right after line 40 from Student A’s mother.
The humor in line 40 is that Student M’s tsukkomi in line 39 is calling out the statement of Student A’s mother about Student A, that is to say, “Student A is childish.” In manzai, the funny man and the straight man typically have opposing opinions, but in this case, Student A’s mother immediately accepts the call out. The mother’s reaction in line 40 has meaning beyond speaking for Student A. Her position changes from being spokesperson to mother. Repeating M’s utterance, Student A’s mother becomes the “straight man” as a result. In line 41, almost everyone laughs. Laughter shows their participation in the topic and affiliation.
showing interest in others
In Extract 2, a continuation of Extract 1, Student M and Student A’s mother continue to talk. Open communication continues.
Extract 2: Student M and Student A’s mother continue to talk [20220204_KUPI_talk-part][00:25:43-00:26:26]
A: (Student A) Online participant, the theme of the dialogue
AM: Student A’s mother, participates in the same room as Student A
M: Online participant (KUPI student)
H: In-person participants (KUPI student)
42 M: proyakyuu no kyanpu: yattennoni: nande muain desuka
"why (A) doesn't watch though professional baseball is going on"
43 H: nhuhu[hu
44 AM: [tabun:: ano yakyuujou ni itte:: mitara mireruto omoundakedo::
"maybe:: he can see if he goes to baseball park and look"
45 M: hai=
"yes"
46 AM: =gamengoshi tte iuno wa nanka yoku wakaranakute::(.) imamo zoom de
"through display (he) don't understa::nd, now on Zoom"
47 minna no kao toka koe toka (.) deterun dakedo::
"everyone's face and voice are coming,"
48 M: hai=
"yes"
49 AM: =mata etaiga shirenai monowo miteiru youna kanji tyoto osorosii toiu
"And seems like he is looking strange thing, and is scared a little bit"
50 kanji de (.) amari [(gamen no mukou no chigaiga)
"So not (see the difference of outside of display)"
51 M: [p-proyakyu wa mo kotoshikara::(1) mo::(.) aurerundesu:
"from this year:: already:: (you can) meet p-professional baseball"
52 (0.7)
53 AM: n?
"huh?"
54 (0.8)
55 M: n(.)p-proyakyuu wa:=
"n(.)p-professional baseball"
56 AM: =ai=
"yes"
57 M: =kotoshi kara:: a:reru youni
"from this year:: (you can) meet"
58 (0.5)
59 M: [narimasu::
"becomes"
60 AM: [aeru(.)a(.)riarude mieru youni narimasuka.
"(you) can meet (.) ah (.) (you) come to be able to see in real. "
61 ippen ja tsurete ikitaito omoimasu::=
"well then I will take him (there) once"
62 M: =n(.)ai
"n (.) yes"
63 ((participants in meeting room laugh))
After waiting for the laughter to die down (Student M obviously confirms the reactions of the other participants), Student M starts to ask another question to Student A’s mother: why Student A does not watch baseball when there is a camp of professional baseball going on. Student M likes baseball, often talking about it in previous dialogues in KUPI (before this session).
From line 44 to 50, Student A’s mother explains the reason. Before she ends the explanation, Student M starts to share information: you can watch professional baseball in person. In line 61, Student A’s mother received Student M’s utterance as a proposal or invitation for Student A to watch baseball in person.
Overall, Extracts A and B show a clever change of direction by Student M. Student M’s forceful but effective strategy to ask Student A a question has effectively involved Student A’s mother, other participants, and Student A. Most importantly, this cannot happen if the other participants do not create an atmosphere of affiliation (reactions in lines 23-26, laughter). In this sense, the skill of open communication of Student M and Student A’s mother is enabled by the other participants. After the end of Student M’s turn, one option was unlocked: to ask Student A a question.
Extract 3 occurs about ten minutes later. From line 1, Student S starts to ask a question for Student A. Student A’s mother does not take her turn, and the Facilitator asks Student A’s mother to answer. In this setting, the open communication style is different from that in Extract 1. Student S asks a question, but another participant reacts to the answer of Student A’s mother.
When Student A’s mother gives the title of other animation “Totoro” (a popular Japanese animation film) in line 16, Students H and T react to it at almost the same time in lines 17 and 18, saying “a::.” This is one of the Japanese nods that shows empathy actively. Student T, in line 18, repeats the answer “Totoro.” In line 19, with overlap, Totoro is mentioned again. This kind of repetition occurs in lines 24 and 25. In this case, Student A’s mother is speaking like a stand-up comedian and reacts to the other participants’ utterances.
Extract 3: Another KUPI student asks a question [20220204_KUPI_talk-part][00:39:00-00:40:07]
A: Online participant, the theme of the dialogue
AM: Student A’s mother, participates in the same room as Student A
F: Facilitator
T, M: Online participant (KUPI students)
S, W, H: In-person participants (KUPI students)
K: One of the mentors (author)
1 S: ( )(1)A kun wa, etto:o::(0.8)ouchi dewa nn donna koto wo [sare(.)ru=
"What does A do errr:: in his home"
2 M: [(tsukare)
"(tired)"
3 S: =no kana: to omotte:
"I’m thinking of"
4 F: >hun hun [hun hun<
"Hmm Hmm Hmm Hmm"
5 K: [a::
"Ahh"
6 S: etto:: hudan sareteru no de yuuto(.)eto: hudan wa e:to nani wo:: o::(1)
"errr:: which usually (A) does errr: usually errr: what o::"
7 sakki etto::: a Anpanman ga suki to oo: osshatte masita yo ne
"a while ago errr::: (you) s-said (A) likes Anpanman"
8 W: anpan (.) anpanman (.) kodomo ( )
"anpan Anpanman child"
9 ?: anpan
"anpan"
10 S: eeto Anpanman i:gai no:: eto:: animette::
"errr amination be:sides Anpanman"
11 M: ( )
12 (5) ((T waves her hand then makes a heart with her fingers))
13 F: a (0.5) AM san kikoe masita ka: ?
"Ms. AM you heard (that)?"
14 AM: Anpanman igai no anime desu ne:
"Animation besides Anpanman"
15 F: sou soreto: (.) ie de donna kanji de sugositeru ka
"Yes a:nd how (A) spend time in his home"
16 AM: hh iede huhu(.) eto::Anpanman igai no anime: wa, Totoro wo
"hehe in home hehe. Errr:: Animation besides Anpanman is, Totoro"
17 H: a:[:
"Ahh"
18 T: [a::[: Totoro ne:::
"Ahh Totoro"
19 AM: [Totoro, Disney mo, ano::: eiga: (1) wa warito
"Totoro and Disney. Well:: often (watch) movie"
20 Minion wa sasugani >chotto< ne ippai gotyagotya detekita node
"(about) Minions a lot of messy (Minions appeard) "
21 iyagatte mashita kedo: hoka no yatsu, Disney wa warito (0.3) mimasu
"So (A) hated that. (A) often watches another movies, Disney"
22 e::: ato ie dewa Shinkansen no douga dattari wo mitemasu (0.8)
"errr and at home (A) watches Shinkansen videos"
23 de::[: ii
"a::nd"
24 T: [Shinkan(se)n ne "Shinkan(se)n"
25 AM: so, Shinkansen. de ma(.) jissai ni shi Shinkobe no eki de
"Yes, Shinkansen. And in real, at Shin-Kobe station"
26 Shi(.)nkansen wo mitari suru toki mo arun desu kedo ((AM keep talking))
"(A) sees Shinkansen some time"
In Extract 3, about 40 minutes have passed from the beginning of the session and the rules of dialogue gradually collapse. Even so, KUPI students’ actions are oriented toward dialogue or Student A. For example, in line 8, Student W, although it is not his turn, utters “Anpanman” and “child.” This utterance is never taken in this conversation but clearly refers to the conversation between Student M and Student A’s mother in Extract 1. This extract shows the participants using diverse ways to show interest and participate in dialogue. After the conversation shown in Extract 3, several KUPI students asked Student A’s mother questions about Student A and enjoyed the dialogue for 1 hour and 40 minutes.
discussion
The original question of this dialogue was as follows: What kind of person is Student A for you? The mentors expected a scene where each student would talk about and share their impressions of Student A. However, as shown in the Extracts, the participants expanded on the goal of the dialogue and engaged in completely unexpected topics. They talked in an inclusive way, not just talking about A but showing interest in A.
In Extract 1, Student M is shown asking questions directly to Student A. This action successfully changes the flow of the dialogue. The actions of Student A’s mother are also skillful. The open communication displayed by Student A’s mother and KUPI students had the effect of making the participants’ togetherness with Student A real. Being together does not merely mean sitting in the same room. Compared with simply sharing thoughts and discussing (excluding Student A and his mother), the scene I examined here showed a rich relationship.
Interestingly, KUPI students generated settings similar to “open communication” manzai (in Extract 1) and stand-up comedy (in Extract 3). These settings are therefore easier for participants with speaking difficulties to participate in, compared to typical settings for dialogue. These settings are never possible without the cooperation of listeners. Acrobatically they jointly made them inclusive. Diverse ways of participation have the possibility to create dialogue that is suitable for people with IDs. They showed the key.
The participants also demonstrated individual communication skills, enabled by the atmosphere of community. In Extract 3, the utterances of participants who were not in their turns, which repeated other’s utterances, had a role in keeping the atmosphere. Their dialogue showed similar features to what previous research would call “atypical interaction” or “autistic intelligence” (though I do not know their diagnosis). In the case of Extract 3, this feature effectively showed their interest in Student A. I assume these are the possible attitudes of “Listening to other participants,” which p4cHI puts a high value on.
If “caring” means keeping interest and inclusion for someone, their joint communication skill shows that. This is possible not only by the contents of dialogue but also by forms of it. I propose that what non-disabled people do not know about dialogue between people with IDs and what non-disabled people should learn from them relates to the means to achieve inclusive and enriched dialogue.
Lastly, let me summarise the remaining issues for further research. It is difficult to generalize this research since it is a single case study. The continuous study would clarify the shape of the inclusive setting of P4wC.
To examine this, focusing on nonverbal communication, such as gestures, would be effective because people who find it difficult to utter their voices to express themselves have developed skills in nonverbal communication. For example, some KUPI students in this case were learning sign language, some were good at writing and drawing.
The method of P4wC adapted for people with special needs is open to discussion. Face-to-face dialogue would not always be the best. At the end of this dialogue we examined, the facilitator asked which felt easier to discuss, compared to fully face-to-face. Most KUPI students chose dialogue using Zoom. The background to this is yet to be discussed.
transcript notation
| : | stretching of sound (The number of colons corresponds to the length of the stretch.) |
| [ ] | overlapping utterances |
| = | contiguous utterances (This is used when crossing the line.) |
| (( )) | not easily transcribable, or details of the conversational scene |
| ( ) | transcriber doubt about hearing of passages / in translation, complement word |
| (0.0) | interval of talk (The number inside it shows time in seconds.) |
| °° | quieter than the surrounding talk |
| underlining | Emphasis |
| ↑↓ | rising and falling of intonation |
