Interactional dynamics of workplace activities with people with intellectual dis-abilities

As social models view disability as a property of an impairment that emerge from the social environment (Thomas, 2004, and, in EMCA, see Goodwin 1995, 2003 on aphasia; Antaki et al., 2016 on learning disabilities; Maynard &amp; Turowetz, 2017 on autism), it makes sense to examine the organization of workplace interactions between people with an intellectual disability and their co-workers. These contexts can shed light on how participants themselves orient to and manage, in their everyday work activities, asymmetric distributions of competences and abilities. CA literature has contributed to the analysis of intellectual disabilities by examining interactions in institutional settings such as residential homes and social care (e.g. Antaki &amp; Kent, 2012; Antaki &amp; Webb, 2019), as well as ordinary interactions of children with family members (e.g. for Down syndrome, Fasulo, 2021). In this data session, I focus on the interactional dynamics of a workplace environment – a shop – where an adult person with Down syndrome, Tomas, works. In the accomplishment of his daily tasks, Tomas uses assistive devices such as job descriptions, checklists, and other written documents (e.g. calendars) to support his workflow. Professionals such as educators prepare these documents, through continuous monitoring of Tomas’ work, also through occasional visits to the shop. I will bring some data in which Tomas and his co-participants (either a colleague or an educator) engage in making choices, evaluating and deciding about a task, its accomplishment, and/or its relevance. I am especially interested in how assistive devices such as the checklists are implemented in practice as situated courses of actions, and in the work done by co-interactants to provide assistance, carry out instructional work, and mobilize professional or common-sense knowledge for the accomplishment of tasks. <br/><br/>References<br/>Antaki, C., Kent, A. (2012). Telling people what to do (and, sometimes, why): Contingency, entitlement and explanation in staff requests to adults with intellectual impairments. Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 44, Issues 6–7, pp. 876-889. <br/>Antaki, C., Crompton, R. J., Walton, C., Finlay, W.M.L. (2016). How adults with a profound intellectual disability engage others in interaction. Sociology of Health &amp; Illness, 39 (4), 495-649. <br/>Antaki, C., Webb, J. (2019). When the larger objective matters more: support workers’ epistemic and deontic authority over adult service-users. Sociology of Health &amp; Illness Vol. 41 No. 8, pp. 1549–1566. <br/>Fasulo, A. (2021). Talking to children with atypical development: a study on the practice of asking ‘Are you going to’ questions. In L. Caronia (Ed.), Language and Social Interaction at Home and School (Dialogue Studies; Vol. 32). John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 121–152. <br/>Goodwin, C. (1995). Co-Constructing Meaning in Conversations with an Aphasic Man. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28, 3, 233-260. <br/>Goodwin, C. (Eds.) (2003). Conversation and brain Damage. OUP. <br/>Maynard D. W., Turowetz J. (2017). Doing Testing: How Concrete Competence can Facilitate or Inhibit Performances of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder, Qualitative Sociology, vol. 40, 467–491. <br/>Thomas, C. (2004a) How is disability understood? An examination of sociological approaches, Disability &amp; Society, 19, 6, 569–83.<br/>