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

ABSTRACTABSTRACTEpistemic 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. AcknowledgementsWe would like to warmly thank the pediatricians and families who accepted to participate in this study. We also wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for their extremely insightful comments and suggestions that improved the overall quality of the article.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Additional informationFundingThe author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.