Mighty Digests # 26: MARKHAM, Internet Communication as a Tool for Qualitative Research

Markham, A. (2008). Internet communication as a tool for qualitative research. In D. Silverman Qualitative Research: Theory Method and Practice (pp. 95-124). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

From this article emerges that virtual is extremely real, in many senses, and at many levels. The example of the cyber-rape is a proof of this virtual/real connection.

One very interesting concept is “the need to compensate”, in a computer mediated communication, for the lack of the variety of tools of expression that we usually have in face-to-face interactions. How will these “compensational devices” evolve (for example, today, we have some graphical/animated substitutions of emoticons)? Will they ever disappear, as we get more accustomed to this kind of interaction? How are we going to compensate for the lack of copy&paste, undo’s, etc. in a face-to-face interaction? I think that we should be viewing this issue from both sides…

We can conceptualize the Internet from different points of view, as a tool and as a context for research:

Internet as:

1. a medium for communication
2. a network of computers
3. a context of social construction

I found these definitions very useful, but I also think that that the Internet is much more, and it is continuously evolving. Just five years ago, it was completely something different (for example, we may consider the impact of Facebook and other social media in the construction of the so called “Web 2.0”).

I like the definition of Internet interactions that are perceived as providing “a visceral sense of presence” (Soja, 1989). (p. 99)

And this is one of the best definitions on the Internet that I have ever found:

“The Internet can be a tool but it is also a location where one can travel and exist and wherein one’s discursive activities can contribute directly to the shape and nature of the place.” (p. 99)

I found it in other books and articles too, but I don’t think that we can consider the Internet as an “umbrella term”. In my opinion, its multidimensional “being” goes far beyond this definition. Would we say that “life” is an umbrella term for sleeping, studying, writing, etc. (Now, why did I choose these verbs? Oh my, are THESE the first words that come to my mind when I think of “life”? O, Winter Break, where art thou?).

A very interesting point for a researcher to consider in CMC about “anonymous participants” is the potential contrast of openness/freedom of expression vs. authenticity. (p. 103)

Something that made me think was the concept of “control” on CMC data… I think that there is a lot on the “dark side” too, for example, the fact that once we publish something on the Internet, it is there, virtually forever, and could “kick us back” many years later...

Mighty Digests # 25: HORNE & WIGGINS, Doing being ‘on the edge’...

Horne, J. & Wiggins, S. (2009). Doing being ‘on the edge’: Managing the dilemma of being authentically suicidal in an online forum. Sociology of Health & Illness 31(2): 170-184.

Well, this article made me think… What does it mean to be ‘genuinely suicidal’?

I don’t know, I have this idea that instead of looking for the ‘genuinely suicidal’ individuals, these forums may actually be challenging suicide, in an explicit or subtle way, even with the best intentions.

Still, I think that in such an analysis the biggest issue is authenticity.

Furthermore, if we consider that even “depression may be related to suicide but not be a necessary factor”, the task of pre and post analysis is very difficult. Explaining, or trying to understand suicide, looks like trying to explain or understand death itself. Once we have identified the major factors that may lead to suicide, we will still be far away from preventing it. In my opinion, the silent voices are those who cry loudest.

Mighty Digests # 24: LAMERICHS & TE MOLDER: Computer-Mediated Communication: From a Cognitive to a Discursive Model

Lamerichs, J. & te Molder, H.F.M. (2003). Computer-mediated communication: From a

cognitive to a discursive model. New Media & Society 5(4): 451-473.

I appreciated the focus of the article on the social dimension of CMC and “an approach in which

text and talk are analyzed as part of social practice.” (p. 452)

Another important point is that “Rather than viewing talk as a descriptive route to what we ‘really’ think, it must be understood as performing various kinds of discursive actions.” (p. 452)

From this perspective, even the concept of “identity” can be reinterpreted as a discursive social construct:

“We have tried to illustrate how participants manage their identities in ways which cannot be accounted for when adopting a traditional social psychological view.” (p. 468)

It was fascinating to read about CMC from a 1991 perspective, with concepts like “cuelessness”, “flaming”, and about its alleged “ephemeral” character.

Again, an important point for me is that:

 “A discursive approach is participant-centred, i.e. it begins from the perspective of the participant rather than that of the researcher.” (p. 459)

And:

“An important starting point for analysis is the way in which participants themselves orient towards a particular utterance. Instead of using researchers’ informed guesses, the focus is first on the kind

of understanding that co-participants display in subsequent turns (for example, they may treat a particular utterance as a compliment, an invitation or an accusation).” (p. 459)

...

P.S. Is there something I am missing, maybe between the lines, or in discursive terms, about our two last readings for the course, one being about depression and the other about suicide?

Mighty Digests # 23: LESTER & PAULUS: Accountability and Public Displays of Knowing...

Lester, J. & Paulus, T. (Forthcoming). Accountability and public displays of knowing in an undergraduate computer-mediated communication context. Discourse Studies 13(5). 

In my opinion, some of the most interesting points in this article are:

1. The “expectation of quality talk” vs. real outcomes.
2. The consideration of the balance between responding to an academic task and simultaneously managing one’s identity.
3. “Knowing as an interactional accomplishment” (p. 11)

The article made me think about the presence of meaning(s) in different layers of CMC, depending on the analytical tools we are using to pierce through the text, and dynamically visualize it as a living, active entity. I am starting to think about texts as the sea, something you should respect, when you approach it, that can be fascinating and dangerous, deep, lively, animated, silent, infinite. A mysterious, malleable pathway to discover new lands, and make sense of ourselves as lonely and socially-bound voyagers. (Sorry about that, it’s late at night, and I have been on Nescafé Clásico for a couple of days…)

Well, this was one of the most powerful parts of the article and it really requires a minute of deep reflection:

“‘based on the use of relatively rudimentary categories which, furthermore, represent a set of concepts defined by the researcher rather than participants themselves’ (Lamerichs and te Molder, 2003: 469).”

I am still thinking about my research, and this changes everything! I’ve been struggling to find the “perfect” model to start building my “even-more-perfect” model of interpretation of the discussion forum I will be analyzing, and the answer to this quest is just in the concepts defined by the participants themselves!

I think that now I should address my efforts to the study of methods to foster the emersion of these concepts in a meaningful way. This is truly a game-changer for me. Thank you for bringing it to my attention!

P.S. By the way, it was fun reading about students blogging for a course! :-)

Mighty Digests # 22: KRESS: Discourse Analysis and Education: A Multimodal Social Semiotic Approach

Rogers, R. (2011). An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education, 2nd edition. New York: Taylor and Francis.

Chapter 10 – Gunther Kress: Discourse Analysis and Education: A Multimodal Social Semiotic Approach

I really enjoyed this article. Reading it after the Fairclough chapter was “oxygenating”. And, I guess, you can read it as a response to the aforementioned chapter. But this article is much, much more.

The very first page of the chapter offers so much insight in the topic, that it is almost redundant trying to summarizing it. A “copy and paste” would have worked as well! And as I keep on reading, it is very true for the whole article.

I want to quote some of the most useful definitions in the article, that helped me to better understand the concept of “Text”, from different angles and layers of meaning:

“Texts are outcomes of processes initiated and performed by social agents for social reasons; and they provide a means of getting insight into these processes and the purposes of social agents.” (p. 205)

“Texts – as material objects – are in part constitutive of social institutions.” (p. 205)

“Texts are outcomes of processes initiated and performed by social agents for social reasons.” (p. 205)

“Texts are the results of semiotic work of design, production, and composition.” (p. 207)

The concept of “multimodality” sounds like a powerful concept/model to interpret language, discourse and texts in educational contexts.

“Social semiotics provides a theoretical frame for a focus on all aspects of meaning-making.” (p. 208)

This article, the whole article, is also a great source of key-concepts (“lexis vs. depiction”,  “centrality vs. marginality”, learning in time and space, framing, interpretation…) and all-important references (Barthes, Chomsky, Foucault, Habermas, Labov…).

Gold star here!

Mighty Digests # 21: ROGERS, An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education (Chapter 1)

Rogers, R. (2011). An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education, 2nd edition. New York: Taylor and Francis.

Chapter 1 – Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis in Educational Research

Power

“Critical approaches to discourse analysis recognize that inquiry into meaning making is always also an exploration into power.” (p. 1)

“Blommaert suggests that critical discourse studies should offer an analysis of the effects of power, the outcomes of power, of what power does to people/groups/societies and how this impact comes about.” (p. 3)

“Critical analysis of discourse is an analysis not only of what is said, but of what is left out; not only what is present in the text, but what is absent.” (p. 15)

Critical Social Theory (CST)

“Critical Social Theory (CST) provides a theoretical foundation for critical approaches to discourse analysis. […] At the heart of critical social theory is a commitment to work with heart, head, and hands.” (p. 4)

“It is important to note that while critique is an important part of the “critical project” it is not the end goal. The end goal is to hope, to dream, and to create alternative realities that are based in equity, love, peace, and solidarity.” (p. 5)

Discourse

“Discourse is never just an artifact but a set of consumptive, productive, distributive, and reproductive processes that exist in relation to the social world.” (p. 6)

Analysis and important authors

“Three of the most influential traditions of critical approaches to discourse analysis in educational research are those of James Gee […], Norman Fairclough […], and Gunther Kress.” (p. 10)

James Gee

“Over time his work has included narrative research (1985, 1991, 1999), analysis of situated cognition (1992), social linguistics (1996), and discourse analysis (1999/2005) of video games and learning (2003).” (p. 11)

“Gee reminds us that anytime we are communicating, we are building social relationships, identities, and figured worlds. The question for the discourse analyst is: What sign systems are being used to accomplish these social goals?” (p. 11)

“Gee’s approach to discourse analysis asks the analyst to attend to learning – how meanings are built and transformed over time.” (p. 12)

Norman Fairclough

“Fairclough has consistently worked on the question of mediation between the textual and social work. […] This recursive movement between linguistics and social analysis, a key feature of Fairclough’s approach, is what makes CDA a dialectical approach.” (pp. 12-13)

Gunther Kress

“[He] developed an approach for making sense of the social meanings of texts through a methodology strongly influenced by systemic functional linguistics.” (p. 13)

“Language as Ideology (1979) […] was concerned with how power gets realized in linguistic forms.” (p. 13)

“He […] viewed a speaker as a socially located individual who uses semiotic systems to achieve particular functions or goals.” (p. 13)

“Ideology [can] be found in many forms of representation, not just language.” (p. 13)

“A social semiotic approach is concerned with how meanings are made. […] A key development has been the development of a transcription system that does not privilege language over other representational systems; or, put another way, a convention for representing modally dense meaning making (Norris, 2004). Depending on the social practice, this could mean that body kinesthesics or gestures (not language) are most salient in meaning making.” (p. 14)

Mighty Digests # 20: RAPLEY, Exploring documents

Article: Rapley, T. (2007). Exploring documents (Chapter 9). In Doing conversation, discourse and document analysis.

“Exploring a text often depends as much on focusing on what is said […] as well as focusing on what is not said – the silence, gaps or omissions.”

For example, the omission of the age in a dating advertisement is “a noticeably absent feature of text.”

We can also focus on “how different elements of the text combine to further consolidate (or disrupt) the meaning.”

The author suggests “reading with and against the grain of the text and focusing on how the different elements work together.”

“When studying texts you are also interested in the rhetorical work of the text, how the specific issues it raises are structured and organized and chiefly how it seeks to persuade you about the authority of its understanding of the issue.”

One last, very important point we should consider when we approach a text:

“It is worthwhile to skeptically engage with the assumptions embedded in texts.”

Mighty Digests # 19: RAPLEY, Exploring conversations about and with documents

Article: Rapley, T. (2007). Exploring conversations about and with documents (Chapter 7). In Doing conversation, discourse and document analysis.

This chapter focuses on “the role of documents and texts in our everyday life and the various institutions we engage with.”

“When talking about documents-in-use, you should focus on questions about the immediate here-and-now context.”

“Documents (whether paper or computer-based) and related technologies (of bookmarks, pens, highlighters, photocopiers, computers, printers, etc.) both constrain and enable our actions and interactions.”

“Texts are transformed in and through the actions of reading them out.”

“Seeing and knowing are not simply a product of inner psychological processes but rather intimately tied to complex local and situated social actions and interactions.”

Mighty Digests # 18: PRIOR, Doing things with documents

Article: Prior, L. (2008). Doing things with documents. In D. Silverman Qualitative Research: Theory Method and Practice (pp. 76-94). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

I like the definition of “text in a network of action”. (p. 76)

In my opinion, it is an important reflection on the “dual” nature of text-in-action and inter-text-action. Every and each document does not exist in a vacuum, but is related to other documents, in a historical and geographic perspective. Studying what these networks of texts do through words is a complex and fascinating adventure. This means to go beyond the idea of “documents as containers of content”.

When I was reading about the encyclopedic categorizations, the Darwinian metaphor of the tree for the evolution of the species, and the taxonomies used in science and human studies, I started thinking about the inherent dangers of such “cataloguing” efforts. If we say that “X” belongs to one category, we are implying that he/she/it doesn’t belong to the other. We are creating distinctions. By race, color, or creed. Income, nationality, or education. These categorizations may help us to better understand (and handle) the complexity of the world, but the danger, the “monster” side of it, resides in how we are using and interpreting these “portable cages”.

I think that categorization is an answer to a question open to manipulation. That is, a category can be used as an answer to an ill-posed question.

The same word can have different meanings in the same community in different times, depending on its function in the ongoing discourse (for example, the use of the word “depression”, cited in the article).

The author states:

“It is always beneficial to ask how documents are produced.” (p. 84).

I think that this task is getting more and more difficult in the “digital age”, in which documents can be manipulated, transformed, and shared in a number of ways.

Another important point presented by the author is that readers are structured by texts.

“Text and documentation are not only produced, but also, in turn, are productive.” (p. 84)

“Latour (1987) has used the term “action-at-a-distance” to indicate how decisions written down in one context and setting can carry implications for action in future settings.” (p. 88)

“Treat the document as topic rather than as source.” (p. 91)

“Documents are not just manufactured, they are consumed. […] They also function in different ways. […] So a further route of analysis for the researcher is to ask questions about how documents function in specific circumstances.” (p. 91)

Mighty Digests # 17: GOODMAN, The generalizability of discursive research

Goodman, S. (2008). The generalizability of discursive research. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 5, 265-275.

The article deals with generalization and generalizability issues in Discourse Analysis.

Validity

“Validity refers to the research showing what it is claiming to show.” (p. 265)

a)    “construct validity” = “is used to show that “the effect demonstrated can be generalized from the measures used in the study (e.g., I.Q. test) to the fuller construct (e.g., intelligence)” (Coolican, 2004: 86)”

b)    “external validity” = relates to being able to generalize the research findings to the population in general.

                                 i.     “ecological validity” = “refers to the extent to which the research findings can be generalized to other settings”

                                 ii.     “population validity” = “refers to the extent to which the research findings can be generalized from the sample studied to the wider population (whether or not there is a representative sample)”

Reliability

“Reliability is defined as “the extent to which a given finding will be consistently reproduced.” (Haslam and McGarty, 2003: 25), where it is deemed that similar results will be consistently found from the same research study”. (p. 266)

“By contrast, qualitative researchers tend to accept that their findings cannot be generalized  in this way; instead generalizability is sacrificed in favor of a more detailed understanding of the issue being researched. (p. 266)

Generalizability in Discursive Psychology = e.g., interpretative repertoires, Discursive Action Model (focus on action, not cognition)

“Discursive findings can be seen as highlighting generalizable actions performed by a rhetorical strategy.” (p. 268)

“The analyst must show a strategy working in a range of different contexts if it is to be shown to be generalizable.” (p. 273)

Mighty Digests # 16: ANTAKI, Discourse Analysis Means Doing Analysis...

(Antaki, C., Billig, M.G., Edwards, D. and Potter, J.A., (2003) Discourse Analysis Means Doing Analysis: A Critique of Six Analytic Shortcomings, Discourse Analysis Online, 1

Available from: http://www.shu.ac.uk/daol/articles/v1/n1/a1/antaki2002002-paper.html)

In my opinion, this is a great article, extremely clear, helpful, and well written. Take that, Paul!

“Our aim here is […] to highlight some methodological troubles that are visible from whatever discourse perspective one adopts.”

“In addition, it might help prevent researchers from producing work that might lend credence to the quantitative researcher’s dismissal that, in discourse analysis, ‘anything goes’. ”

“What we shall do in this paper, then, is to identify things that might superficially give the

appearance of conducting discourse analysis in social psychology, but do not in fact do

so. We have collected together six such non-analyses:”

(1) under-analysis through summary: “Transcription prepares the data for analysis. However, it is not analysis in itself.”

(2) under-analysis through taking sides: “Position-taking – whether analysts align themselves with, or critically distance themselves from, the speakers whom they are studying – is not analysis in itself.”

(3) under-analysis through over-quotation or through isolated quotation: “Quotation, like summarising, is not discourse analysis in itself. […] The over-quotation may impede certain forms of discourse analysis by removing utterances from their discursive context.”

(4) the circular identification of discourses and mental constructs: “the data cannot be left to ‘speak for itself’, as if a series of quotes is sufficient in itself to show the existence of the repertoire, ideology or discourse. […] The discursive psychologist should resist positing mental entities and should concentrate upon examining the use of psychological language in discourse.”

(5) false survey: “There is a danger of extrapolating from one's data to the world at large.”

(6) analysis that consists in simply spotting features: “The recognition of features does not constitute analysis. […]What is required is to show what the feature does, how it is used, what it is used to do, how it is handled sequentially and rhetorically, and so on. […] Good analysis always moves convincingly back and forth between the general and the specific.”

“Perhaps it is safe to say that analysis means a close engagement with one's text or transcripts, and the illumination of their meaning and significance through insightful and technically sophisticated work. In a word, Discourse Analysis means Doing Analysis.”

One question. The article says that:

“One would consult the relevant previous research on all these conversational moves and apply the accumulated insights to the present data.”

Where can we find such a wonderful “repository”?

The article also notes that:

“Conversation and critical discourse analysts have, over the past twenty-five years, noticed and labelled a wide variety of conversational and rhetorical procedures. Anyone engaging in these sorts of analyses should properly acquaint himself or herself with such work. They should be able to recognize these conversational features in data extracts.  The same is true of rhetorical tropes in printed persuasive materials and so on.”

Where can we start from? 

Mighty Digests # 15: TEN HAVE, Doing Conversation Analysis (Chapters 7-8)

(Book: Ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications) [Chapters 7-8]

Reading these chapters I came to think that talk in interaction is almost like a chess game, with rules, turn-taking, preferred and dispreferred moves/responses…

It also looks like the participants of a conversation are “knitting” together a net that wraps language and reality.

ten Have proposes these analytical organized (and organizing) activities:

1. turn-taking
2. organization
3. sequence organization (“one thing can lead to another”; adjacency pairs; cycles)
4. repair organization
5. organization of turn-design

In a certain sense, it sounds like the opposite of “waiting for your turn to speak”: it’s more like inviting the other person to speak, in a way we may feel comfortable with.

This is clear if we consider that conversation is not only constructed, but also designed. I think this is one of the most interesting perspectives of Conversation Analysis, and possibly one of its most important discoveries.

I am starting to think that the context built through discourse overrides the “extrinsic context”, leaving it blurred and faded in the background. Maybe, the more a discourse creates a context aligned to the extrinsic context, the more it is effective (if we think of the fluency of an envisioned sequence of utterances).

Mighty Digests # 14: WOOD & KROGER, Doing Discourse Analysis (Chapters 7-9)

(Book: Wood, L.A. & Kroger. R.O. (2000). Doing Discourse Analysis: Methods for Studying Action in Talk and Text. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.) (Chapters 7-9)

I found some very interesting points in these chapters, that made me think… For example, the analysis of the meaning of “context” in Discourse Analysis. The author describes it as a problematic issue, as it involves the consideration of gender, sex, race, identity, culture, ideology, settings, circumstances, social roles, etc. Furthermore, we can find a lot about the context in the text-in-interaction itself.

Another interesting concept discussed is “quantification in qualitative research”. Quantification is not the goal of DA, but it may be a part of the preanalytic work. For example, it may be useful for selecting data or for the detection of patterns for analysis. Quantification is also a common output of computer-assisted analysis, which, however, cannot replace the human work on Discourse Analysis.

Schegloff makes a very interesting point about “rough”, participant defined quantifications:

“[…] Overwhelminghly, ordinarily, or occasionally. Schegloff  (1993) has argued that […] informal quantification (or what we could call ethnoquantification) is not weaker than statistical or formal techniques.” (p. 138)

Another important feature of discourse is that it is a constructive process (for example of identities) and we should always pay attention to this characteristic, and look at discourse as an evolving system. For example, the authors state that:

“Concepts […], such as “intention” and “motivation”, are constituted rather than reflected in discourse.” (p. 159)

Other ideas that I would like to note for future reference are:

Analysis: sequence of activities

“There is no necessary sequence of activities […] because analysis involves recycling and iteration” (p. 96)

Some analytical concepts (p. 99):

1. Content (e.g., accounts)
2. Features (e.g., intensifiers)
3. Form (direct, indirect; simple, elaborate)
4. Structure (hierarchical, sequential, turn raking, adjacency pairs)
5. Function (e.g., constructing a motive)

Agency

-       agent-patient distinction

-       issues of power

-       accountability and responsibility

Footing

Participants’ categories: “speakers may present themselves as responsible for their words or as merely passing on a report of the experiences of others; hearers may be addressed or merely present.”

Sack’s Advice

“Treat what you have “in an unmotivated way” rather than starting from ready-made issues or categories.” (p. 107)

Strategies (p. 107-116)

1. Substitution (e.g. “like” and “for example”; a cough can mean “wake up!” or “Look out!”)
2. Reframing (e.g., attention to the categories expressed by the participants)
3. Multiple Functions
4. Content
5. Participants’ meaning
6. Similarity and difference
7. New problems
8. Interpretation and grounding (justifying an interpretation of discourse, attention to previous or subsequent utterances)

Last, but not least, reading these chapters, I would say that DA is a “methodically creative process”...

Mighty Digests # 13: OCHS, Transcription as Theory

Article: Ochs, E. (1979). Transcription as theory. In by E. Ochs & B. Schieffelin (Eds.) Developmental pragmatics (pp. 43-72). New York: Academic Press.

This article advocates the use of transcriptions for the study of child language behavior. It also claims that there has been a widespread “lack of attention to transcription among developmental psychologists”. (p. 44)

The article presents a series of symbols and tables to transcribe verbal and nonverbal (inter)actions of children.

The author encourages selectivity: a transcript shouldn’t have too much information!

In my opinion, a very important statement made by the author is that “the transcript should reflect the particular interests […] of the researcher”.

Other important notes regard some features of adult-adult conversations, as opposed to young children interactions:

1. Utterances as contingent.
2. Each turn of the conversation as (usually) relevant to the previous turn.

The author suggests that a different system of transcription should be used for child-child and adult-child interactions.

She also discusses a series of “transcription biases” (top to bottom and left to right). For example, in an adult-child interaction she decides to place the adult in the right column, to counter-balance the left to right bias.

The article stresses the importance of nonverbal interactions (eye gaze, gesture, action) in the analysis of the behavior of children.

Through the whole article, it is clear that the author is exploring a new ground. It almost looks like (which I don’t consider a negative point) she is constructing her model/proposal together with the reader. 

Mighty Digests # 12: MAZUR, Conversation Analysis for Educational Technologists

Article: Mazur, J. (2004). Conversation analysis for educational technologists: theoretical and methodological issues for researching the structures, processes and meaning of on-line talk. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook for Research in Educational Communications and Technology, 2nd Edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (pp. 1073-1098)

Article available online at: http://www.aect.org/edtech/ed1/40.pdf

I selected this article, because I would like to explore the potential of CA and DA in online asynchronous conversations (blogs/forums). This is one of the best introductory articles I have found on the topic.

This reading was also very useful to consolidate some of the key points presented in the books by ten Have and Wood/Kroger.

Through the following synthesis/analysis/critique I hope to “save the reading” for future reference.

Conversation Analysis (CA)

-       It is a qualitative approach

-       In the tradition of Discourse Analysis

The study of discourse is considered multidisciplinary (van Dijk, 1997)

Discourse studies focus on theory and analysis of text and talk in virtually all disciplines.

Discourse analyses tend to focus on several topics:

1. discourse as verbal structure
1. order and form
2. meaning (semantics): any proposition is influenced by what comes before or after it in the discourse. (van Dijk, 1997) Another key semantic concept is that of coherence (Tannen, 1986).
3. style (word choice)
4. rhetoric (figures of speech)
2. discourse as cognition (expression of the knowledge of the writer/speaker)
1. Symbolic and Connectionist Models of Discourse
3. discourse and society
1. Gender, Ethnicity, and Discourse Analysis
2. The Explanatory Elements of Cultural Context: The Critical Turn (Rules for politeness, topic changes, and giving commands change across cultures)
4. discourse as action and interaction

-       The concept of language as action was first defined by John Austen in 1962.

-       Speech act theory is that speech is action.

-       Pragmatics is the field of study focused on the study of language use as action in social context.

-       Interaction takes many forms: turn-taking in conversation, agreeing and disagreeing, questioning and answering, opening and closing conversation, preparing to engage in and enter conversation, developing persona in conversation, saving face, attacking or defending, and persuading or explaining. These interactions in their social context are the subject of conversation analysis, a subset of discourse studies of interaction.

Conversation = people talking with each other.

Conversation Analysis = any study of people talking together in oral communication or language use.

Talk-in-interaction = the phenomena of interest for Conversation Analysis (CA)

Conversation and interaction continue to be redefined and reshaped by computer-mediated communication technologies.

The seminal Conversation Analysis work by Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974) articulated three basic facts about conversation:

1. turn-taking occurs
2. one speaker tends to speak at a time
3. turns are taken with as little overlap between them as possible

Turn-taking

Turn-taking is one of the central principles of Conversation Analysis:

1. turn form
2. turn content
3. turn length

These are affected by the formality or informality of a situation.

Turn construction units have two prominent properties:

Projectability = the speaker projects what kind of a unit it is and when it is likely to end.

Transition-relevant places = occur at the boundaries of the turn construction unit and make it possible for transition between speakers.

Turn distribution has some “simple rules” as articulated by Sacks et al. (1974) that occur at the initial transition-relevant place in a turn.

Turn-taking rules

Rule 1

1. If the current speaker designates the next speaker, that speaker should take the turn at that place.
2. If no such selection occurs, then any speaker can self-select, with the first volunteer having the right to speak first.
3. If no speaker is selected, the first speaker may (or may not) continue speaking with another turn construction unit, unless or until another speaker self-selects, at which point that speaker has the floor.

Rule 2

Rules 1a–1c are reiterated at the point of the next transition-relevant place.

These practices are in evidence in transcriptions of talk.

Traditional Conversation Analysis has used the focus on turns to develop insightful accounts of the structural organization of topic shifts (Jefferson, 1986), agreement and disagreement (Pomerantz, 1984), laughter (Jefferson, Sacks, & Schegloff, 1987), repair and correction (Schegloff, 1986), invitations (Drew, 1984), and overlapping talk (Jefferson, 1986).

Sequential Organization and Intersubjectivity / Strategies and Goals

The interest of Conversation Analysis (CA) in goals and strategies is how conversants show their understandings and orientations to each other using their talk as evidence.

Heritage (1997, p. 162) notes that there are currently two prevalent branches of analytic conversation research:

1. Pure CA (examines the institution of interaction as an entity with its own structural, social, and moral characteristics)
2. Applied CA (focuses on the management of social institutions in interaction)

Within the applied CA framework, CA is a systematic method to observe the production of intention or the achievement of understandings in the turns of talk between human speakers.

Until the proliferation of on-line exchanges in the form of typed “virtual” conversations, data in CA studies consisted primarily of audio recordings of talk in naturally occurring settings.

The relationship of the knower to the known in the CA analytic process is a mutually constitutive one. The CA analyst is “reading” the transcript and bringing her own interpretative frames and lenses to this task. The analytic task is recursive and folds back on itself.

Technology and conversation

It is important to distinguish in a general sense between two terms, often used interchangeably:

Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) = mediation by

Human–Computer Interaction (HCI) = interaction with

Affordances (Gibson 1979) = possibilities for action that are suggested by the physical features and inherent properties of objects. Gibson emphasized that affordances can enable or constrain based on their physical properties. These properties are not interpreted by human actors but, rather, are real, material dimensions of objects (the “grasp-ability” of the door knob does not depend on someone’s opening or closing a door).

Technologies are not neutral (Ellul, 1964). Communication technologies affect the quality and conduct of conversation and interaction.

Design of a CA study:

1. Formulating initial focus questions (related to talk-in-interaction).
2. Making a plan for obtaining or making recordings of naturally occurring interactions (transcribing or obtaining a transcript).
3. Developing inductive, analytic strategies.
4. elaborating the analysis in conclusions and implications.

The specimen approach

Using a specimen approach, drawn from techniques in naturalist observation and biology, the reality under study is directly observable in the particular individual.

The most important caveat for collecting and producing data for CA is rooted in the concept of naturally occurring conversation. Regardless of how it is produced or recorded, the data for CA are always in a sense “primary sources” of talk-in-interaction.

Collecting/Producing Records of Conversation:

-       Audio recordings

-       Video recordings (Goodwin, 1995; Heath,1997). Video is particularly appropriate when aspects of the physical setting of the conversations are intrinsic to the conversation such as engineers discussing design models.

-       Text Logs from On-Line Forums (Synchronous or Asynchronous). The text logs themselves contain “naturally occurring” conversant-generated indications of some of the sociolinguistic dimensions evinced in recordings of speech. The use of emoticons are an example of this phenomenon quite prevalent in text-based on-line conversations.

-       Digital Screen Recordings of On-Line Interactions (Screen Playback). Point-to-point videoconferencing, using a camera, conversants can engage in computer-mediated face-to-face talks. Using a screen recorder such as HyperCam that captures screen images and stores them as digital movies, a researcher could conduct CA on these types of conversations.

-       “Transcription” of Real-Time Log Data for Text-Based On-Line Conversation. The use of a conversation map, a technique that built on the work of Levin, Kim, and Riel (1990) using message maps and Herring’s (1999) multiple thread schematics, was helpful to orient spatially the various topic threads occurring over time in a synchronous chat (Mazur& Jones, 2002).

-       Documentation of the Affordances and Conventions of the CMC Forum Environment.

Steps for Conducting an Analysis of Conversation

In CA, the analysis proceeds from the perspective of what Psathias (1995) has referred to as “unmotivated looking” (p. 45), a way to achieve an “examination not prompted by pre-specified goals” (Schegloff, 1996).

Researchers in many contexts have offered suggestions for the task of systematically analyzing conversation (Pomerantze & Fehr, 1997; Schegloff, 1989; ten Have, 1999).

1. Select a Sequence.
2. Characterize the Sequence. Answer the question:
1. What is the speaker doing in this turn?
2. What is the topic of the conversation?
3. Is the person trying to initiate, repair (clarify, elaborate), or close an interaction?
4. What is the meaning of the interaction?
5. How is meaning conveyed, received, coconstructred through interaction?
6. What do participants talk about?
7. How do they signal topic changes or the need to stay on a certain point?
3. Consider the Rights, Obligations, and Expectations constituted in the talk.

It is important for the researcher to maintain an ethical posture toward informing participants that their work will be the subject of an analysis either by a “participant-observer” or by an external researcher.

“The character of the particular forum and the context in which it is situated should be overarching frames for deciding on the procedures that will yield the richest analysis.” (Mazur 2004)

Of course, any inquiry begins with a question.

A Case Example: Conducting a CA of an On-Line Chat:

Step 1: Obtain Required Permissions to Observe or Participate in the On-Line Forum

Step 2: Compile the Entire Record of the On-Line Talk (into a single text record: the transcript)

Step 3: Prepare the Transcript for Analysis

-       remove identifying data

-       remove electronic text “noise”

-       keep emoticons

-       change actual names to initials or nicknames

-       number the lines for the complete record

-       convert dates to numerics (e.g., January 3, 2001 to 010301) to denote sections of chat “sessions”.

Step 4: Read the Transcript

Step 5: Define the Sample “Specimen”

Step 6: Analyze the Specimen: Examine the CA Elements

Step 7: Contextualize the CA Theoretically

(Mazur 2004)

“Evidence began to accumulate that on-line forums might encourage broader and deeper participation in group activities (Kiesler, Siefel, & McGuire, 1984; Pullinger, 1986; Spitzer, 1989). CMC was seen to enable participation of handicapped students (Batson, 1988) and to encourage the participation of students often marginalized inface-to-face classroom settings such as women and minorities (Hiltz, 1986; Meeks, 1985).”

“Abdullah (1998) asserts that despite the fact that on-line conversation is written, it has nonetheless evolved to have a distinctly informal and conversational tone through the use of incomplete sentences, the use of lowercase letters to begin sentences, and uncorrected spelling.”

Gunawardena model:

Phase I: Sharing/comparison of information

Within this phase operations include:

(a) a statement of observation or opinion

(b) a statement of agreement from one or more other participants.

Phase II: Discovery and exploration of dissonance or inconsistency among ideas, concepts, or statements

Within this phase operations include:

(a) identifying and stating areas of disagreement

(b) asking and answering questions to clarify the source and extent of disagreement.

Phase III: Negotiation of meaning/coconstruction of knowledge

Within this phase operations include:

(a) negotiation or clarification of the meaning of terms

(b) negotiation of the relative weight to be assigned to types of argument.

Phase IV: Testing and modification of proposed synthesis or coconstruction.

Within this phase operations include:

(a) testing the proposed synthesis against “received fact” as shared by participants and/or their culture

(b) testing against existing cognitive schema.

Phase V: Agreement statement(s)/application of newly constructed meaning.

Within this phase operations include:

(a) summarization of agreement

(b) applications of new knowledge.

Social Network Analysis (SNA; Scott, 1991;Wasserman and Faust,1997)

A Typology of Exchanges Within a Virtual Community.

Another approach to the examination of interaction has been developed by Burnett (2002). At first glance this approach appears to draw on the tradition of discourse as cognition and takes a view of interaction as “information seeking,” and Burnett denotes information exchange as the phenomenon of interest in a virtual community. However, the typology developed is based conceptually on Savolainen’s (1995) research of nonwork, everyday life information seeking as “a natural component of everyday practices (p. 261; quoted in Burnett, 2002,p. 3). The typology focuses on the behaviors of participants as they interact, often within the dislocations of time and space inherent in on-line talk and interaction:

1. Noninteractive Behaviors

“Participation that seemingly does not exist”. Specifically this category refers to the activities of participants who do not type in talk but are actively following along as reader/listeners in the discussion.

This activity, often termed lurking in on-line forums, might be elaborated to include a more positive term with less voyeuristic connotations, listeners, for example.

2. Interactive Behaviors

“Posting or active message writing”. Interactive behaviors are further broken down into hostile and collaborative/positive behaviors.

1. Hostile Behaviors

-       impolite, uncivil, antisocial

-       flaming: CAPITALIZED TEXT

-       racial slurs

-       profanity

-       trolling (deliberate postings of inflammatory or provocative messages)

-       spamming

-       cyber-rape (explicit sexual verbal assaults)

2. Collaborative Interactive Behaviors

(1) behaviors not specifically oriented toward information

-       neutral behaviors such as pleasantries and gossip, humorous behaviors, and empathic behaviors that offer emotional or moral support.

(2) behaviors directly related to either information seeking or providing information to other community members.

-       announcements, queries or specific requests for information.

Persistent conversation

“The archive is a vehicle for so-called lurkers and nonconversants to participate as “readers” of the conversation.”

The primary modes of discourse are talk and text. (Mazur 2004)