Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Innovative Methods
Innovative Methods
Managing Director:
Editorial Director:
Production Manager:
Publishing Systems Analyst:
Development Editor:
Assistant Acquisitions Editor:
Typesetter:
Cover Design:
Lindsay Johnston
Joel Gamon
Jennifer Yoder
Adrienne Freeland
Monica Speca
Kayla Wolfe
Erin ODea
Jason Mull
370
Chapter 17
ABSTRACT
This chapter proposes that, as a method which has engaged with interaction in other contexts, conversation
analysis (CA) should be used to analyze electronic interactions. The adoption of CA leads to a number
of methodological pointers and this chapter reviews some of these. The authors firstly overview previous
research on electronic discourse, including work which has also applied CA to electronic interactions.
The authors then describe the main elements of CA, and also briefly discuss the closely related approach
of discursive psychology. Using a corpus of quasi-synchronous instant messaging chats, the authors show
how data can be collected which captures how users actually conduct online interactions. The authors
discuss the ethical issues inherent in collecting such data. Finally, using examples from the corpus, the
authors demonstrate the importance of making timed transcripts and working with screen capture data.
INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses how electronic discourse
is inherently interactional; that is, it is designed
for a particular recipient or recipients; it unfolds
sequentially responding to what has come before
and building a context for what comes next; and
its intelligibility is centrally related to its role in
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-4426-7.ch017
Copyright 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
First, to argue that because electronic discourse is interactional, it requires a method of analysis which is used to analyze
interaction;
Second, to introduce CA and discuss its
approach to language, as well as demonstrating why it is beginning to be seen as
a crucial method for analyzing electronic
interactions; and
Third, to explain why it is necessary to take
a particular approach to collecting data,
and the ethical implications of this.
BACKGROUND
The study of electronic discourse is a heterogeneous field which is distributed across a range
of academic disciplines. Consequently, there are
a number of different approaches to studying
electronic discourse. One approach is to analyze
the way particular topics are discussed online
(e.g. Brown, 2009; Connor & Wesolowski, 2009;
Lynch, 2002; Swan & McCarthy, 2003). While
this research analyzes discourse that appears on
the internet, the main interest is in the way the
topic is treated as opposed to anything specific
about the use of new media and the internet. Other
approaches examine how electronic discourse
impacts upon issues such as developing or maintaining online friendships (e.g. Brunet & Schmidt,
2007; Hinduja & Patchin, 2008; Paine & Joinson,
2008) or using electronic discourse to facilitate
learning (e.g. Fitze, 2006; Gleason, 2011; Schulze,
2010). In these kinds of work the concern is with
sociological, psychological or educational matters,
rather than with investigating the interactional and
technological specificity of electronic discourse.
However, in order to understand and analyze
electronic discourse, it is necessary to move away
from treating internet-data-as-resource and move
towards treating internet-data-as-topic (Rapley,
2001). In other words, rather than seeing online
discourse as a way to reach the people behind
the screen (Flinkfeldt, 2011, p. 763), electronic
interactions can be analyzed as social practices
in their own right (Lamerichs & te Molder,
2003, p. 461).
There has been an interest for over a decade in
sociolinguistics in how the practices of online discourse differ from spoken discourse. Such research
describes and classifies electronic discourse, and
how it differs from spoken and written language
371
372
373
Conversation Analysis
CA offers a method to explicate the processes
of social interaction, shared meaning, mutual
understanding, and the coordination of human
conduct (Goodwin & Heritage, 1990, p. 283). It
conceptualizes interaction as a social institution in
374
DATA COLLECTION
Once we understand that electronic discourse is
best seen as electronic interaction, this leads us
to methods of data collection that can capture its
interactional features. Much research on electronic
interaction is experimental. Participants are often
required to interact online under experimental
conditions (e.g. Brunet & Schmidt, 2007; Fitze,
2006; Mallen, Day, & Green, 2003). Other research
requires participants to respond to pre-prepared
vignettes of online interactions (e.g. Derks, Bos, &
von Grumbkow, 2007). These experimental conditions attempt to control for extraneous variables in
order to focus on the phenomenon of interest, and
are most often analyzed by counting and coding
combined with performing inferential statistics
(e.g. Chen, Chiu, & Wang, 2012).
Experimental work can be important, innovative and sophisticated. We certainly have no
objection in principle to its use, particularly in the
context of loose, speculative qualitative research
in this area. Nevertheless, the sequential context,
action formation and recipient design that have
been highlighted as central in CA present formidable challenges for those wishing to achieve workable experiments (see Potter, 2012b). Moreover,
generalizing from experimental findings to the use
of electronic communication in natural settings
is particularly difficult without careful studies of
what is going on in those settings.
Experimental studies are inevitably flooded
with the researchers own categories and agenda
(Hepburn & Potter, 2003; Potter & Hepburn,
2012). In their use of data that is got up by
the researcher (Potter, 2004), these methods of
analyzing electronic discourse do not provide a
clear pathway to understanding how people actually interact on the internet in settings where they
375
376
Timed Transcripts
It is important that timed transcripts of online
interactions are collected. Timing has been a key
concern of conversation analysts, particularly
with regards to turn-taking systems (Jefferson,
377
10
(1502.0)
12
14
16
18
20
(9.0)
(1.0)
(9.0)
(1.0)
378
Screen Capture
Screen capture software enables participants to
record their computer screen whilst engaging in
online interactions. There is both free and paid-for
software which can be downloaded. The choice of
software depends on a number of factors including
how good the quality of the recording is; how large
the saved files are; and to what extent it affects the
performance of the computer. Using screen capture
software enables data to be collected about how
the participants are using the internet in real time.
Screen capture software provides analysts with
potentially relevant information such as when the
other person starts typing, whether messages are
edited during message construction and what other
activities a participant is engaged in whilst chatting
online (such as checking e-mail, watching videos
on YouTube, or conducting multiple chats). Most
importantly, this information is what participants
themselves draw on, and can be shown to be relevant for their interactional practices.
Data from online interactions should, therefore,
be collected in two formats: a timed transcript and
a screen capture recording of the same interactions.
It is necessary to work with both forms of data,
but, as with recordings of spoken interaction, it
will be necessary to transcribe the video recordings. As Hepburn and Bolden (2013) comment,
a transcript is:
compact, transportable and reproducible, and
provides for easy random access unlike audio or
video records. CA transcription is a fundamental
resource for data sessions, presentations and journal articles, and, as such, it is often the medium
through which analysts encounter and evaluate
each others work. (p. 72)
379
Joe:
148
149
I*:
150
151
( 13.0 chatting to FW )
152
153
154
155
(3.0)
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164 10.50 01.23
oh dar
380
concern ourselves with what Joe is thinking during this time, but rather we analyze what he does
in the interaction. In other words, dont worry
about whether theyre thinking. Just try to come
to terms with how it is that the thing comes off
(Sacks, 1992, p. 11).
The previous example also shows how CA
can be used for analyzing electronic interactions.
Particularly it demonstrates how CA is concerned
with how turns at talk show an orientation to the
action being done in the prior talk, and how it then
constrains the subsequent talk. In other words,
speakers display their understanding through
the sequential unfolding of their talk (Potter &
Edwards, 2013, p. 709, emphasis in original). As
Schegloff (2007) notes each participants talk is
inspectable, and is inspected, by co-participants to
see how it stands to the one that preceded, what
sort of response it has accorded the preceding
turn (p. 1).
As a further brief example of this type of
analysis from Facebook chat, in the basic transcript
depicted in Extract 3a, Isla and Dave are discussing their plans for the following week.
At line 164 Isla questions whether Dave has
been out recently?, to which Dave responds at
line 169 with an answer. Pairs of actions like this
(question/answer, invitation/acceptance, and so
on) are characterised in CA as adjacency pairs.
Once a participant produces the first part of an
adjacency pair, such as a question in Extract 3,
the next participant should produce a second pair
part of the same pair type (Schegloff, 2007, p.
14). Thus, Daves response to Islas question must
be fitted to the form and type of the question.
Looking further down the transcript, we see that
this sequence is extended and at line 186 Dave
issues another question to Isla. At lines 188-190
Isla responds to the question by providing an account for why she might be sober. We can see
from this transcript that there is a sequence which
involves a question being asked (a first pair part)
followed by an answer (a second pair part) which
is fitted to the question asked. However, when we
381
Isla:
169
Dave:
171
Dave:
(8.0)
Monday
(5.0)
going out a bit this week!
182
Isla:
(11.0)
186
Dave:
188
Isla:
(5.0)
i got pretty messy on friday so not
189
190
haha
16.44
0.39
165
Isla:
I*:
166
( 5.0 chatting to SW )
167
D*:
[ 2.0 writing ]
168
I*:
[ ( 2.0 chatting to SW ) ]
Dave:
Monday
I*:
( 4.0 chatting to SW )
Dave:
I*:
( 33.0 chatting to SW )
169
16.52
0.08
170
171
16.57
0.05
172
173
174
175
176
( 9.0 chatting to SW )
177
178
179
180
(8.0)
181
182
18.26
1.29
183
I*:
Isla:
I*:
184
185
186
D*:
18.37
0.11
187
188
382
18.42
0.05
Dave:
ic
[ writing ]
;why would you be sober? ;
I*:
Isla:
189
190
Haha
interaction that is designed for a recipient, sequentially organized, and building actions. Whether the
data is asynchronous (such as from a forum, or
from Twitter for example) or quasi-synchronous
(from chat rooms or instant messaging services)
it should be analyzed as a social practice. It
should not be viewed as a way of getting to the
participant behind the screen, but rather as a way
of understanding the actions that discourse does
in that particular interactional context. We have
tried to show how an approach informed by both
CA and DP can be fruitful in explicating participants orientations and revealing the way in which
the varied affordances of specific technology and
software are relevant to interaction.
This chapter has also shown that, in order
to conduct analysis using CA, it is beneficial to
consider the technical requirements of data collection. It is necessary to recruit participants to
collect data, rather than simply taking data from
the website itself. It is also important that those
participants continue to use the internet in the
same ways as they normally would throughout
the period of data collection. In this way, we are
able to capture how electronic interactions are
managed in everyday practice. We have shown
that, as well as timed transcripts, it is important to
collect screen capture data. This allows the analyst
access to the same cues that the participant has.
Such research will inevitably have to engage with
the ethical and technical difficulties that arise.
Nevertheless, the benefits to understanding the use
of the internet in everyday life, and particularly
to understanding the management of electronic
interactions, are immense.
DISCUSSION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
In this chapter, we have demonstrated that electronic communication can be analyzed as a form of
383
CONCLUSION
The objectives of this chapter were to discuss the
interactional nature of electronic discourse. We
have described how all talk and text is designed
for a recipient, and as such all electronic discourse
is in some way interactional. We then introduced
CA as a way of approaching interaction, and
described how this approach can be applied to
both asynchronous and synchronous discourse.
Our approach throughout the chapter has been
384
REFERENCES
Androutsopoulos, J., & Beisswenger, M. (2008).
Introduction: Data and methods in computermediated discourse analysis. Language@Internet,
5, Article 9. Retrieved October 14, 2012, from
www.languageatinternet.de
Antaki, C. (1994). Explaining and arguing: The
social organization of accounts. London: Sage.
Antaki, C., Ardvol, E., Nez, F., & Vayreda, A.
(2005). For she who knows who she is: Managing accountability in online forum messages.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
11(1). Retrieved November 2, 2010, from http://
jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue1/antaki.html
Arminen, I., & Leinonen, M. (2006). Mobile phone
call openings: Tailoring answers to personalized
summonses. Discourse Studies, 8(3), 339368.
doi:10.1177/1461445606061791.
Bassett, E. H., & ORiordan, K. (2002). Ethics of
internet research: Contesting the human subjects
research model. Ethics and Information Technology, 4, 233247. doi:10.1023/A:1021319125207.
385
386
387
388
Pomerantz, A. M. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/
dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, J. M., &
Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of social action:
Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57101).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pomerantz, A. M., & Fehr, B. J. (1997). Conversation analysis: An approach to the study of social
action as sense making practices. In T. A. van
Dijk (Ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary
introduction, volume 2. Discourse as social interaction (pp. 64-91). London: Sage Publications.
Pomerantz, A. M., & Heritage, J. (2013). Preference. In Stivers, T., & Sidnell, J. (Eds.), The
handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 210228).
Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality: Discourse,
rhetoric and social construction. London: Sage.
Potter, J. (2004). Discourse analysis as a way of
analysing naturally occurring talk. In Silverman,
D. (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method
and practice (pp. 200221). London: Sage.
Potter, J. (2010). Contemporary discursive psychology: Issues, prospects, and Corcorans awkward
ontology. The British Journal of Social Psychology,
49, 691701. doi:10.1348/014466610X535946
PMID:20178684.
Potter, J. (2011a). Discursive psychology and
discourse analysis. In Gee, J. P., & Handford, M.
(Eds.), Routledge handbook of discourse analysis
(pp. 104119). London: Routledge.
Potter, J. (2012a). Re-reading Discourse and Social Psychology: Transforming social psychology.
The British Journal of Social Psychology, 51(3),
436455. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02085.x
PMID:22168901.
Potter, J. (2012b). Discourse analysis and discursive psychology. In Cooper, H. (Ed.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology: Vol2.
Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological and
biological (pp. 111130). Washington: American
Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/13620008.
Potter, J., & Edwards, D. (2001). Discursive social
psychology. In Robinson, P. W., & Giles, H. (Eds.),
The new handbook of language and social psychology (2nd ed., pp. 103118). Chichester: Wiley.
Potter, J., & Edwards, D. (2013). Conversation
analysis and psychology. In Stivers, T., & Sidnell,
J. (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis
(pp. 701725). London: Routledge.
Potter, J., & Hepburn, A. (2008). Discursive constructionism. In Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F.
(Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp.
275293). New York: Guildford.
Potter, J., & Hepburn, A. (2012). Eight challenges
for interview researchers. In Gubrium, J. F., &
Holstein, J. A. (Eds.), Handbook of interview
research (2nd ed., pp. 555570). London: Sage.
Rapley, T. J. (2001). The art(fulness) of openended interviewing: Some considerations on
analysing interviews. Qualitative Research, 1(3),
303323. doi:10.1177/146879410100100303.
Richardson, E., & Stokoe, E. (Forthcoming). The
order of ordering: Requests, objects and embodied
conduct in a public bar.
Rintel, E. S., Mulholland, J., & Pittam, J. (2001).
First things first: Internet relay chat openings. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(3).
Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/
doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2001.tb00125.x/full.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (vols. 1
and 2, edited by Gail Jefferson). Oxford: Blackwell.
389
390
ADDITIONAL READING
Antaki, C. (2004). Conversation analysis. In
Becker, S., & Bryman, A. (Eds.), Understanding
research methods for social policy and practice
(pp. 313317). London: Policy Press.
Antaki, C. (Ed.). (2011). Applied conversation
analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Antaki, C., Billig, M., Edwards, D., & Potter, J.
(2003). Discourse analysis means doing analysis:
A critique of six analytic shortcomings. Discourse
Analysis Online, 1. Retrieved October 30, 2010,
from http://www.shu.ac.uk/daol/articles/v1/n1/
a1/antaki2002002-paper.html
Craven, A., & Potter, J. (2010). Directives: Entitlement and contingency in action. Discourse Studies,
12(4), 419442. doi:10.1177/1461445610370126.
Drew, P. (2005). Conversation analysis. In Fitch,
K. L., & Sanders, R. E. (Eds.), Handbook of
language and social interaction (pp. 71102).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Drew, P., Raymond, G., & Weinberg, D. (Eds.).
(2006). Talk and interaction in social research
methods. London: Sage Publications.
Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (2005). Discursive
psychology, mental states and descriptions. In te
Molder, H. F. M., & Potter, J. (Eds.), Conversation and cognition (pp. 241259). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/
CBO9780511489990.012.
391
392
ENDNOTES
1.
APPENDIX
Transcription Symbols
;
()
(.)
(1.0)
[ ]
(())
Strikethrough
= Writing
= Surfing
= At the same time as
= Latching
= Talking to someone else
= Pause shorter than 1 second
= Gap
= Overlap
= Descriptions of actions
= Deleted
= Line or turn of interest
393