Beyond the observer’s paradox: the audio-recorder as a resource for the display of identity

Instead of viewing the ‘observer’s paradox’ or the presence of ‘tape-affected speech’ as a methodological problem that spoils ‘natural’ data, in this article, I advocate exploring the opportunities that a recorder offers to research study participants, and the insights tape-affected speech gives to researchers. In my discourse analysis of the week-long self-audio-recorded discourse of members of four American families, I draw on the notions of ‘frame’ and ‘footing’ to uncover the various ways the recorder is conceptualized and oriented to in interaction—as an object and a person, and in literal and playful ways—and demonstrate how participants use the recorder as a resource for identity work in interaction. Analysis reveals how recording shapes the interactions that constitute ‘data’ and how study participants manipulate the presence of the recorder to display identities.

[1]  Deborah Tannen,et al.  Interactive Frames and Knowledge Schemas in Interaction: Examples from a Medical Examination/Interview , 1987 .

[2]  E. Goffman,et al.  Forms of talk , 1982 .

[3]  J. Coates Women Talk: Conversation Between Women Friends , 1991 .

[4]  D. Tannen,et al.  Family Talk: Discourse and Identity in Four American Families , 2007 .

[5]  Michael Stubbs,et al.  Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk among Friends , 1985 .

[6]  JOHN WILSON Paradoxes, sociolinguistics and everyday accounts , 1994 .

[7]  Barbara Johnstone Qualitative methods in sociolinguistics , 1999 .

[8]  C. E. Taylor “You Think It Was a Fight?”: Co-Constructing (the Struggle for) Meaning, Face, and Family in Everyday Narrative Activity , 1995 .

[9]  Natalie Schilling-Estes Investigating “self-conscious” speech: The performance register in Ocracoke English , 1998, Language in Society.

[10]  C. Gordon ‘Al Gore’s our Guy’: Linguistically Constructing a Family Political Identity , 2004 .

[11]  Elinor Ochs Constructing Social Identity: A Language Socialization Perspective , 1993 .

[12]  Suzanne Wertheim Cleaning up for company: Using participant roles to understand fieldworker effect , 2006, Language in Society.

[13]  R. Scollon,et al.  Nexus Analysis Discourse and the emerging Internet , 2004 .

[14]  J. Wilson The Sociolinguistic Paradox: Data as a Methodological Product. , 1987 .

[15]  Susan A. Speer,et al.  From Ethics to Analytics: Aspects of Participants' Orientations to the Presence and Relevance of Recording Devices , 2003 .

[16]  Kira Hall,et al.  Identity and interaction: a sociocultural linguistic approach , 2005, Discourse Studies.

[17]  A. Bell Language style as audience design , 1984, Language in Society.

[18]  S. Speer Transcending the `natural'/`contrived' distinction: a rejoinder to ten Have, Lynch and Potter , 2002 .

[19]  S. Speer,et al.  Natural and contrived data , 2008 .

[20]  William Labov,et al.  Some principles of linguistic methodology , 1972, Language in Society.

[21]  Susan A. Speer,et al.  `Natural' and `contrived' data: a sustainable distinction? , 2002 .

[22]  Wolfgang Klein,et al.  Frame of analysis , 1995 .

[23]  Nessa Wolfson,et al.  Speech events and natural speech: some implications for sociolinguistic methodology , 1976, Language in Society.

[24]  S. Kraemer Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Gregory Bateson , 1993, British Journal of Psychiatry.

[25]  Torin Monahan,et al.  Benefits of ‘observer effects’: lessons from the field , 2010, Qualitative research : QR.