Coding Social Interaction: A Heretical Approach in Conversation Analysis?

Conversation Analysis has come to be the dominant approach to the systematic study of social interaction. Mixed methods studies combining CA with quantitative methods have been utilized since the 1980s to test associations between interaction practices and sociodemographic variables, attitudinal variables, outcomes, and even factors such as the economy. However, any sort of formal coding risks a massive reduction and flattening of complex human behavior to simplistic codes. Thus, a question arises as to whether it is possible to make use of formal coding in a way that remains true to CA principles about the study of social interaction. In this article, I argue that the formal coding of interaction behavior is not necessarily antithetical to conversation analysis. Although formal coding of interaction is frequently a top-down process that is not grounded in CA, interaction coding can be done in ways that do not sacrifice a CA sensibility and that are true to CA principles. In this article I discuss the aspects of CA methods that form a natural basis for formal coding and then go on to contrast non-CA-grounded formal coding with CA-grounded formal coding. Finally, I review some of the limitations of mixed methods CA formal coding studies of interaction. Data are in American and British English.

[1]  David Sloan Wilson,et al.  Utilities of gossip across organizational levels , 2005, Human nature.

[2]  Emanuel A. Schegloff,et al.  Preliminaries to Preliminaries: “Can I Ask You a Question?” , 1980 .

[3]  M. Elliott,et al.  Ruling out the need for antibiotics: are we sending the right message? , 2006, Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine.

[4]  R. Bales.  Interaction process analysis; a method for the study of small groups. , 2013 .

[5]  J. Maxwell Atkinson,et al.  Structures of Social Action: Public speaking and audience responses: some techniques for inviting applause , 1985 .

[6]  John H Eritage,et al.  Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry , 1998, Language in Society.

[7]  Anita M. Pomerantz.  Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes , 1984 .

[8]  R. Mackay.  Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology , 1987 .

[9]  Tanya Stivers,et al.  Mobilizing Response , 2010 .

[10]  Neda Ratanawongsa,et al.  Clinician Stress and Patient–Clinician Communication in HIV Care , 2012, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[11]  T. Stivers,et al.  A coding scheme for question-response sequences in conversation , 2010 .

[12]  Robin I. M. Dunbar,et al.  Human conversational behavior , 1997, Human nature.

[13]  Ronald Hitzler.  Literaturbesprechung zu: Max Atkinson: Our masters' voices. The language and body language of politics. London and New York: Methuen 1984 , 1988 .

[14]  Marc Mehu,et al.  Naturalistic observations of smiling and laughter in human group interactions , 2008 .

[15]  J. Atkinson,et al.  A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement , 1985 .

[16]  E. Schegloff.  Third Turn Repair , 1997 .

[17]  E. Schegloff.  Some Practices for Referring to Persons in Talk-in-Interaction: A Partial Sketch of a Systematics , 1996 .

[18]  Tanya Stivers,et al.  Research on Language & Social Interaction , 2011 .

[19]  Emanuel A. Schegloff,et al.  Confirming Allusions: Toward an Empirical Account of Action , 1996, American Journal of Sociology.

[20]  B. Carter,et al.  A structured observation of the interaction between nurses and patients during the administration of medication in an acute mental health unit. , 2010, Journal of clinical nursing.

[21]  Lawrence C. Kleinman,et al.  Subverting criteria: The role of precedent in decisions to finance surgery , 2001 .

[22]  J. Atkinson,et al.  Our masters' voices: The language and body language of politics , 1984 .

[23]  Jack Whalen,et al.  Sociology as a Natural Observational Science@@@Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. , 1987 .

[24]  S. Clayman,et al.  THE CHANGING TENOR OF QUESTIONING OVER TIME , 2013 .

[25]  Federico Rossano,et al.  Gaze behavior in face-to-face interaction , 2012 .

[26]  E. Schegloff,et al.  Notes on Laughter in the Pursuit of Intimacy , 1987 .

[27]  T. Stivers,et al.  Presenting the Problem in Pediatric Encounters: "Symptoms Only" Versus "Candidate Diagnosis" Presentations , 2002, Health communication.

[28]  D. Roter,et al.  The Roter interaction analysis system (RIAS): utility and flexibility for analysis of medical interactions. , 2002, Patient education and counseling.

[29]  E. Schegloff.  Structures of Social Action: On some questions and ambiguities in conversation , 1985 .

[30]  E. Schegloff,et al.  The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation , 1977 .

[31]  Phillip J. Glenn.  Laughter in Interaction , 2003 .

[32]  Marc N. Elliott,et al.  When Does the Watchdog Bark? Conditions of Aggressive Questioning in Presidential News Conferences , 2006 .

[33]  Jeffrey D. Robinson,et al.  A preference for progressivity in interaction , 2006, Language in Society.

[34]  Emanuel A. Schegloff,et al.  Commentary on Stivers and Rossano: “Mobilizing Response” , 2010 .

[35]  T. Stivers,et al.  Online commentary in acute medical visits: a method of shaping patient expectations. , 1999, Social science & medicine.

[36]  Mardi Kidwell,et al.  Gaze as Social Control: How Very Young Children Differentiate "The Look" From a "Mere Look" by Their Adult Caregivers , 2005 .

[37]  A. Majid,et al.  Questioning Children: Interactional Evidence of Implicit Bias in Medical Interviews , 2007 .

[38]  M. Friedlander,et al.  Complementarity and Symmetry in Family Therapy Communication , 1990 .

[39]  Penelope Brown,et al.  Gaze, questioning and culture , 2009 .

[40]  E. Schegloff,et al.  A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation , 1974 .

[41]  Marco Antônio de Oliveira,et al.  Towards a social science of language - papers in honor of William Labov volume 1: variation and change in language and society , 1999 .

[42]  Jeffrey D. Robinson,et al.  Intervening With Conversation Analysis: The Case of Medicine , 2014 .

[43]  P. Kay,et al.  Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[44]  Gail Jefferson,et al.  A Note on Laughter in ‘Male–Female’Interaction , 2004 .

[45]  John Heritage,et al.  Generating Applause: A Study of Rhetoric and Response at Party Political Conferences , 1986, American Journal of Sociology.

[46]  Nick Llewellyn.  Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology , 2014 .

[47]  M. Elliott,et al.  Online commentary during the physical examination: a communication tool for avoiding inappropriate antibiotic prescribing? , 2003, Social science & medicine.

[48]  E. Schegloff.  Sequencing in Conversational Openings , 1968 .

[49]  T. Stivers,et al.  Alternative recognitionals in person reference , 2007 .

[50]  M. Elliott,et al.  Why do physicians think parents expect antibiotics? What parents report vs what physicians believe. , 2003, The Journal of family practice.

[51]  Gail Jefferson,et al.  Structures of Social Action: On the organization of laughter in talk about troubles , 1985 .

[52]  Marc N. Elliott,et al.  Reducing Patients’ Unmet Concerns in Primary Care: the Difference One Word Can Make , 2007, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[53]  Traci S. Curl,et al.  Offers of assistance: Constraints on syntactic design , 2006 .

[54]  S. Clayman,et al.  THE CHANGING TENOR OF QUESTIONING OVER TIME Tracking a question form across US presidential news conferences , 1953 2000 , 2012 .

[55]  Robin I. M. Dunbar,et al.  Size and structure of freely forming conversational groups , 1995, Human nature.

[56]  Makoto Ha,et al.  Transformative answers: One way to resist a question’s constraints , 2010, Language in Society.

[57]  Gene H. Lerner.  Selecting next speaker: The context-sensitive operation of a context-free organization , 2003, Language in Society.