Microanalysis Of Online Data: The methodological development of “digital CA”

Abstract This paper introduces the work of the MOOD (Microanalysis Of Online Data) network, an interdisciplinary association of academic researchers exploring ways of conducting close qualitative analyses of online interaction. Despite the fact that much online interaction meets the criteria for ‘conversation’, conversation analysis (CA) has only recently begun to grow and flourish as a methodology for analysing the overwhelming quantity of material that in many cases sits in archive form, visible to millions, on the Internet. We discuss the development of methods that are inherently suited for subjecting online interaction to the kind of rigorous analysis that conversation analysts have applied to talk of all kinds for several decades. We go on to explore the fundamental challenges that online data pose for CA, the value of many CA techniques for online analysis, and the possibilities of developing bespoke modes of analysis that are crafted for use with specific forms of online data (e.g. ‘tweets’ on Twitter ).

[1]  T. Koole,et al.  The online support group as a community: A micro-analysis of the interaction with a new member , 2010 .

[2]  R. Kozinets.  Netnography: Doing Ethnographic Research Online , 2009 .

[3]  Lokman I. Meho.  E-mail interviewing in qualitative research: A methodological discussion , 2006, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[4]  D. Giles,et al.  Constructing identities in cyberspace: the case of eating disorders. , 2006, The British journal of social psychology.

[5]  Angela Cora Garcia,et al.  The Eyes of the Beholder: Understanding the Turn-Taking System in Quasi-Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication , 1999 .

[6]  Michael Emmison,et al.  When 'listeners can't talk' : comparing active listening in opening sequences of telephone and online counselling , 2009 .

[7]  S. Herring.  Computer-Mediated Discourse Analysis : An Approach to Researching Online Behavior , 2004 .

[8]  Michael Westerlund,et al.  The production of pro-suicide content on the internet: A counter-discourse activity , 2012, New Media Soc..

[9]  Susan C. Herring,et al.  Gender and Turn Allocation in a Thai Chat Room , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[10]  P. Liamputtong.  Focus Group Methodology: Principles and Practice , 2011 .

[11]  T. Buchanan,et al.  Ethics Guidelines for Internet-mediated Research , 2013 .

[12]  Annette N. Markham,et al.  FABRICATION AS ETHICAL PRACTICE , 2012 .

[13]  P. Have.  Structuring Writing for Reading: Hypertext and the Reading Body , 1999 .

[14]  S. Clayman.  Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities, and Institutions , 2010 .

[15]  Susan C. Herring.  Interactional Coherence in CMC , 1999, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[16]  Andrea Golato,et al.  Repair in Chats: A Conversation Analytic Approach , 2003 .

[17]  Joanne Meredith,et al.  Repair: Comparing Facebook ‘chat’ with spoken interaction , 2014 .

[18]  K. S. Eklundh,et al.  The use of quoting to preserve context in electronic mail dialogues , 1994 .

[19]  Will Gibson.  Negotiating textual talk : conversation analysis, pedagogy, and the organisation of online asynchronous discourse , 2009 .

[20]  Patricia Bou-Franch,et al.  Social Interaction in YouTube Text-Based Polylogues: A Study of Coherence , 2012, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[21]  Neil Coulson,et al.  The male experience of infertility: a thematic analysis of an online infertility support group bulletin board , 2008 .

[22]  Darren Reed.  'Making conversation': sequential integrity and the local management of interaction on Internet newsgroups , 2001, Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[23]  D. Giles,et al.  Inside the “Pro-ana” Community: A Covert Online Participant Observation , 2007, Eating disorders.

[24]  Caroline Haythornthwaite,et al.  Studying Online Social Networks , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[25]  Sally Wiggins,et al.  Doing being 'on the edge': managing the dilemma of being authentically suicidal in an online forum. , 2009, Sociology of health & illness.

[26]  Jamie Cleland,et al.  Racism, Football Fans, and Online Message Boards , 2014 .

[27]  Fu-Ren Lin,et al.  Discovering genres of online discussion threads via text mining , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[28]  Annette N. Markham,et al.  Life Online: Researching Real Experience in Virtual Space , 1998 .

[29]  Elisenda Ardèvol,et al.  "For she who knows who she is: " Managing Accountability in Online Forum Messages , 2005, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[30]  Annette N. Markham.  The Internet As Research Context , 2004 .

[31]  Fiona McTavish,et al.  From Diagnosis to Death: A Case Study of Coping With Breast Cancer as Seen Through Online Discussion Group Messages , 2011, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[32]  Ian Hutchby,et al.  Conversation and Technology: From the Telephone to the Internet , 2001 .

[33]  E. Schegloff.  Whose Text? Whose Context? , 1997 .

[34]  Susan C. Herring,et al.  A Faceted Classification Scheme for Computer-Mediated Discourse , 2007 .

[35]  Trena M. Paulus,et al.  Accountability and public displays of knowing in an undergraduate computer-mediated communication context , 2011 .

[36]  R. Manning,et al.  'Oh my god, we're not doing nothing': young people's experiences of spatial regulation. , 2014, The British journal of social psychology.

[37]  Nancy K. Baym,et al.  Personal Connections in the Digital Age , 1994 .

[38]  Klaus Bruhn Jensen,et al.  New Media, Old Methods – Internet Methodologies and the Online/Offline Divide , 2011 .

[39]  Kenneth Keng Wee Ong.  Disagreement, confusion, disapproval, turn elicitation and floor holding: Actions as accomplished by ellipsis marks-only turns and blank turns in quasisynchronous chats , 2011 .

[40]  Anna Gradin Franzén,et al.  The beauty of blood? Self-injury and ambivalence in an Internet community , 2011 .

[41]  Lyn Turney,et al.  Virtual Focus Groups: New Frontiers in Research , 2005 .