Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reflecting on the Ethics and Politics of Collecting Interactional Data: Implications for Training and Practice

  • Commentary
  • Published:
Human Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alby, F., & Fatigante, M. (2014). Preserving the respondent’s standpoint in a research interview: Different strategies of ‘doing’ the interviewer. Human Studies, 32(7), 239–256.

  • Antaki, C. (Ed.). (2011). Applied conversation analysis: Changing institutional practices. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Drew, P., Raymond, G., & Weinberg, D. (Eds.). (2006). Talk and interaction in social research methods. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fatigante, M., & Orletti, F. (2014). From principles to practice: Information giving in written consent forms and in participants’ talk recorded in a hospital setting. Human Studies, 37(2), 210–238.

  • Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfinkel, H. (1991). Respecification: Evidence for locally produced, naturally accountable phenomena of order*, logic, reason, meaning, method, etc. and as of the essential haecceity of immortal ordinary society (I)—An announcement of studies. In G. Button (Ed.), Ethnomethodology and the human sciences (pp. 10–19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • General Medical Council. (2010). Good practice in research and consent to research. Online document, retrieved February 27, 2012 from: http://www.gmc-uk.org/static/documents/content/Research_guidance_FINAL.pdf.

  • Gilbert, G. N., & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening Pandora’s Box: A sociological analysis of scientists’ discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gill, V. T., Halkowski, T., & Roberts, F. (2001). Accomplishing a request without making one: A single case analysis of a primary care visit. Text, 21, 55–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammersley, M. (2003). Analytics are no substitute for methodology: A response to Speer and Hutchby. Sociology, 37, 339–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lomax, H., N., & Casey, N. (1998). ‘Recording social life: Reflexivity and video methodology. Sociological Research Online, 3. Online document, retrieved February 27, 2012 from: http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/socresonline/3/2/1.html.

  • Lynch, M. (2000). Against reflexivity as an academic virtue and source of privileged knowledge. Theory, Culture & Society, 17(3), 26–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maynard, D. W., Freese, J., & Schaeffer, N. C. (2010). Calling for participation: Requests, blocking moves, and rational (inter)action in survey introductions. American Sociological Review, 75, 791–814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maynard, D. W., Houtkoop-Steenstra, H., Schaeffer, N. C., & van der Zouwen, J. (Eds.). (2002). Standardization and tacit knowledge. Interaction and practice in the survey interview. New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard, D. W., & Schaeffer, N. C. (2006). Standardization-in-interaction: The survey interview. In P. Drew, G. Raymond, & D. Weinberg (Eds.), Talk and interaction in social research methods (pp. 9–27). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mondada, L. (2014). Ethics in action: Anonymization as a participant’s concern and a participant’s practice. Human Studies, 37(2), 179–209.

  • Paoletti, I. (2014a). Introduction to the special issue: Ethical issues in collecting interactional data. Human Studies, 37(2), 257–277.

  • Paoletti, I. (2014b). Ethics and the social dimension of research activities. Human Studies, 37(2), 167–178.

  • Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. 2 vols. Edited by Gail Jefferson with introductions by Emanuel A. Schegloff. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

  • Schegloff, E. A. (2002). Survey interviews as talk-in-interaction. In D. W. Maynard, H. Houtkoop-Steenstra, N. C. Schaeffer, & J. van der Zouwen (Eds.), Standardization and tacit knowledge. Interaction and practice in the survey interview (pp. 151–161). New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Speer, S. A. (2002a). “Natural” and “contrived” data: A sustainable distinction? Discourse Studies, 4, 511–525.

    Google Scholar 

  • Speer, S. A. (2002b). Transcending the “natural”/“contrived” distinction: A rejoinder to ten Have, Lynch and Potter. Discourse Studies, 4, 543–548.

    Google Scholar 

  • Speer, S. A. (2002c). What can conversation analysis contribute to feminist methodology? Putting reflexivity into practice. Discourse & Society, 13, 783–803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Speer, S. A. (2013). Talking about sex with patients in the Gender Identity Clinic: Implications for training and practice. Health. doi:10.1177/1363459312472085.

  • Speer, S. A., & Hutchby, I. (2003a). From ethics to analytics: Aspects of participants’ orientations to the presence and relevance of recording devices. Sociology, 39, 315–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Speer, S. A., & Hutchby, I. (2003b). Methodology needs analytics: A rejoinder to Martyn Hammersley. Sociology, 39, 335–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Speer, S. A., & Stokoe, E. (2012). Ethics in action: Consent-gaining interactions and implications for research practice. British Journal of Social Psychology. doi:10.1111/bjso.12009.

  • Stokoe, E. (2009). “For the benefit of the tape”: Formulating embodied conduct in designedly uni-modal recorded police-suspect interrogations. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1887–1904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokoe, E. (2013). The (in)authenticity of simulated talk: Comparing role-played and actual conversation and the implications for communication training. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46(2), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wade, J., Donovan, J. L., Lane, J. A., Neal, D. E., & Hamdy, F. C. (2009). “It’s not just what you say, it’s also how you say it: Opening the “black box” of informed consent appointments in randomised controlled trials. Social Science and Medicine, 68, 2018–2028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Elizabeth Stokoe and Isabella Paoletti for their helpful comments on an earlier draft.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Manchester, Coupland Building 1, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK

    Susan A. Speer

Authors
  1. Susan A. Speer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susan A. Speer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Speer, S.A. Reflecting on the Ethics and Politics of Collecting Interactional Data: Implications for Training and Practice. Hum Stud 37, 279–286 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-014-9310-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-014-9310-8

Search

Navigation