Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Potentials of Forestry Extension Encounters: A Conversation Analysis Approach

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Small-scale Forestry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article assesses co-operative features of forestry advising encounters with an emphasis on their pedagogical positioning. The study argues that only an in-depth analysis can reveal the multifaceted nature of the advisory interaction and provide systematic justifications for extension service enhancement. Authentic video recordings of advisory encounters between a forestry extension advisor (FEA) and family forest owners (FFOs) are scrutinized using the qualitative approach of conversation analysis and the initiation–response–evaluation pedagogical sequence model. Although the actual interplay of the participants was founded on a distinct role differentiation (i.e. teacher–student), situational and contingent variations between formal and informal positioning emerged. The FFOs proved active in making initiatives (e.g. posing questions) and thus influencing the agenda of the meetings, whereas the FEA’s speech turns were mostly used to restore the conventional hierarchical positioning. However, the results show that expert-directed service and customer-orientated services are not mutually exclusive. Effective forestry advisory practice is a rather socially motivated action embodied with talk and other means of communication. Thus the current emphasis on Internet-based services provides only halfway solutions, because virtual guidance lacks many of the interactive elements provided in face-to-face advisory encounters.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+
from $39.99 /Month
  • Starting from 10 chapters or articles per month
  • Access and download chapters and articles from more than 300k books and 2,500 journals
  • Cancel anytime
View plans

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, books and news in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

  • Arminen I (2005) Institutional interaction. Studies of talk at work. Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron B (2000) Achieving co-ordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. J Learn Sci 9(4):403–436. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS0904_2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barron B (2003) When smart groups fail. J Learn Sci 12(3):307–359. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1203_1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazeley P (2007) Qualitative data analysis with NVivo, 2nd edn. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Drew P, Heritage J (1992) Analysing talk at work—an introduction. In: Drew P, Heritage J (eds) Talk at work. Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 3–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Eyvindson K, Kurttila M, Hujala T, Salminen O (2011) An internet-supported planning approach for joint ownership forest holdings. Small-scale Forestry 10(1):1–17. doi:10.1007/s11842-010-9123-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming A, Vanclay F (2009) Using discourse analysis to improve extension practice. Ext Farming Syst J 5(1):1–10. http://www.csu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/109562/EFS_Journal_v05_n01_01_Fleming_and_Vanclay.pdf. Accessed 10 July 2013

  • Garfinkel H (1967) Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin C (2000) Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. J Pragmat 32(19):1489–1522. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin C (2013) The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. J Pragmat 46(1):8–23. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hakulinen A, Vilkuna M, Korhonen R, Koivisto V, Heinonen TR, Alho I (2004) Iso suomen kielioppi [Comprehensive Finnish Grammar] Helsinki, Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. http://scripta.kotus.fi/visk Accessed 14 Feb 2013

  • Hanks WF (2012) Modalities of participation. J Pragmat 44(5):563–565. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heath C (2001) The delivery and reception of diagnosis in the general-practice consultation. In: Drew P, Heritage J (eds) Talk at work. Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 235–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Helasvuo M-L, Vilkuna M (2008) Impersonal is personal: Finnish perspectives. Trans Philol Soc 106(2):216–245. doi:10.1111/j.1467-968X.2008.00208.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heritage J (2004) Conversation analysis and institutional talk. In: Silverman D (ed) Qualitative research. Theory, method and practice. SAGE, London, pp 222–246

    Google Scholar 

  • Heritage J, Sefi S (1992) Dilemmas of advice: aspects of the delivery and reception of advice in interactions between health visitors and first-time mothers. In: Drew P, Heritage J (eds) Talk at work. Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 359–417

    Google Scholar 

  • Hokajärvi R, Hujala T, Tikkanen J (2011) Change in forest planner’s advisory role. Scand J For Res 26(5):466–476. doi:10.1080/02827581.2011.579996

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hujala T (2009) Owner-driven decision support in holding-specific forest planning. Dissertationes Forestales 85, University of Helsinki

  • Hujala T, Tikkanen J (2008) Boosters of and barriers to smooth communication in family forest owners’ decision-making. Scand J For Res 23(5):466–477. doi:10.1080/02827580802334209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hujala T, Höglund H, Mehtätalo L, Pykäläinen J (2012) Trialogical learning—a concept for enhancing interactive forest planning. In: Meyer SR (ed) Conference Proceedings, IUFRO 3.08.00 Small-Scale Forestry Conference 2012: Science for Solutions. Family Forest Research Center, Amherst, MA. pp 58–63

  • Hujala T, Kurttila M, Karppinen H (2013) Customer segments among family forest owners: combining ownership objectives and decision-making styles. Small-Scale For 12(3):335–351. doi:10.1007/s11842-012-9215-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Islam MM, Gray D, Reid J, Kemp P (2011) Developing sustainable farmer-led extension groups: lessons from a Bangladeshi case study. J Agric Edu Ext 17(5):425–443. doi:10.1080/1389224X.2011.596658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson G (2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In: Lerner GH (ed) Conversation analysis: studies from the first generation. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 13–31

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Karppinen H, Hujala T, Virkkula O (eds) (2011) Recent advances in landowner extension. Proceedings of the IUFRO 3.08 Symposium with a special theme of peer-to-peer learning among landowners, 3–5 April, Kuusamo, Finland. http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp193.htm. Accessed 14 Feb 2013

  • Kueper AM, Sagor ES, Becker DR (2013) Learning from landowners: examining the role of peer exchange in private landowner outreach through landowner networks. Soc Nat Resour 0:1–19. doi:10.1080/08941920.2012.722748

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee Y (2007) Third turn position in teacher talk: contingency and the work of teaching. J Pragmat 39(1):180–206. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2006.02.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leeuwis C (2004) Communication for rural innovation.Rethinking agricultural extension. Blackwell Science, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Leskinen P, Hujala T, Tikkanen J et al (2009) Adaptive decision analysis in forest management planning. For Sci 55(2):95–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson SC (1992) Activity types and language. In: Drew P, Heritage J (eds) Talk at work. Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 66–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Ljunggren-Bergeå H (2007) Negotiating fences. Interaction in advisory encounters for nature conservation. Dissertation, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

  • Ma Z, Kittredge DB, Catanzaro P (2012) Challenging the traditional forestry extension model: insights from the woods forum program in Massachusetts. Small Scale For 11(1):87–100. doi:10.1007/s11842-011-9170-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macbeth D (2004) The relevance of repair for classroom correction. Lang Soc 33(5):703–736. doi:10.10170S0047404504045038

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard D (1991) On the interactional and institutional bases of asymmetry in clinical discourse. Am J Sociol 92(2):448–495. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2781383 Accessed 19 February 2013

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehan H (1979) Learning lessons: social organisation in the classroom. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Monroe MC, McDonell L (2012) Flexible training program builds capacity for diverse challenges. J Ext 50(2), Article Number: 5FEA4

  • Nassaji H, Wells G (2000) What’s the use of ‘Triadic dialogue’?: an investigation of teacher-student interaction. Appl Linguist 21(3):376–406. doi:10.1093/applin/21.3.376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parviainen J, Västilä S (2012) Legal framework and legislation. In: Parviainen J, Västilä S (eds.) State of Finland’s forests 2012 based on the criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management. Updated html version of ‘State of Finnish Forests 2011’, Publications of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 5a (95 p.). Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry & Finnish Forest Research Institute (Metla). http://www.metla.fi/metinfo/sustainability/SF-2-legal-framework.htm. Accessed 02 Dec 2013

  • Potter J (1996) Representing reality. Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. Sage Publications, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pykäläinen J, Hujala T (2012) Conversational versus computer-aided forest planning service. In: Meyer SR (ed) Conference Proceedings, IUFRO 3.08.00 Small-Scale Forestry Conference 2012: Science for Solutions. Family Forest Research Center, Amherst, MA. pp 149–153

  • Sacks H, Schegloff EA, Jefferson G (1974) The simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4), Part 1:696–735. http://www.jstor.org/stable/412243. Accessed 19 Feb 2013

    Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff E (1992) Repair after next turn: the last structurally provided defence of intersubjectivity in conversation. Am J Sociol 97(5):1295–1345. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2781417. Accessed 19 Feb 2013

    Google Scholar 

  • Serbruyns I, Luyssaert S (2006) Acceptance of sticks, carrots and sermons as policy instruments for directing forest management. For Policy Econ 9(1):285–296. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2005.06.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair JMH, Brazil D (1982) Teacher talk. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair JMH, Coulthard RM (1975) Towards an analysis of discourse. The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorjonen ML (2001) Responding in conversation: a study of response particles in Finnish. John Benjamins Publishing Co, Amsterdam

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stivers T, Sidnell J (2005) Multimodal interaction. Semiotica 156(1/4):1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanclay F (2004) Social principles for agricultural extension to assist in the promotion of natural resource management. Aust J Exp Agr 44(3):213–222. doi:10.1071/EA02139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vehviläinen S (1999) Structures of counselling interaction: a conversation analytic study of counselling encounters in career guidance training. Dissertation, University of Helsinki

  • Virkkula O, Hujala T, Hokajärvi R (2012) Asiakaslähtöisyyden ilmeneminen metsäneuvontakeskussa. [Emergence of customer-orientation in forestry advising discussion]. In: Tynjälä P (ed) Oppiminen ajassa–kasvatus tulevaisuuteen. [Learning in time-education for the future]. Suomen kasvatustieteellinen seura. Kasvatusalan tutkimuksia 61 (in Finnish)

  • Wild-Eck S, Zimmermann W, Schmithüsen F (2006) Extension for private forest owners: insights from a representative opinion poll in Switzerland. Small-scale For Econ Manag Policy 5(2):161–174. doi:10.1007/s11842-006-0008-2

    Google Scholar 

  • Zemel A, Koschmann T (2011) Pursuing a question: reinitiating IRE sequences as a method for instruction. J Pragmat 43(2):474–488. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.022

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The first author of the paper is grateful to the Emil Aaltonen Foundation for providing a doctoral scholarship. Both authors sincerely thank the editor and reviewers for their valuable and constructive comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Renewable Natural Resources, Oulu University of Applied Sciences, Kotkantie 1, 90250, Oulu, Finland

    Outi Virkkula

  2. Vantaa Unit, Finnish Forest Research Institute METLA, P.O. Box 18, 01301, Vantaa, Finland

    Teppo Hujala

Authors
  1. Outi Virkkula
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Teppo Hujala
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Outi Virkkula.

Appendix: Transcript Conventions

Appendix: Transcript Conventions

Based on Jefferson (2004, 24–31).

Yes:

contrastive emphasis or stress

[:

concurrence of speech and action in relation to the original talk (indexed by numbers inside brackets

(.):

micro-pause

(1.0):

length of silence in approximate seconds

=:

no break or gap between or within turns

<yes>:

talk between the arrows is slowed down

>yes<:

talk between the arrows is speeded up

ye:s:

stretching of sound

ºyesº:

softer sounds than surrounding talk

.hh:

audible in-breath

Hh:

audible outbreath

ye-:

word is cut off

(–):

untranscribable words

((cough)):

transcriber’s descriptions

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Virkkula, O., Hujala, T. Potentials of Forestry Extension Encounters: A Conversation Analysis Approach. Small-scale Forestry 13, 407–423 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-014-9262-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-014-9262-x

Keywords