Probing the New Analytical Perspective

Chapter

Abstract

The outline for a person-centered praxeology takes its point of departure in the methodological framing of zooming in and zooming out (Nicolini in Organ Stud 30:1391–1418, 2009), as discussed in Chapter  5. The zooming-in part combines the approaches of integrational linguistics and ethnomethodology and conversation analysis methodologically. Zooming in traces significant trajectories across excerpts, whereas zooming out describes larger frames of practices. Building upon the discussion from previous chapters, the pros and cons of combining analytical concepts are discussed. The analytical framework in this chapter is presented along with video data. Frames of practices are unfolded in order to establish a base on which to inform professional practice about their social consequences. An abductive element of the analytical strategy is given attention and scrutinized.

Keywords

Person-centeredness Processuality Participant perspective Traceability Scrutiny 

References

  1. Antaki, C., & Wilkinson, R. (2013). Conversation analysis and the study of atypical populations. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), Handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 533–550). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  2. Antaki, C., Billig, M., Edwards, D. & Potter, J. (2003). Discourse analysis means doing analysis: A critique of six analytic shortcomings. Discours Analysis Online, 1(1). http://www.shu.ac.uk/daol/previous/v1/n1/index.htm.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arminen, I. (2000). On the context sensitivity of institutional interaction. Discourse and Society, 11(4), 435–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ayass, R. (2015). Doing data: The status of transcripts in conversation analysis. Discourse Studies, 17(5), 505–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cekaite, A. (2016). Touch as social control: Haptic organization of attention in adult–child interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 92, 30–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarke, A. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Clarke, M., & Bloch, S. (2013). Augmentative and alternative communication AAC practices in everyday interaction. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 29(1), 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Conrad, C. (2011). Forståelseshandlingen. En empirisk afprøvet teori om narrativ forståelse som situeret betydning i dannelse. PhD dissertation, Københavns Universitet, København.Google Scholar
  9. Damm, B. (2016). Sproglig betydningsdannelse i teori og praksis: En teoretisk og empirisk videreudvikling af det integrerede sprogsyn. PhD dissertation, Københavns Universitet, København.Google Scholar
  10. Duncker, D. (2005). Den integrerende kommunikationsmodel. In P. Widell & M. Kunøe (Eds.), 10. møde om udforskningen af dansk sprog (pp. 137–146). Aarhus: Fællestrykkeriet for Sundhedsvidenskab og Humaniora Aarhus Universitet.Google Scholar
  11. Duncker, D. (2011). On the empirical challenge to integrational studies in language. Language Sciences, 33(4), 533–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Enfield, N., & Sidnell, J. (2017). The concept of action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Glintborg, C. (2015). Disabled and not normal. Narrative Inquiry, 25(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goodwin, M. (1983). Aggravated correction and disagreement in childrens’s conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 7, 657–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489–1522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goodwin, C. (2003). Conversational frameworks for the accomplishment of meaning. In C. Goodwin (Ed.), Conversation and brain damage (pp. 90–116). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Goodwin, C. (2013). The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 8–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goodwin, M. (2017). Haptic sociality: The embodied interactive construction of intimacy through touch. In C. Meyer, J. Streeck, & S. Jordan (Eds.), Intercorporeality: Emerging socialities in interaction (pp. 73–102). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Goodwin, C. (2018). Co-operative action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Goodwin, M., Cekaite, A., & Goodwin, C. (2012). Emotion as stance. In A. Peräkylä & M. Sorjonen (Eds.), Emotion in interaction (pp. 16–41). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harris, R. (1998). Introduction to integrational linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  22. Harris, R. (2009a). Integrationist notes and papers 2006–2008. Gamlingay: A Bright Pen.Google Scholar
  23. Harris, R. (2009b). After epistemology. Gamlingay: A Bright Pen.Google Scholar
  24. Heinemann, T. (2009). Participation and exclusion in third party complaints. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(12), 2435–2451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heinemann, T., & Traverso, V. (2009). Complaining in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(12), 2381–2384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  27. Iedema, R. (2003). Multimodality, resemiotization: Extending the analysis of discourse as multi-semiotic practice. Visual Communication, 2(1), 29–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. James, W. (1950). The principles of psychology (Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (Origin. 1890).Google Scholar
  29. Jefferson, G. (1987). On exposed and embedded correction in conversation. In G. Button & J. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organization (pp. 86–100). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters (Origin. 1978).Google Scholar
  30. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kitzinger, C. (2013). Repair. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), Handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 229–256). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  32. Klippi, A. (2015). Pointing as an embodied practice in aphasic interaction. Aphasiology, 29(3), 337–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Laurier, E. (2014a). Noticing: Talk, gestures, movement and objects in video analysis. In Lee, R., et al. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of human geography. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  34. Laurier, E. (2014b). The graphic transcript: Poaching comic book grammar for inscribing the visual, spatial and temporal aspects of action. Geography Compass, 8(4), 235–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Legg, C., & Penn, P. (2013). Uncertainty, vulnerability, and isolation: Factors framing quality of life with aphasia in a South African township. In N. Warren & L. Manderson (Eds.), Reframing disability and quality of life: A global perspective (pp. 17–37). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McIlvenny, P. (1995). Seeing conversations: Analyzing sign language talk. In P. ten Have & G. Psathas (Eds.), Situated order: Studies in the social organisation of talk and embodied activities (pp. 129–150). Washington, DC: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  37. Mehan, H. (1993). Beneath the skin and between the ears: A case study in the politics of representation. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 241–268). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Middleton, D., & Brown, S. (2005). The social psychology of experience: Studies in remembering and forgetting. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. Mondada, L. (2009). The methodological organization of talking and eating: Assessments in dinner conversations. Food Quality and Preference, 20(8), 558–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mondada, L. (2014). Conventions for multimodal transcription (3.0.1. ed.). Retrieved December 5, 2017, from https://mainly.sciencesconf.org/conference/mainly/pages/Mondada2013_conv_multimodality_copie.pdf. (Origin. 2001).
  41. Mondada, L. (2016). Challenges of multimodality: Language and the body in social interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(3), 336–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moss, P. & Dyck, I. (2003). Women, body, illness: Space and identity in the everyday lives of women with chronic illness. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  43. Naur, P. (2008). The neural embodiment of mental life by the synapse-state theory. Gentofte: Naur.Com Publishing.Google Scholar
  44. Nevile, M. (2015). The embodied turn in research on language and social interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(2), 121–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nicolini, D. (2009). Zooming in and out: Studying practices by switching theoretical lenses and trailing connections. Organization Studies, 30(12), 1391–1418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nicolini, D. (2012). Practice theory, work, and organization—An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Nielsen, C. (2011). Towards applied integrationism: Integrating autism in teaching and coaching Sessions. Language Sciences, 33(4), 593–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nielsen, C. (2015). Senhjerneskade i et forståelsesperspektiv. In S. Frimann, M. Sørensen, & H. Wentzer (Eds.), Sammenhænge i sundhedskommunikation (pp. 247–281). Aalborg: Aalborg Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
  49. Orman, J. (2017). Indeterminacy in sociolinguistics and integrationist theory. In A. Pablé (Ed.), Critical humanist perspectives: The integrational turn in philosophy of language and communication (pp. 96–113). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Pablé, A., & Hutton, C. (2015). Signs, meaning and experience. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Parr, H. (2008). Mental health and social space: Towards inclusionary geographies? Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  52. Peirce, C. (1995). Pragmatisme og abduktion. In L. Andersen (Trans.), Semiotik og pragmatisme (pp. 163–178). København: Gyldendal (Origin. 1903).Google Scholar
  53. Perkins, L. (2003). Negotiating repair in aphasic conversation: Interactional issues. In C. Goodwin (Ed.), Conversation and brain damage (pp. 147–162). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Rae, J., & Ramey, M. (2015). Parents resources for facilitating the activities of children with autism at home. In J. N. Lester & M. O’Reilly (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of child mental health: Discourse and conversation studies (pp. 459–479). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  55. Raudaskoski, P. (1999). The use of communicative resources in language technology environments: A conversation analytic approach to semiosis at computer media. PhD dissertation, University of Oulu, Oulu.Google Scholar
  56. Raudaskoski, P. (2013). From understanding to participation: A relational approach to embodied practices. In T. Keisanen, E. Kärkkäinen, M. Rauniomaa, P. Siitonen, & M. Siromaa (Eds.), Multimodal discourses of participation, AfinLA yearbook (Vol. 71, pp. 103–121). Jyväskylä: Suomen Soveltavan Kielitieteen Yhdistyks (AFinLA).Google Scholar
  57. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Saldert, C., Johansson, C., & Wilkinson, R. (2015). An interaction-focused intervention approach to training everyday communication partners: A single case study. Aphasiology, 29(3), 378–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sarangi, S. (2007). The anatomy of interpretation: Coming to terms with the analyst’s paradox in professional discourse studies. Text and Talk, 27(5/6), 567–584.Google Scholar
  60. Schatzki, T. (2013). Activity as an indeterminate social event. In S. Reynolds, D. Egan, & A. Weneland (Eds.), Wittgenstein and Heidegger: Pathways and provocations (pp. 179–194). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  61. Schegloff, E. (1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97(5), 1295–1345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schegloff, E. (2001). Getting serious: Joke -> serious ‘no’ ✰. Squib. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1947–1955. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00073-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schegloff, E., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schegloff, E., Sacks, H., & Jefferson, G. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2004). Discourse and the emerging internet. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  66. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2007). Nexus analysis: Refocusing ethnography on action. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11(5), 608–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Simmons-Mackie, N., & Damico, J. (2008). Exposed and embedded corrections in aphasia therapy: Issues of voice and identity. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 43(1), 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Taylor, T., & Cameron, D. (1987). Analysing conversation—Rules and units in the structure of talk. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  69. ten Have, P. (2004). Understanding qualitative research and ethnomethodology. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wallace, S., Worrall, L., Rose, T., Dorze, G., Isaksen, J., Pak, A., et al. (2016). Which outcomes are most important to people with aphasia and their families? An international nominal group technique study framed within the ICF. Disability and Rehabilitation, 39(14), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wilkinson, R. (2011). Changing interactional behavior: Using conversation analysis in intervention programmes for aphasic conversation. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Applied conversation analysis: Intervention and change in institutional talk (pp. 32–53). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wilkinson, R., Bryan, K., Lock, S., Bayley, K., Maxim, J., Bruce, C., et al. (1998). Therapy using conversation analysis: Helping couples adapt to aphasia in conversation. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 33, 144–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Worsøe, L. (2014). Nye ord på nye måder: Nyorddannelse belyst fra et dynamisk sprog- og kognitionssyn. PhD dissertation, Københavns Universitet, København.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Communication and PsychologyAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations