2004
Volume 27, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 1385-1535
  • E-ISSN: 1875-7324

Abstract

Abstract

The immense increase of digital communication in all spheres of human life has led to a need for qualitative research approaches to study this development. This article sets out the contours of a qualitative micro-analytical approach to online and digitally mediated communication called ‘digital conversation analysis’. It describes its emergence, explains its relation to Conversation Analysis (CA) and Discursive Psychology and outlines its main characteristics. Digital CA is illustrated by providing an analytical example of sharing news in WhatsApp interactions between friends. Despite several challenges, digital CA may be a promising research approach that can be applied in various academic disciplines.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/KWA2022.1.006.STOM
2022-04-01
2022-05-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arminen, I., Licoppe, C., & Spagnolli, A. (2016). Respecifying mediated interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1234614
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Ditchfield, H. (2021). Ethical challenges in collecting and analysing online interactions. In J.Meredith, D.Giles, & W.Stommel (Eds.), Analysing digital interaction (pp. 23-40). Palgrave.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Prentice Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Gibson, J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Giles, D., Stommel, W., Paulus, T., Lester, J.N., & Reed, D. (2015). The microanalysis of online data: The methodological development of ‘digital CA’. Discourse, Context & Media, 7, 45-51. https://doi:10.1016/j.dcm.2014.12.002
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis; an essay on the organization of experience. Harper.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In M.Atkinson & J.Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 299-345). Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Hutchby, I. (2001). Conversation and technology: From the telephone to the internet. Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Hutchby, I., & Tanna, V. (2008). Aspects of sequential organization in text message exchange. Discourse and Communication, 2(2), 143-164.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Licoppe, C. (2017). Showing objects in Skype video-mediated conversations: From showing gestures to showing sequences. Journal of Pragmatics, 110, 63-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.01.007
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Licoppe, C., & Morel, J. (2012). Video-in-interaction: ‘Talking heads’ and the multimodal organization of mobile and skype video calls. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(4), 399-429. https://doi:10.1080/08351813.2012.724996
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Meredith, J., Giles, D., & Stommel, W. (2021). Analyzing digital interaction. Palgrave.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Meredith, J., & Stokoe, L. (2014). Repair: Comparing Facebook ‘chat’ with spoken interaction. Discourse and Communication, 8(2), 181-207. https://doi:10.1177/1750481313510815
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Mondada, L. (2014). The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 65, 137-156.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 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 University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Reed, D.J. (2017). Performance and interaction on Soundcloud: Social remix and the fundamental techniques of conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 115, 82-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.01.012
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (Eds.). (2013). The handbook of conversation analysis. Blackwell Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Stokoe, E., & Sikveland, R.O. (2017). The conversation analytic role-play method. Theoretical Scholarship and Applied Practice, 11, 73-96.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Stommel, W., & De Rijk, L. (2021). Ethical approval: none sought. How discourse analysts report ethical issues around publicly available online data. Research Ethics, 17(3), 275-297. https://doi:10.1177/1747016120988767
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Stommel, W., Paulus, T.M., & Atkins, D. (2017). ‘Here’s the link’: Hyperlinking in service-focused chat interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 115, 56-67.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Stommel, W., Paulus, T.M., & Giles, D. (2017). The microanalysis of online data (Special Section). Journal of Pragmatics, 115, 37-129.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Stommel, W., & Te Molder, H. (2015). Counselling online and over the phone: When pre-closing questions fail as a closing device. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(3), 281-300. https://doi:10.1080/08351813.2015.1058605
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Ten Have, P. (2006). Conversatieanalyse: Orde in de details. KWALON 32, 11(2), 16-22. https://doi:10.5117/2006.011.002.007
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Xie, Y., & De Kok, B. (2020). Discursive psychology: an overview. KWALON 74, 25(2), 27-35. https://doi:10.5117/2020.025.002.004
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/KWA2022.1.006.STOM
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/KWA2022.1.006.STOM
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error