A Coding Scheme for Other-initiated Repair
Across Languages

Dingemanse, Mark; Kendrick, Kobin H.; Enfield, N. J.

doi:10.1515/opli-2016-0002

Cited by 23 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…CA has therefore tended to use inductive, observational forms of generalization such as building collections of cases containing hundreds of recorded clips of related interactional phenomena and subjecting them to repeated qualitative analysis (Hoey & Kendrick, 2017;Schegloff, 1996) and informal peer review via group "data sessions" (De Ruiter & Albert, 2017). However, recent developments suggest that certain types of repair can be very amenable to coding and quantification for statistical analysis (Dingemanse, Kendrick, & Enfield, 2016). Although there is a clear methodological and philosophical distinction between the descriptive methods of CA and formally testable experimental hypotheses (Nishizaka, 2015) these distinct approaches can be-at the very least-mutually inspiring (Steensig & Heinemann, 2015) and may-at best-lead to new and much-needed interfaces between conversation analysis and experimental methods in interaction research (De Ruiter & Albert, 2017).…”

Section: New Interfaces Between Cognitive Science and Conversation Anmentioning

confidence: 99%

Repair: The Interface Between Interaction and Cognition

Albert

Ruiter

2018

Topics in Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conversational repair is the process people use to detect and resolve problems of speaking, hearing, and understanding. Through repair, participants in social interaction display how they establish and maintain communication and mutual understanding. We argue that repair provides a crucial theoretical interface for research between diverse approaches to studying human interaction. We provide an overview of conversation analytic findings about repair in order to encourage further cross-disciplinary research involving both detailed inductive inquiry and more theory-driven experimental approaches. We outline CA's main typologies of repair and its methodological rationale, and we provide transcripts and examples that readers can explore for themselves using open data from online corpora. Since participants in interaction use repair to deal with problems as they emerge at the surface level of talk, we conclude that repair can be a point of convergence for studying mis/communication from multiple methodological perspectives.

show abstract

Section: New Interfaces Between Cognitive Science and Conversation Anmentioning

confidence: 99%

Repair: The Interface Between Interaction and Cognition

Albert

Ruiter

2018

Topics in Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In practice, detailed, reproducible schema for coding social behaviors (e.g. Dingemanse, Kendrick, and Enfield (2016); Stivers and Enfield (2010)) are rarely published, and many studies simply report a procedurally unspecified ' qualitative' phase before going on to test ecologically ungrounded theories (Hepburn & Potter, 2011). Furthermore, Potter and te Molder (2005) point out that experiments rarely involve detailed, empirical studies of naturalistic interaction, so ecologically ungrounded variables and untested assumptions are imported directly in to experimental designs.…”

Section: The Risk Of Too Much Inductive Flexibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving Human Interaction Research through Ecological Grounding

Albert

Ruiter

2018

Collabra: Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In psychology, we tend to follow the general logic of falsificationism: we separate the 'context of discovery' (how we come up with theories) from the 'context of justification' (how we test them). However, when studying human interaction, separating these contexts can lead to theories with low ecological validity that do not generalize well to life outside the lab. We propose borrowing research procedures from well-established inductive methodologies in interaction research during the process of discovering new regularities and analyzing natural data without being led by theory. We introduce research procedures including the use of naturalistic study settings, analytic transcription, collections of cases, and data analysis sessions, and illustrate these with examples from a successful cross-disciplinary study. We argue that if these procedures are used systematically and transparently throughout a research cycle, they will lead to more robust and ecologically valid theories about interaction within psychology and, with some adaptation, can enhance the reproducibility of research across many other areas of psychological science.

show abstract

Section: The Risk Of Too Much Inductive Flexibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thankfully this form of cross-disciplinary exchange is already happening in the other direction. CA researchers are beginning to adapt their research processes of transcription, collection and detailed procedural analysis to create coding schema (Dingemanse et al, 2016;Stivers, 2015;Stivers & Enfield, 2010) and to quantify phenomena for statistical tests and experimental studies. These developments are opening up new opportunities for laboratory-based studies (Kendrick, 2017) and new cross-disciplinary methods of replicating and testing the reliability of experimental designs (Hofstetter, 2018).…”

Section: Conclusion: Ecological Grounding For Greater Reproducibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving human interaction research through ecological grounding (in press at Collabra)

Albert¹,

Ruiter²

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In psychology, we tend to follow the general logic of falsificationism: we separate the ‘context of discovery’ (how we come up with theories) from the ‘context of justification’ (how we test them). However, when studying human interaction, separating these contexts can lead to theories with low ecological validity that do not generalize well to life outside the lab. We propose borrowing research procedures from well-established inductive methodologies in interaction research during the process of discovering new regularities and analyzing natural data without being led by theory. We introduce research procedures including the use of naturalistic study settings, analytic transcription, collections of cases, and data analysis sessions, and illustrate these with examples from a successful cross-disciplinary study. We argue that if these procedures are used systematically and transparently throughout a research cycle, they will lead to more robust and ecologically valid theories about interaction within psychology and, with some adaptation, can enhance the reproducibility of research across many other areas of psychological science.

show abstract

A Coding Scheme for Other-initiated Repair Across Languages

Cited by 23 publications

References 40 publications

Repair: The Interface Between Interaction and Cognition

Repair: The Interface Between Interaction and Cognition

Improving Human Interaction Research through Ecological Grounding

Improving human interaction research through ecological grounding (in press at Collabra)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About