Two traditions of interaction research

Abstract

The paper compares Bales' Interaction Process Analysis (IPA) with Sacks' Conversation Analysis (CA), arguing that CA has answered several questions that originally motivated the development of IPA, and while doing so, it has re-specified the phenomena of interaction research. These two research traditions are in many ways diametrically opposed: the former is quantitative, theory-oriented and aims at global characterizations of interactional situations, while the latter is qualitative, inductive and aims at characterizing specific layers of organization (such as turn taking or sequence organization) that give structure to interactional situations. Their primary objects of study are different. For the Balesian tradition, it is the functioning and the structure of a small group, whereas in the Sacksian tradition, it is the structures and practices of human social interaction per se. It is argued, however, that CA has radically expanded understanding of the questions IPA was originally developed to address. These questions include allocation of resources, control and solidarity. Bales' research deals with them in terms of the differentiation of participants of a group, whereas CA has re-specified them as emergent aspects of the very rules and structures that constitute and regulate interaction sequences. The uniqueness of the CA perspective on social interaction is demonstrated by exploring the display of emotion as an interactional phenomenon. It is argued that the display of emotion is intrinsically embedded in the sequential organization of action. Sensitive 'coding and counting' approaches can detect emotion displays, but the contribution of CA is to show the specific ways in which they are part of the business of interaction.

Do community pharmacists actively engage elderly patients in the dialogue? Results from pharmaceutical care consultations

“…Current approaches to studying provider–patient interaction made use of different theories of science communication . Two common, though distinct, main methodologies are conversation analysis (CA) and interaction process analysis (IPA) . Avoiding going into much detail, CA describes structures that form and regulate specific sequences of interaction, investigating the contextual quality of dyad's utterances and the emotional content .…”

Communicating about medications during primary care outpatient visits: the role of electronic medical records

“…The analysis was based on conversation analysis and ethnomethodology. 11 This method analyses interactions as they naturally occur and identifies emergent components of conversation. 12 In-depth analysis of a subset of 20 encounters of polypharmacy patients was also performed.…”

Análisis de la Conversación: Psicoterapia de adolescentes depresivos con intento de suicidio en contexto hospitalario

“…Esta noción cooperativa de la conversación permite que el lenguaje privado del adolescente se conozca y se organice en la psicoterapia, definiendo y objetivando su problemática. En este sentido, el lenguaje en la conversación psicoterapéutica es una forma de interacción que compromete a los interlocutores en su construcción, creando un campo de acción organizado que mantiene las intersubjetividades (Peräkyla, 2004;Villalta, 2009). En consecuencia, la interacción psicoterapéutica es una co-construcción con normas, procedimientos y de acción conjunta e interdependiente entre psicoterapeuta-consultante, que mantiene las intersubjetividades de ambos interlocutores, los confirma en sus identidades y los orienta al logro de sus propósitos y de sus objetivos en un contexto psicoterapéutico particular, siempre vinculados por el lenguaje en su función interactiva -ilocutiva y perlocutiva- (Peräkyla, 2004;Pomerantz & Fehr 2000;Kondratyuk & Peräkyla, 2011).…”

“…Una perspectiva de análisis que explora y permite comprender la construcción interactiva de los diálogos en la psicoterapia es el Análisis de la Conversación (AC), que se focaliza en la inter-relación detallada de procesos se-cuenciales e intersubjetivos producidos en la interdependencia de interlocutores situados en contextos específicos (Peräkyla, 2004;Villalta, 2009). En este sentido, el lenguaje desde su función interactiva -ilocutiva y perlocutiva-integra los niveles jerárquicos de la lingüística interaccional con la etnografía de la comunicación (Kebrat-Orecchioni, 1998;Hernández, 2000;Villalta, 2009), dando cuenta del concepto de Intercambio -unidad mínima del lenguaje en la mirada dialogal-que permite describir a la psicoterapia como una estructura dialogal co-construida, colaborativa y vinculante de interlocutores ubicados en un determinado contexto.…”