Beyond the observer's paradox: The audio-recorder as a resource for the display of identity

Qualitative Research

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 299-317

  Gordon, Cynthia ^a  

^a SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

audio recording; discourse analysis; family communication; footing; frame; identity; observer effects; observer's paradox; qualitative methods; staged performance

Indexed keywords

EID: 84878459465     PISSN: 14687941     EISSN: 17413109     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1468794112442771     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Bateson GSteps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballantine Books; 1972:.
2. Bell A.Language style as audience design.Language in Society. 1984;13 (2): 145-204.
3. Bucholtz M,Hall K.Identity and interaction: a sociocultural linguistic approach.Discourse Studies. 2005;7 (4-5): 585-614.
4. Cameron DWomen Talk: Conversation between Women Friends. Oxford: Blackwell; 1996:.
5. Erickson FDiscourse and Technology: Multimodal Discourse Analysis (Proceedings of the Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics, 2002). Levine PScollon R, ed. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press; 2004:196-207.
6. Goffman EFrame Analysis. New York: Harper & Row; 1974:.
7. Goffman EForms of Talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press; 1981:.
8. Gordon CDiscourse & Society Family Talk: Discourse and Identity in Four American Families. Tannen DKendall SGordon C, ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2004:607 233-631 262.
9. Gordon CMaking Meanings, Creating Family: Intertextuality and Framing in Family Interaction. New York: Oxford University Press; 2009:.
10. Johnstone BQualitative Methods in Sociolinguistics. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000:.
11. Labov W.Some principles of linguistic methodology.Language in Society. 1972;1 (1): 97-120.
12. Monahan T,Fisher JA.Benefits of 'Observer Effects': lessons from the field.Qualitative Research. 2010;10 (3): 357-376.
13. Ochs E.Constructing social identity: a language socialization perspective.Research on Language and Social Interaction. 1993;26 (3): 287-306.
14. Schilling-Estes N.Investigating 'Self-Conscious' speech: the performance register in Ocracoke English.Language in Society. 1998;27 (1): 53-83.
15. Scollon R,Scollon SWNexus Analysis: Discourse and the Emerging Internet. New York: Routledge; 2004:.
16. Speer SThe SAGE Handbook of Social Research Methods. Alasuutari PBickman LBrannen J, ed. London: Sage; 2008:290-312.
17. Speer SA.'Natural' and 'Contrived' data: a sustainable distinction?.Discourse Studies. 2002a;4 (4): 511-525.
18. Speer SA.Transcending the 'Natural'/'Contrived' distinction: a rejoinder to ten Have, Lynch and Potter.Discourse Studies. 2002b;4 (4): 543-548.
19. Speer SA,Hutchby I.From ethics to analytics: aspects of participants' orientations to the presence and relevance of recording devices.Sociology. 2003;37 (2): 315-337.
20. Tannen DConversational Style: Analyzing Talk among Friends. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005 1989:.
21. Tannen D,Wallat CFraming in Discourse. Tannen D, ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1993:57-76.
22. Tannen D,Kendall S,Gordon CFamily Talk: Discourse and Identity in Four American Families. New York: Oxford University Press; 2007:.
23. Taylor CE.'You Think It Was a Fight?': co-constructing (the struggle for) meaning, face, and family in everyday narrative activity.Research on Language and Social Interaction. 1995;28 (3): 283-317.
24. Wertheim S.Cleaning up for company: using participant roles to understand fieldworker effect.Language in Society. 2006;35 (5): 707-727.
25. Wilson J.The sociolinguistic paradox: data as a methodological product.Language & Communication. 1987;7 (2): 161-177.
26. Wilson J.Paradoxes, sociolinguistics and everyday accounts.Multilingua: Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication. 1994;13 (3): 285-300.
27. Wolfson N.Speech events and natural speech: some implications for sociolinguistic methodology.Language in Society. 1976;5 (2): 189-209.