Difference between revisions of "Lavin2001"
(Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Danielle Lavin; Douglas W. Maynard; |Title=Standardization vs. rapport: Respondent laughter and interviewer reaction during telephone s...") |
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Danielle Lavin; Douglas W. Maynard; | + | |Author(s)=Danielle Lavin; Douglas W. Maynard; |
|Title=Standardization vs. rapport: Respondent laughter and interviewer reaction during telephone surveys | |Title=Standardization vs. rapport: Respondent laughter and interviewer reaction during telephone surveys | ||
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Interviews; Laughter; Telephone Surveys | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Interviews; Laughter; Telephone Surveys | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
|Pages=453-479 | |Pages=453-479 | ||
|URL=http://www.jstor.org/stable/3088888 | |URL=http://www.jstor.org/stable/3088888 | ||
| + | |Abstract=Laughter emerges naturally in interaction. -In the context of the telephone survey interview, however, laughter threatens standardization. Consequently, some survey research centers prohibit interviewers from laughing during the administration of surveys. The data for this study are recorded telephone interviews from one such survey research center How interviewers handle the "laughter invitations" of respondents is analyzed. Because these interviewers are not taught what to do when laughter occurs, they rely on their tacit knowledge, either accepting the invitation, declining it, or engaging in "pseudo-laughter": Interviewers most often decline or use a pseudo-laughing response. Laughter patterns in a survey research center that does not prohibit interviewer laughter are examined for comparison, and generally much more reciprocation and laughter are observed. Respondent laughter exhibits a central tension in the telephone survey interview: How can interviewers maintain both standardization and an appropriately affiliative social relationship with respondents? The differential management of this tension is explored in terms of survey methodology, the sociology of (social) scientific knowledge, and the organization of talk in institutional settings. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 03:44, 22 July 2019
| Lavin2001 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Lavin2001 |
| Author(s) | Danielle Lavin, Douglas W. Maynard |
| Title | Standardization vs. rapport: Respondent laughter and interviewer reaction during telephone surveys |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Interviews, Laughter, Telephone Surveys |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2001 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | American Sociological Review |
| Volume | 66 |
| Number | 3 |
| Pages | 453-479 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Laughter emerges naturally in interaction. -In the context of the telephone survey interview, however, laughter threatens standardization. Consequently, some survey research centers prohibit interviewers from laughing during the administration of surveys. The data for this study are recorded telephone interviews from one such survey research center How interviewers handle the "laughter invitations" of respondents is analyzed. Because these interviewers are not taught what to do when laughter occurs, they rely on their tacit knowledge, either accepting the invitation, declining it, or engaging in "pseudo-laughter": Interviewers most often decline or use a pseudo-laughing response. Laughter patterns in a survey research center that does not prohibit interviewer laughter are examined for comparison, and generally much more reciprocation and laughter are observed. Respondent laughter exhibits a central tension in the telephone survey interview: How can interviewers maintain both standardization and an appropriately affiliative social relationship with respondents? The differential management of this tension is explored in terms of survey methodology, the sociology of (social) scientific knowledge, and the organization of talk in institutional settings.
Notes
