Difference between revisions of "Tennent2019"
BogdanaHuma (talk | contribs) (BibTeX auto import 2019-09-01 02:47:45) |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
| − | | | + | |BibType=ARTICLE |
| − | | | + | |Author(s)=Emma Tennent; |
|Title=‘Do you think it’s a crime?’ Building joint understanding of victimisation in calls for help | |Title=‘Do you think it’s a crime?’ Building joint understanding of victimisation in calls for help | ||
| − | |||
|Tag(s)=EMCA; MCA; accounts; disavowals; calls for help; descriptions of experience; helpline; offers; requests; social interaction; victim of crime; Victim Support; victimisation; New Zealand | |Tag(s)=EMCA; MCA; accounts; disavowals; calls for help; descriptions of experience; helpline; offers; requests; social interaction; victim of crime; Victim Support; victimisation; New Zealand | ||
| − | | | + | |Key=Tennent2019 |
|Year=2019 | |Year=2019 | ||
| + | |Language=English | ||
|Journal=Discourse & Society | |Journal=Discourse & Society | ||
|Volume=30 | |Volume=30 | ||
|Number=6 | |Number=6 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=636–652 |
| − | |URL=https://doi | + | |URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0957926519870040 |
|DOI=10.1177/0957926519870040 | |DOI=10.1177/0957926519870040 | ||
|Abstract=Society has a moral obligation to help victims, but who is recognised as a victim is a contentious issue. Social interaction is a key site where shared understandings of victimisation are built. This article analyses calls to a Victim Support helpline using conversation analysis and membership categorisation analysis. Callers described experiences of crimes to account for requesting help. Call-takers claimed the rights to describe and assess callers’ experiences in terms of institutional constraints. Call-takers disavowed the category crime to deny callers’ requests and ascribed the category crime to accountably offer help. Participants negotiated their respective rights to describe callers’ experiences and determine the kind of help needed. The analyses demonstrate how participants’ different understandings of victimisation were consequential for the delivery or withholding of support. | |Abstract=Society has a moral obligation to help victims, but who is recognised as a victim is a contentious issue. Social interaction is a key site where shared understandings of victimisation are built. This article analyses calls to a Victim Support helpline using conversation analysis and membership categorisation analysis. Callers described experiences of crimes to account for requesting help. Call-takers claimed the rights to describe and assess callers’ experiences in terms of institutional constraints. Call-takers disavowed the category crime to deny callers’ requests and ascribed the category crime to accountably offer help. Participants negotiated their respective rights to describe callers’ experiences and determine the kind of help needed. The analyses demonstrate how participants’ different understandings of victimisation were consequential for the delivery or withholding of support. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 10:48, 15 January 2020
| Tennent2019 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Tennent2019 |
| Author(s) | Emma Tennent |
| Title | ‘Do you think it’s a crime?’ Building joint understanding of victimisation in calls for help |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, MCA, accounts, disavowals, calls for help, descriptions of experience, helpline, offers, requests, social interaction, victim of crime, Victim Support, victimisation, New Zealand |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2019 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Discourse & Society |
| Volume | 30 |
| Number | 6 |
| Pages | 636–652 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/0957926519870040 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Society has a moral obligation to help victims, but who is recognised as a victim is a contentious issue. Social interaction is a key site where shared understandings of victimisation are built. This article analyses calls to a Victim Support helpline using conversation analysis and membership categorisation analysis. Callers described experiences of crimes to account for requesting help. Call-takers claimed the rights to describe and assess callers’ experiences in terms of institutional constraints. Call-takers disavowed the category crime to deny callers’ requests and ascribed the category crime to accountably offer help. Participants negotiated their respective rights to describe callers’ experiences and determine the kind of help needed. The analyses demonstrate how participants’ different understandings of victimisation were consequential for the delivery or withholding of support.
Notes
