Difference between revisions of "Zhang2023"
(BibTeX auto import 2023-03-21 10:20:08) |
BogdanaHuma (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
| − | | | + | |BibType=ARTICLE |
| − | | | + | |Author(s)=Tianhao Zhang; |
|Title=Contesting Reports of Racism, Contesting the Rights to Assess | |Title=Contesting Reports of Racism, Contesting the Rights to Assess | ||
| − | |||
|Tag(s)=Membership Categorization; Racism | |Tag(s)=Membership Categorization; Racism | ||
| − | | | + | |Key=TZhang2023 |
|Year=2023 | |Year=2023 | ||
|Journal=Social Psychology Quarterly | |Journal=Social Psychology Quarterly | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
|URL=https://doi.org/10.1177/01902725221117834 | |URL=https://doi.org/10.1177/01902725221117834 | ||
|DOI=10.1177/01902725221117834 | |DOI=10.1177/01902725221117834 | ||
|Abstract=Analyzing a thread of online interaction, I apply conversation analysis and discursive psychology methods to explicate how experiences of racism are reported and contested by participants in interaction. The person reporting their experience of racism (the reporter) applies commonsense knowledge to assess the perpetrator's racist intent. Recipients of the report contest the reporter's rights to assess the perpetrator's intent while managing their lack of independent access to the reported encounter. In milder contestations, they cast doubt while avoiding assessing the situation themselves, which leads to negotiations over the accusation without contesting the correctness of the reporter's assessment. In aggravated contestations, recipients explicitly contest the reporter's assessment of the perpetrator, which leads to interactional breakdowns where moral culpabilities of both sides are implicated. Implications for understanding the moral difficulties involved in accusing racism, the interactional contingencies involved in responding to and contesting such accusations, and members’ understandings of racism are discussed. | |Abstract=Analyzing a thread of online interaction, I apply conversation analysis and discursive psychology methods to explicate how experiences of racism are reported and contested by participants in interaction. The person reporting their experience of racism (the reporter) applies commonsense knowledge to assess the perpetrator's racist intent. Recipients of the report contest the reporter's rights to assess the perpetrator's intent while managing their lack of independent access to the reported encounter. In milder contestations, they cast doubt while avoiding assessing the situation themselves, which leads to negotiations over the accusation without contesting the correctness of the reporter's assessment. In aggravated contestations, recipients explicitly contest the reporter's assessment of the perpetrator, which leads to interactional breakdowns where moral culpabilities of both sides are implicated. Implications for understanding the moral difficulties involved in accusing racism, the interactional contingencies involved in responding to and contesting such accusations, and members’ understandings of racism are discussed. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 23:21, 6 May 2023
| Zhang2023 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | TZhang2023 |
| Author(s) | Tianhao Zhang |
| Title | Contesting Reports of Racism, Contesting the Rights to Assess |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | Membership Categorization, Racism |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2023 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Social Psychology Quarterly |
| Volume | |
| Number | |
| Pages | |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/01902725221117834 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Analyzing a thread of online interaction, I apply conversation analysis and discursive psychology methods to explicate how experiences of racism are reported and contested by participants in interaction. The person reporting their experience of racism (the reporter) applies commonsense knowledge to assess the perpetrator's racist intent. Recipients of the report contest the reporter's rights to assess the perpetrator's intent while managing their lack of independent access to the reported encounter. In milder contestations, they cast doubt while avoiding assessing the situation themselves, which leads to negotiations over the accusation without contesting the correctness of the reporter's assessment. In aggravated contestations, recipients explicitly contest the reporter's assessment of the perpetrator, which leads to interactional breakdowns where moral culpabilities of both sides are implicated. Implications for understanding the moral difficulties involved in accusing racism, the interactional contingencies involved in responding to and contesting such accusations, and members’ understandings of racism are discussed.
Notes
