View source for ICCA 2018 panel call on accountability for intersubjectivity

{{Announcement
|Announcement Type=Conference
|Full title=ICCA 2018 panel call on accountability for intersubjectivity
|Short title=ICCA2018-AI-call
|Short summary=ICCA 2018 panel call: Accountability for intersubjectivity from Tom Koole & Aino Koivisto - deadline 4th September!
|Announcement text=Dear colleagues,

Tom Koole and I  are planning a panel on Accountability for intersubjectivity for the ICCA-18 conference in Loughborough 11–15 July, 2018. Please find the panel abstract below.
If you would like to participate, please contact us  before September 4.

Best wishes,
Tom Koole (tom.koole@rug.nl) and Aino Koivisto (aino.koivisto@helsinki.fi)
 
Accountability for intersubjectivity

Establishing and maintaining intersubjectivity in interaction is in principle a task and a responsibility of all participants (Heritage 1984; Robinson 2016). Yet we often see occasions and encounters in which one party assumes primary responsibility. This suggests that for participants accountability for intersubjectivity is not necessarily evenly distributed. Participants may hold themselves accountable for intersubjectivity, e.g. by checking their correct understanding or by checking the other party’s understanding, and for a lack of intersubjectivity, e.g. by producing explicit claims of now-understanding after an initial failure to understand (Koivisto 2015), and they may assign responsibility to another party. For example in other-initiation of repair the responsibility is generally placed with the producer of the trouble-source. However, there are specific interactional tools with which the repair initiators may hold themselves accountable, such as apology-based formats (sorry) (Robinson 2006) and using a repair receipt (Finnish particle aa) as a sign of problem-resolution (Koivisto 2015). Koole (2010) showed that in encounters between math teachers and students, in most cases the teacher assumes responsibility for the student’s understanding by producing checks such as ‘now you do understand?’ while in fewer cases a student formulates her understanding (e.g. ‘oh five times fifteen is what you do’) and thus assumes responsibility. We see these phenomena more generally in institutional encounters that centre around informing, instructing and/or decision-making such as call-centre calls and educational and clinical encounters: one of the participants assumes primary responsibility for establishing intersubjective meaning. In this panel we aim to explore the practices that are used to assume accountability for intersubjectivity as well as the sequential and institutional contexts in which these practices are used. The panel is open to analyses both of mundane and institutional data.

* Heritage, John (1984) Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology, Cambridge: Polity Press
* Koivisto, Aino (2015) Displaying Now-Understanding: The Finnish Change-of-State Token aa, Discourse Processes, 52:111–148, 2015
* Koivisto, Aino (2017) Repair receipts in maintaining and restoring intersubjectivity, paper presented at the Intersubjectivity in Action conference, Helsinki 11-13 May 2017
* Koole, Tom (2010) Displays of epistemic access. Student responses to teacher explanations, Research on Language and Social Interaction, vol. 43, issue 2, 183-209
* Robinson, Jeffrey D. (2006) Managing Trouble Responsibility and Relationships During Conversational Repair, Communication Monographs Vol. 73, No. 2, pp. 137-161
* Robinson, Jeffrey D. (ed.) (2016) Accountability in Social Interaction, Oxford: Oxford University Press
|Year=2018
|Categories (tags)=Uncategorized;
|From date=2018/08/22
|To date=2018/09/04
|Address=Loughborough University
|Location=52.769227, -1.224632
|Abstract due=2017/09/04
|Submission deadline=2017/09/30
}}