Difference between revisions of "Cromdal2012a"
JakobCromdal (talk | contribs) m |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Volume=14 | |Volume=14 | ||
|Number=4 | |Number=4 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=371–397 |
| − | |URL= | + | |URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1461445612439960 |
|DOI=10.1177/1461445612439960 | |DOI=10.1177/1461445612439960 | ||
|Abstract=This article examines two corpora of telephone calls to the Swedish emergency services SOS-Alarm. The focus of analysis is on the procedural consequentiality of the routine opening by the operator. In the first corpus, the summons are answered by identification of the service via the emergency number. In the second corpus, the protocol has been altered, such that the opening entails the emergency number combined with a standard query concerning the nature of the incident. Through sequential and categorial analysis of the two collections, we highlight the distinct trajectories of action ensuing from the two opening protocols. The stand-alone emergency number opening typically results in callers asking for a specific service. In contrast, opening turns that end with a direct query about the incident tend to solicit brief descriptions of the trouble. We discuss the benefits of the latter procedure in terms of topical progression and institutional relevance, proposing that the work of emergency assistance agencies worldwide might consider implementing opening routines with a similar design. | |Abstract=This article examines two corpora of telephone calls to the Swedish emergency services SOS-Alarm. The focus of analysis is on the procedural consequentiality of the routine opening by the operator. In the first corpus, the summons are answered by identification of the service via the emergency number. In the second corpus, the protocol has been altered, such that the opening entails the emergency number combined with a standard query concerning the nature of the incident. Through sequential and categorial analysis of the two collections, we highlight the distinct trajectories of action ensuing from the two opening protocols. The stand-alone emergency number opening typically results in callers asking for a specific service. In contrast, opening turns that end with a direct query about the incident tend to solicit brief descriptions of the trouble. We discuss the benefits of the latter procedure in terms of topical progression and institutional relevance, proposing that the work of emergency assistance agencies worldwide might consider implementing opening routines with a similar design. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 11:31, 30 November 2019
| Cromdal2012a | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Cromdal2012a |
| Author(s) | Jakob Cromdal, Håkan Landqvist, Daniel Persson-Thunqvist, Karin Osvaldsson |
| Title | Finding out what's happened: Two procedures for opening emergency calls |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Conversation Analysis, Ethnomethodology, Emergency Calls, Helplines, Institutional interaction, Service calls, Work, Talk-in-interaction |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2012 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Discourse Studies |
| Volume | 14 |
| Number | 4 |
| Pages | 371–397 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/1461445612439960 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This article examines two corpora of telephone calls to the Swedish emergency services SOS-Alarm. The focus of analysis is on the procedural consequentiality of the routine opening by the operator. In the first corpus, the summons are answered by identification of the service via the emergency number. In the second corpus, the protocol has been altered, such that the opening entails the emergency number combined with a standard query concerning the nature of the incident. Through sequential and categorial analysis of the two collections, we highlight the distinct trajectories of action ensuing from the two opening protocols. The stand-alone emergency number opening typically results in callers asking for a specific service. In contrast, opening turns that end with a direct query about the incident tend to solicit brief descriptions of the trouble. We discuss the benefits of the latter procedure in terms of topical progression and institutional relevance, proposing that the work of emergency assistance agencies worldwide might consider implementing opening routines with a similar design.
Notes
