Difference between revisions of "Froholdt2011"
BurakTekin (talk | contribs) |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Author(s)=Lisa Loloma Froholdt | |Author(s)=Lisa Loloma Froholdt | ||
|Title=Getting closer to context: A case study of communication between ship and shore in an emergency situation | |Title=Getting closer to context: A case study of communication between ship and shore in an emergency situation | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation Analysis; Context; Accountability; Emotion; Culture; Emergency Calls; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation Analysis; Context; Accountability; Emotion; Culture; Emergency Calls; |
|Key=Froholdt2011 | |Key=Froholdt2011 | ||
|Year=2011 | |Year=2011 | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Volume=30 | |Volume=30 | ||
|Number=4 | |Number=4 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=385–402 |
|URL=https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/text.2010.30.issue-4/text.2010.019/text.2010.019.xml | |URL=https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/text.2010.30.issue-4/text.2010.019/text.2010.019.xml | ||
| − | |DOI= | + | |DOI=10.1515/text.2010.019 |
|Abstract=This article argues for the use of other measures when analyzing human error in cross-cultural communication than the more traditional functionalist approaches to culture (Askehave et al., Culture in a business context, Academica, 2006), such as Hofstede's cultural dimensions. Using a case study, the behavior of a crew member in an emergency situation which was retrospectively ascribed as human error due to cultural background by a shipping company, the article analyzes what was contextually relevant for the participants and argues that cross-cultural interaction is not merely a linguistic challenge. | |Abstract=This article argues for the use of other measures when analyzing human error in cross-cultural communication than the more traditional functionalist approaches to culture (Askehave et al., Culture in a business context, Academica, 2006), such as Hofstede's cultural dimensions. Using a case study, the behavior of a crew member in an emergency situation which was retrospectively ascribed as human error due to cultural background by a shipping company, the article analyzes what was contextually relevant for the participants and argues that cross-cultural interaction is not merely a linguistic challenge. | ||
This article examines how accountability is managed and how nonnative speakers orient toward and manage potential human error, using an interpretative approach in the form of discursive psychology, principles of conversation analysis, and Wittgenstein's philosophy as the point of departure. The analysis discusses how the participants use different strategies to accomplish accountability in an emergency context, such as emotion categories, discursive remembering. It is argued that the interpretative approach can provide the contextual sense-making analyses that Dekker (Human Factors and Aerospace Safety 1: 247–265, 2001, Dekker, The field guide to human error investigations, Ashgate & Cranfield University Press, 2002, Dekker, The field guide to understanding human error, Ashgate, 2006) is in search of when analyzing human error (Nevile and Walker, Human Factors and Aerospace Safety 5: 109–135, 2005). | This article examines how accountability is managed and how nonnative speakers orient toward and manage potential human error, using an interpretative approach in the form of discursive psychology, principles of conversation analysis, and Wittgenstein's philosophy as the point of departure. The analysis discusses how the participants use different strategies to accomplish accountability in an emergency context, such as emotion categories, discursive remembering. It is argued that the interpretative approach can provide the contextual sense-making analyses that Dekker (Human Factors and Aerospace Safety 1: 247–265, 2001, Dekker, The field guide to human error investigations, Ashgate & Cranfield University Press, 2002, Dekker, The field guide to understanding human error, Ashgate, 2006) is in search of when analyzing human error (Nevile and Walker, Human Factors and Aerospace Safety 5: 109–135, 2005). | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 00:44, 29 November 2019
| Froholdt2011 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Froholdt2011 |
| Author(s) | Lisa Loloma Froholdt |
| Title | Getting closer to context: A case study of communication between ship and shore in an emergency situation |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Conversation Analysis, Context, Accountability, Emotion, Culture, Emergency Calls |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2011 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Text & Talk |
| Volume | 30 |
| Number | 4 |
| Pages | 385–402 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1515/text.2010.019 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This article argues for the use of other measures when analyzing human error in cross-cultural communication than the more traditional functionalist approaches to culture (Askehave et al., Culture in a business context, Academica, 2006), such as Hofstede's cultural dimensions. Using a case study, the behavior of a crew member in an emergency situation which was retrospectively ascribed as human error due to cultural background by a shipping company, the article analyzes what was contextually relevant for the participants and argues that cross-cultural interaction is not merely a linguistic challenge.
This article examines how accountability is managed and how nonnative speakers orient toward and manage potential human error, using an interpretative approach in the form of discursive psychology, principles of conversation analysis, and Wittgenstein's philosophy as the point of departure. The analysis discusses how the participants use different strategies to accomplish accountability in an emergency context, such as emotion categories, discursive remembering. It is argued that the interpretative approach can provide the contextual sense-making analyses that Dekker (Human Factors and Aerospace Safety 1: 247–265, 2001, Dekker, The field guide to human error investigations, Ashgate & Cranfield University Press, 2002, Dekker, The field guide to understanding human error, Ashgate, 2006) is in search of when analyzing human error (Nevile and Walker, Human Factors and Aerospace Safety 5: 109–135, 2005).
Notes
