Difference between revisions of "Montiegel2024"
JakubMlynar (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Kristella Montiegel; |Title=Invoking time limits for managing responses in US Senate Judiciary Committee lower court nomination hearings...") |
BogdanaHuma (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Author(s)=Kristella Montiegel; | |Author(s)=Kristella Montiegel; | ||
|Title=Invoking time limits for managing responses in US Senate Judiciary Committee lower court nomination hearings | |Title=Invoking time limits for managing responses in US Senate Judiciary Committee lower court nomination hearings | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation analysis; Institutional talk; Partisanship; Questions and answers; Senate Judiciary Committee; Time limits |
|Key=Montiegel2024 | |Key=Montiegel2024 | ||
|Year=2024 | |Year=2024 | ||
|Language=English | |Language=English | ||
|Journal=Discourse Studies | |Journal=Discourse Studies | ||
| + | |Volume=26 | ||
| + | |Number=6 | ||
| + | |Pages=778-798 | ||
|URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/eprint/U9GZGJPGA5U9S8CQIJWD/full | |URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/eprint/U9GZGJPGA5U9S8CQIJWD/full | ||
|DOI=10.1177/14614456241252597 | |DOI=10.1177/14614456241252597 | ||
|Abstract=This study uses Conversation Analysis to investigate an interactional practice in US Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) lower court nomination hearings. Drawing from 13 hr and 36 min of data from Q&A rounds across 12 SJC hearings during 2020 and 2022, I document how senators’ invocations of the hearing’s time limits function as a resource for managing judicial nominees’ responses to their questions. I examine senators’ time invocations (TIs) in two main sequential areas: (1) When designing questions, and (2) when pursuing or challenging nominees’ responses. As a feature of question design, TIs help senators ‘move things along’ during their brief questioning time, as well as pin nominees to respond in ways preferable to the question. As a feature of pursuits or challenges, TIs help senators manage nominees’ off-topic, evasive, or unsound responses, thus ascribing different levels of accountability onto both nominees (for their inadequate responses to senators’ initial questions) and senators themselves (for the sequential and affiliative consequences associated with doing pursuing/challenging). Seven extracts are presented from a collection of 82 cases. Findings reveal how time limits can be leveraged by senators to advance various goals in this highly constrained and institutionalized context, including exhibiting and implicitly legitimizing partisan bias. | |Abstract=This study uses Conversation Analysis to investigate an interactional practice in US Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) lower court nomination hearings. Drawing from 13 hr and 36 min of data from Q&A rounds across 12 SJC hearings during 2020 and 2022, I document how senators’ invocations of the hearing’s time limits function as a resource for managing judicial nominees’ responses to their questions. I examine senators’ time invocations (TIs) in two main sequential areas: (1) When designing questions, and (2) when pursuing or challenging nominees’ responses. As a feature of question design, TIs help senators ‘move things along’ during their brief questioning time, as well as pin nominees to respond in ways preferable to the question. As a feature of pursuits or challenges, TIs help senators manage nominees’ off-topic, evasive, or unsound responses, thus ascribing different levels of accountability onto both nominees (for their inadequate responses to senators’ initial questions) and senators themselves (for the sequential and affiliative consequences associated with doing pursuing/challenging). Seven extracts are presented from a collection of 82 cases. Findings reveal how time limits can be leveraged by senators to advance various goals in this highly constrained and institutionalized context, including exhibiting and implicitly legitimizing partisan bias. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 12:34, 20 November 2024
| Montiegel2024 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Montiegel2024 |
| Author(s) | Kristella Montiegel |
| Title | Invoking time limits for managing responses in US Senate Judiciary Committee lower court nomination hearings |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Conversation analysis, Institutional talk, Partisanship, Questions and answers, Senate Judiciary Committee, Time limits |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2024 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Discourse Studies |
| Volume | 26 |
| Number | 6 |
| Pages | 778-798 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/14614456241252597 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This study uses Conversation Analysis to investigate an interactional practice in US Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) lower court nomination hearings. Drawing from 13 hr and 36 min of data from Q&A rounds across 12 SJC hearings during 2020 and 2022, I document how senators’ invocations of the hearing’s time limits function as a resource for managing judicial nominees’ responses to their questions. I examine senators’ time invocations (TIs) in two main sequential areas: (1) When designing questions, and (2) when pursuing or challenging nominees’ responses. As a feature of question design, TIs help senators ‘move things along’ during their brief questioning time, as well as pin nominees to respond in ways preferable to the question. As a feature of pursuits or challenges, TIs help senators manage nominees’ off-topic, evasive, or unsound responses, thus ascribing different levels of accountability onto both nominees (for their inadequate responses to senators’ initial questions) and senators themselves (for the sequential and affiliative consequences associated with doing pursuing/challenging). Seven extracts are presented from a collection of 82 cases. Findings reveal how time limits can be leveraged by senators to advance various goals in this highly constrained and institutionalized context, including exhibiting and implicitly legitimizing partisan bias.
Notes
