Difference between revisions of "GRaymond2016"
BogdanaHuma (talk | contribs) m |
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Author(s)=Geoffrey Raymond; Don H. Zimmerman; | |Author(s)=Geoffrey Raymond; Don H. Zimmerman; | ||
|Title=Closing matters: alignment and misalignment in sequence and call closings in institutional interaction | |Title=Closing matters: alignment and misalignment in sequence and call closings in institutional interaction | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Institutional Interactions; Closings; Alignment; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Institutional Interactions; Closings; Alignment; Benefactor/beneficiary; conversation analysis; emergency call centers; identity; overall structural organization; project; sequence organization; |
|Key=GRaymond2016 | |Key=GRaymond2016 | ||
|Year=2016 | |Year=2016 | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
|URL=http://dis.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/1461445616667141 | |URL=http://dis.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/1461445616667141 | ||
|DOI=10.1177/1461445616667141 | |DOI=10.1177/1461445616667141 | ||
| + | |Abstract=Using data from American emergency call centers, this article focuses on the coordination, and mutual relevance, of participants’ effort to manage two forms of unit completion – sequence closing (as a method for ‘project’ completion) and concluding the occasion in which the project was pursued. In doing so, we specify the import of sequence organization as one method for conducting, organizing, and resolving interactional projects participants may be said to pursue, and describe (1) a range of possible relations between project completion and occasion closure and (2) the locations from which problems come to be introduced as parties move to resolve projects and close calls. As we show, sequence and occasion closings produced in the service of projects are fateful: they inexorably demand that the participants arrive at some alignment – or make visible their failure to do so – regarding the projects pursued in it, the status of those projects, and thus who, as a consequence, the parties are (or could have been) for another, that is, their ‘identities’. For strangers and familiars both, the management of projects and the manner in which closing is achieved matters. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 09:05, 3 December 2016
| GRaymond2016 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | GRaymond2016 |
| Author(s) | Geoffrey Raymond, Don H. Zimmerman |
| Title | Closing matters: alignment and misalignment in sequence and call closings in institutional interaction |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Institutional Interactions, Closings, Alignment, Benefactor/beneficiary, conversation analysis, emergency call centers, identity, overall structural organization, project, sequence organization |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2016 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | October |
| Journal | Discourse Studies |
| Volume | 18 |
| Number | 6 |
| Pages | 716-736 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/1461445616667141 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Using data from American emergency call centers, this article focuses on the coordination, and mutual relevance, of participants’ effort to manage two forms of unit completion – sequence closing (as a method for ‘project’ completion) and concluding the occasion in which the project was pursued. In doing so, we specify the import of sequence organization as one method for conducting, organizing, and resolving interactional projects participants may be said to pursue, and describe (1) a range of possible relations between project completion and occasion closure and (2) the locations from which problems come to be introduced as parties move to resolve projects and close calls. As we show, sequence and occasion closings produced in the service of projects are fateful: they inexorably demand that the participants arrive at some alignment – or make visible their failure to do so – regarding the projects pursued in it, the status of those projects, and thus who, as a consequence, the parties are (or could have been) for another, that is, their ‘identities’. For strangers and familiars both, the management of projects and the manner in which closing is achieved matters.
Notes
