Difference between revisions of "Tanner2018"
ElliottHoey (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Denise Tanner |Title=Opening communicative space: what do co-researchers contribute? |Tag(s)=EMCA; In Press; Communicative space; Interv...") |
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Author(s)=Denise Tanner | |Author(s)=Denise Tanner | ||
|Title=Opening communicative space: what do co-researchers contribute? | |Title=Opening communicative space: what do co-researchers contribute? | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Communicative space; Interviews; Service Encounter; Membership Categorization Analysis; conversation analysis; service user involvement; participatory research |
|Key=Tanner2018 | |Key=Tanner2018 | ||
|Year=2018 | |Year=2018 | ||
|Language=English | |Language=English | ||
|Journal=Qualitative Research | |Journal=Qualitative Research | ||
| + | |Volume=19 | ||
| + | |Number=3 | ||
| + | |Pages=292-310 | ||
|URL=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1468794118770076 | |URL=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1468794118770076 | ||
|DOI=https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794118770076 | |DOI=https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794118770076 | ||
|Abstract=Current participatory research literature describes different approaches to involving service users in research, draws out lessons to be learned from the process and begins to address the difficult question of the impact of service user involvement on the research outcomes. However, very limited attention has been given to analysing in detail ‘what goes on’ in interviews carried out by service users or considering what difference their interactions make to the interview content and process. This article draws on principles of conversation analysis (CA) and member categorisation analysis (MCA) to examine how co-researchers and participants practically accomplish research interviews. Using Habermas’s distinction between communicative and strategic action as a framework, the article addresses the questions of whether and how co-researchers open communicative space in semi-structured interviews. Two dimensions are highlighted in the analysis: co-researchers’ interviewing skills and their ability to forge connections with participants. It is concluded that both components are necessary to open communicative space and generate co-produced knowledge. This detailed empirically-grounded analysis of co-researcher/participant interactions is both innovative and significant in enhancing understanding of co-researcher contributions to participatory research. | |Abstract=Current participatory research literature describes different approaches to involving service users in research, draws out lessons to be learned from the process and begins to address the difficult question of the impact of service user involvement on the research outcomes. However, very limited attention has been given to analysing in detail ‘what goes on’ in interviews carried out by service users or considering what difference their interactions make to the interview content and process. This article draws on principles of conversation analysis (CA) and member categorisation analysis (MCA) to examine how co-researchers and participants practically accomplish research interviews. Using Habermas’s distinction between communicative and strategic action as a framework, the article addresses the questions of whether and how co-researchers open communicative space in semi-structured interviews. Two dimensions are highlighted in the analysis: co-researchers’ interviewing skills and their ability to forge connections with participants. It is concluded that both components are necessary to open communicative space and generate co-produced knowledge. This detailed empirically-grounded analysis of co-researcher/participant interactions is both innovative and significant in enhancing understanding of co-researcher contributions to participatory research. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 03:19, 5 June 2019
| Tanner2018 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Tanner2018 |
| Author(s) | Denise Tanner |
| Title | Opening communicative space: what do co-researchers contribute? |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Communicative space, Interviews, Service Encounter, Membership Categorization Analysis, conversation analysis, service user involvement, participatory research |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2018 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Qualitative Research |
| Volume | 19 |
| Number | 3 |
| Pages | 292-310 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794118770076 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Current participatory research literature describes different approaches to involving service users in research, draws out lessons to be learned from the process and begins to address the difficult question of the impact of service user involvement on the research outcomes. However, very limited attention has been given to analysing in detail ‘what goes on’ in interviews carried out by service users or considering what difference their interactions make to the interview content and process. This article draws on principles of conversation analysis (CA) and member categorisation analysis (MCA) to examine how co-researchers and participants practically accomplish research interviews. Using Habermas’s distinction between communicative and strategic action as a framework, the article addresses the questions of whether and how co-researchers open communicative space in semi-structured interviews. Two dimensions are highlighted in the analysis: co-researchers’ interviewing skills and their ability to forge connections with participants. It is concluded that both components are necessary to open communicative space and generate co-produced knowledge. This detailed empirically-grounded analysis of co-researcher/participant interactions is both innovative and significant in enhancing understanding of co-researcher contributions to participatory research.
Notes
