Difference between revisions of "Button1987"
(Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Graham Button; |Title=Answers as interactional products: Two sequential practices used in interviews |Tag(s)=EMCA; Interviews; Answers;...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Graham Button; | + | |Author(s)=Graham Button; |
| − | |Title=Answers as interactional products: | + | |Title=Answers as interactional products: two sequential practices used in interviews |
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Interviews; Answers; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Interviews; Answers; |
|Key=Button1987 | |Key=Button1987 | ||
|Year=1987 | |Year=1987 | ||
|Journal=Social Psychology Quarterly | |Journal=Social Psychology Quarterly | ||
|Volume=50 | |Volume=50 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Number=2 |
| + | |Pages=160–171 | ||
|URL=http://www.jstor.org/stable/2786749 | |URL=http://www.jstor.org/stable/2786749 | ||
|Abstract=A substantive field of research in sociology and social psychology is invoked in a characterization of a speech exchange system: the interview. One answer given by a candidate interviewed for a teaching post is considered in order: (1) to provide for the interview as interactionally achieved in the organization of speech exchange; and (2) to show that sequential structures constitute an "interview orthodoxy" and are used by interviewers to then constitute the intelligibility of the attribution of personal characteristics to a candidate. In the course of so doing, two further points emerge as worthy of future investigation: (1) there is a seriousness to suggesting that the systematic investigation of a speech exchange system in itself may be a method for addressing the aspects of social structure; and (2) an indication is given of what it would take to warrantably invoke a social context as relevant for human conduct. | |Abstract=A substantive field of research in sociology and social psychology is invoked in a characterization of a speech exchange system: the interview. One answer given by a candidate interviewed for a teaching post is considered in order: (1) to provide for the interview as interactionally achieved in the organization of speech exchange; and (2) to show that sequential structures constitute an "interview orthodoxy" and are used by interviewers to then constitute the intelligibility of the attribution of personal characteristics to a candidate. In the course of so doing, two further points emerge as worthy of future investigation: (1) there is a seriousness to suggesting that the systematic investigation of a speech exchange system in itself may be a method for addressing the aspects of social structure; and (2) an indication is given of what it would take to warrantably invoke a social context as relevant for human conduct. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 07:46, 21 October 2019
| Button1987 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Button1987 |
| Author(s) | Graham Button |
| Title | Answers as interactional products: two sequential practices used in interviews |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Interviews, Answers |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 1987 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Social Psychology Quarterly |
| Volume | 50 |
| Number | 2 |
| Pages | 160–171 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
A substantive field of research in sociology and social psychology is invoked in a characterization of a speech exchange system: the interview. One answer given by a candidate interviewed for a teaching post is considered in order: (1) to provide for the interview as interactionally achieved in the organization of speech exchange; and (2) to show that sequential structures constitute an "interview orthodoxy" and are used by interviewers to then constitute the intelligibility of the attribution of personal characteristics to a candidate. In the course of so doing, two further points emerge as worthy of future investigation: (1) there is a seriousness to suggesting that the systematic investigation of a speech exchange system in itself may be a method for addressing the aspects of social structure; and (2) an indication is given of what it would take to warrantably invoke a social context as relevant for human conduct.
Notes
