Difference between revisions of "Tainio2003"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Liisa Tainio; |Title=‘When shall we go for a ride?’ A case of the sexual harassment of a young girl |Tag(s)=EMCA; conversation anal...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
− | |Author(s)=Liisa Tainio; | + | |Author(s)=Liisa Tainio; |
− | |Title= | + | |Title=“When shall we go for a ride?” A case of the sexual harassment of a young girl |
|Tag(s)=EMCA; conversation analysis; gender; invitations; sexual harassment; | |Tag(s)=EMCA; conversation analysis; gender; invitations; sexual harassment; | ||
|Key=Tainio2003 | |Key=Tainio2003 | ||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
|Number=2 | |Number=2 | ||
|Pages=173–190 | |Pages=173–190 | ||
− | |DOI= | + | |URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0957926503014002754 |
− | |Abstract= | + | |DOI=10.1177/0957926503014002754 |
− | analysis for the analysis of a conversation that has been labelled (post-hoc) as | + | |Abstract=In this article, I explore the benefits and limits of conversation analysis for the analysis of a conversation that has been labelled (post-hoc) as an instance of 'sexual harassment'. The data analysed is a phone call between a 15-year-old girl and a male Member of Parliament. I explore how 'harassment-in-action' may be embedded in the mundane procedures of talk. Analysis of the MP's strategies to pursue the girl's acceptance of his invitation to 'come for a ride' revealed a number of patterns: recurrent invitations, personal knowledge displays, an orientation to secrecy and confidentiality and implicit and explicit threats. The girl's strategies to resist the MP's suggestions were formulated according to the norms of preference organization, by doing dispreferred activities, using repair initiators and standard responses. I argue that although no single feature of the talk could directly index sexual harassment, the 'formal analysis' of (recurrent) patterns of interaction, combined with the cultural knowledge about the identity of the interactants, forms a basis to construct also a feminist-informed explication of 'sexual harassment'. |
− | an instance of | ||
− | a 15-year-old girl and a male Member of Parliament. I explore how | ||
− | |||
− | Analysis of the | ||
− | to | ||
− | personal knowledge displays, an orientation to secrecy and | ||
− | implicit and explicit threats. The | ||
− | were formulated according to the norms of preference organization, by doing | ||
− | dispreferred activities, using repair initiators and standard responses. I argue | ||
− | that although no single feature of the talk could directly index sexual | ||
− | harassment, the | ||
− | combined with the cultural knowledge about the identity of the interactants, | ||
− | forms a basis to construct also a feminist-informed explication of | ||
− | |||
}} | }} |
Latest revision as of 01:31, 31 October 2019
Tainio2003 | |
---|---|
BibType | ARTICLE |
Key | Tainio2003 |
Author(s) | Liisa Tainio |
Title | “When shall we go for a ride?” A case of the sexual harassment of a young girl |
Editor(s) | |
Tag(s) | EMCA, conversation analysis, gender, invitations, sexual harassment |
Publisher | |
Year | 2003 |
Language | English |
City | |
Month | |
Journal | Discourse & Society |
Volume | 14 |
Number | 2 |
Pages | 173–190 |
URL | Link |
DOI | 10.1177/0957926503014002754 |
ISBN | |
Organization | |
Institution | |
School | |
Type | |
Edition | |
Series | |
Howpublished | |
Book title | |
Chapter |
Abstract
In this article, I explore the benefits and limits of conversation analysis for the analysis of a conversation that has been labelled (post-hoc) as an instance of 'sexual harassment'. The data analysed is a phone call between a 15-year-old girl and a male Member of Parliament. I explore how 'harassment-in-action' may be embedded in the mundane procedures of talk. Analysis of the MP's strategies to pursue the girl's acceptance of his invitation to 'come for a ride' revealed a number of patterns: recurrent invitations, personal knowledge displays, an orientation to secrecy and confidentiality and implicit and explicit threats. The girl's strategies to resist the MP's suggestions were formulated according to the norms of preference organization, by doing dispreferred activities, using repair initiators and standard responses. I argue that although no single feature of the talk could directly index sexual harassment, the 'formal analysis' of (recurrent) patterns of interaction, combined with the cultural knowledge about the identity of the interactants, forms a basis to construct also a feminist-informed explication of 'sexual harassment'.
Notes