Article published in:
Communicating Certainty and Uncertainty in Medical, Supportive and Scientific Contexts
Edited by Andrzej Zuczkowski, Ramona Bongelli, Ilaria Riccioni and Carla Canestrari
[Dialogue Studies 25] 2014
► pp. 249–271

The fabric of certainty

Ignoring interactional details as an epistemic resource in research interviews

| University of Bologna, Italy
This chapter concerns the tactic of “ignoring uncertainty” that takes place during research interviewing. Drawing on extent research on research interviews as an interactive phenomenon, we contend that most micro-actions implied in scientific practices are purifying activities aimed to clean discursive data from uncertainty-marks and relativization cues. By analysing a collection of question/answer sequences from a telephone survey, we shows how the interviewer-in-the-field and the analyst-at-the-desk ignore these uncertainty markers as much as possible and turn almost every utterance into a declarative statement. We contend that these techniques of knowledge produce one of the culturally relevant traits of scientific knowledge: certainty. They therefore serve the purpose of nourishing our enduring positivistic vision of (scientific) knowledge as a mirror of reality.
Published online: 26 November 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.25.12car
References

References

Aakhus, Mark
2007 “Communication as Design.” Communication Monographs 74 (1): 112–117. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Antaki, Charles
2002 “Personalized Revision of ‘Failed’ Questions.” Discourse Studies 4 (4): 411–428.Google Scholar
2006 “Producing a ‘Cognition’.” Discourse Studies 8 (1): 9–15. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, Maxwell J., and John Heritage
1984 “Preference Organization.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversational Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John 
Heritage, 53–56. Cambridge, MA.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bailey, Kenneth D.
1978 Methods of Social Research. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Bolden, Galina B.
2009 “Beyond Answering: Repeat-Prefaced Responses in Conversation.” Communication Monographs 76 (2): 121–143. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, Elisabeth, and John Heritage
2006 “Taking the Patient’s Medical History: Questioning during Comprehensive History Taking.” In Communication in Medical Care: Interactions Between Primary Care Physicians and Patients, ed. by John Heritage, and Douglas W. 
Maynard, 151–184. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brenner, Michael
1981 “Aspects of Conversational Structure in the Research Interview.” In Conversation and Discourse: Structure and Interpretation, ed. by Paul Werth, 19–40. 
London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
1982 “Response Effects of the ‘Role-restricted’ Characteristics of the Interviewer.” In Response Behaviour in the Survey Interview, ed. by Wil Dijkstra, and Johannes Van der Zouwen, 131–165. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1985 “Survey Interviewing.” In The Research Interview: Uses and Approaches, ed. by Michael Brenner, Jennifer Brown, and David Cantor, 9–36. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Briggs, Charles
1986 Learning How to Ask. A Sociolinguistic Appraisal of the Role of Interview in Social Science Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Caron, André, Jennie M. Hwang, Boris H.J.M. Brummans, and Letizia Caronia
2013 “Business Writing on the Go: How Executives Manage Impressions Through E-mail Communication in Everyday Work Life.” Corporate Communication: An International Journal 18 (1): 8–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Caronia, Letizia
1997 Costruire la conoscenza. Interazione e interpretazione nella ricerca sul campo in educazione [Constructing knowledge. Interaction and interpretation in educational field research]. Firenze: La Nuova Italia.Google Scholar
2011 “Representing Dialogues-in-the-field: The Shared Responsibility of Scientific Aesthetics.” Language and Dialogue 1 (2): 293–313. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clayman, Steven, E.
1993 “Reformulating the Question: A Device for Answering/Not Answering Questions in News Interviews and Press Conferences.” Text 13: 59–188.Google Scholar
Cooren, François
2010 Action and Agency in Dialogue: Passion, Incarnation, and Ventriloquism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Caro, Mario, and Maurizio Ferraris
2012 Bentornata realtà: il nuovo realismo in discussione [Wellcome back reality: discussing new realism]. Einaudi: Torino.Google Scholar
Dore, John, and Robert McDermot
1982 “Linguistic Indeterminacy and Social Context in Utterance Interpretation.” Language 58: 374–398. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul
2003 “Comparative Analysis of Talk-in-interaction in Different Institutional Settings: A Sketch.” In Studies in Language and Social Interaction: In Honor of Robert Hopper, ed. by Philip Glenn, Curtis D. Lebaron, and Jennifer Mandelbaum, 293–307. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul, and John Heritage
(eds) 1992 Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DuBois, John W.
2007 “The Stance Triangle.” In Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, ed. by Robert Englebretson, 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, Don W., and Richard A. Shweder
(eds) 1986 Metatheory in Social Science: Pluralisms and Subjectivities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold
1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold, and Harvey Sacks
1970 “On Formal Structures of Practical Action.” In Theoretical Sociology: Perspectives and Development, ed. by John C. McKinney, and Edward A. Tiryakian, 338–366. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Gergen, Kenneth, and Mary H. Gergen
1991 “From Theory to Reflexivity in Research Practice.” In Method and Reflexivity: Knowing as Systemic Social Construction, ed. by Frederic Steier, 76–95. London, United Kingdom: Sage.Google Scholar
Glenn, Philip
2011 “Formulation Sequences in Mediation: The Storytelling Stage.” Paper presented at the International Communication Association Conference, Boston, May 2011.
Heritage, John
1985 “Analyzing News Interviews: Aspects of the Production of Talk for an Overhearing Audience.” In Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Vol.3: Discourse and Dialogue, ed. by Teun A. van Dijk, 95–117. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1998 “Oh-prefaced Responses to Inquiry.” Language in Society 27: 291–334. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003 “Designing Questions and Setting Agendas in the News Interview.” In Studies in Language and Social Interaction: In Honor of Robert Hopper, ed. by Philip Glenn, Curtis D. Lebaron, and Jennifer Mandelbaum, 57–90. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
2011 “A Galilean Moment in Social Theory? Language, Culture and their Emergent Properties.” Qualitative Sociology 34: 263–270. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond
2005 “The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Talk-in-interaction.” Social Psychology Quarterly 68: 15–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Rodney D. Watson
1979 “Formulations as Conversational Objects.” In Everyday Language; Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by George Psathas, 123–162. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
Houtkoop-Steenstra, Hanneke
2000 Interaction and the Standardized Survey Interview: The Living Questionnaire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, Herbert H., William J. Cobb, Jacob J. Feldman, Clyde W. Hart, and Charles H. Stember
1954/1975 Interviewing in Social Research 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Iversen, Clara
2012 “Recordability: Resistance and Collusion in Psychometric Interviews with Children.” Discourse Studies 14 (6): 691–709. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kvale, Steinar, and Svend Brinkmann
2009 InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno
1999 Pandora’s Hope. Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lynch, Michael
1993 Scientific Practice and Ordinary Action: Ethnomethodology and Social Studies of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maynard, Douglas W., Hanneke Houtkoop-Steenstra, Johannes van der Zouwen, and Nora Cate Schaeffer
(eds.) 2002 Standardization and Tacit Knowledge: Interaction and Practice in the Survey Interview. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Maynard, Douglas W., and Nora Cate Schaeffer
2002 “Standardization and Interaction in the Survey Interview.” Handbook of Interview Research: Context and Method, ed. by Jaber F. Gubrium, and James A. Holstein, 577–602. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Maynard, Douglas W., and Nora C. Schaeffer
2006 “Standardization-in-interaction: The Survey Interview.” In Talk and Interaction in Social Research Methods, ed. by Paul Drew, 
Geoffrey Raymond, and Darin Weinberg, 9–27. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Mishler, Elliot
1986 Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Moerman, Michael
1988 Talking Culture: Ethnography and Conversation Analysis. Philadelphia, Penn.: University of Pennsylvania Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita
1984 “Pursuing a Response.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversational Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 152–163. Cambridge, MA.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1988 “Offering a Candidate Answer.” Communication Monographs, 55: 360–373. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Potter, Jonathan, and Alexa Hepburn
2005 “Qualitative Interviews in Psychology: Problems and Possibilities.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 2 (4): 281–307. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 “Eight Challenges for Interview Researchers.” In Handbook of Interview Research (2nd ed.), ed. byJaber F. Gubrium, and James A. Holstein, 555–570. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Potter, Jonathan, and Margaret Wetherell
1987 Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Rabinow, Paul, and William M. Sullivan
(eds.) 1987 Interpretive Social Science. A Second Look. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey
2003 “Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Type Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding.” American Sociological Review 68: 939–967. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 “Questions at Work: Yes/No Type Interrogatives in Institutional Contexts.” In Talk and Interaction in Social Research Methods, ed. by Paul Drew, Geoffrey Raymond, and Darin Weinberg, 115–134. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey
1984 “Notes on Methodology.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 21–27. Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson
1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation.” Language 50: 696–735. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schaeffer, Nora C., and Douglas W. Maynard
2005 “From Paradigm to Prototype and Back Again: Interactive Aspects of “Cognitive Processing” in Standardized Survey Interviews.” In Conversation and Cognition, ed. by Hedwig te Molder, and Jonathan Potter, 114–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel
1968 “The Routine as Achievement.” Human Studies 9: 111–151. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1972 “Notes on a Conversational Practice: Formulating Place.” In Studies in Social Interaction, ed. by David Sudnow, 75–119. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
1987 “Between Micro and Macro: Context and Other Connections.” In The Micro-Macro Link, ed. by Jeffrey Alexander, Bernard Giessen, Richard Munch, and Neil Smelser, 207–234. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel, Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks
1977 “The Preference for Self-correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 53: 361–382. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel, and Gene H. Lerner
2009 “Beginning to Respond: Well-prefaced Responses to Wh-questions.” Research on Language & Social Interaction 42 (2): 91–115. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, Jack
2010 Conversation Analysis. An Introduction. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Singer, Eleanor, Martin R. Frankel, and Marc B. Glassman
1983 “The Effect of the Interviewer Characteristics and Expectations on Response.” Public Opinion Quarterly 43: 68–83. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steier, Frederic
(ed.) 1991 Research and Reflexivity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, and Jeffrey D. Robinson
2006 “A Preference for Progressivity in Interaction.” Language in Society 35: 367–392. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tracy, Karen, and Jessica Robles
2009 “Questions, Questioning, and Institutional Practices: An Introduction.” Discourse Studies 11 (2): 131–152. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weatherall, Ann
2011 “I Don’t Know as a Prepositioned Epistemic Hedge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 44 (4): 317–337. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Wermuth, Maria-Cornelia
2016. Language localization in scientific drug information. The Journal of Internationalization and Localization 3:1 ► pp. 74 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 december 2020. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.