Dear xmca friends,
I'm taking this chance of responding to the roll call to throw out a very
short draft of a paper a colleague and myself are working on:
"Discourse Strategies in Research Interviews of Gangster Youth"
I'm attaching it as a rich text format (RTF) file. A persistent interest
of mine has been whether/how DIALOGUE can be possible, and what a genuine
dialogue looks like interactionally (e.g., in discourse organization terms)
between/among peoples of difference (the difference can be based on age,
gender, race, class, culture, ideology, sexual orientation, symbolic
capital ... or a combination of them). Your comments and leads to the
literature on DIALOGUE will be most welcome!
Angel
----------------
angel lin, phd., assistant professor, dept of english, city university of
hong kong. e-mail: enangel who-is-at cityu.edu.hk
--=====================_911162285==_
Content-Type: application/rtf; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Gang-int.rtf"
{\rtf1\ansi \deff4\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f4\froman\fcharset0\fprq2 Times New Roman;}{\f82\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq0 pica;}{\f95\froman\fcharset0\fprq0 boldPS;}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;
\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;
\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\widctlpar \f4\fs20\lang2057 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive Default Paragraph Font;}{\*\cs15 \additive\super \sbasedon10 endnote reference;}{\*\cs16 \additive
\super \sbasedon10 footnote reference;}}{\info{\author CityU}{\operator CityU}{\creatim\yr1998\mo11\dy15}{\revtim\yr1998\mo11\dy16\hr12\min35}{\version2}{\edmins2}{\nofpages11}{\nofwords2670}{\nofchars15224}{\*\company City University of Hong Kong}
{\vern57431}}\widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\ftnrestart\hyphcaps0 \fet0\sectd \linex576\endnhere {\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3
\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}
{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc\sl-480\slmult0\widctlpar
\f4\fs20\lang2057 {\b\f95\fs24 Discourse Strategies in Research Interviews of Gangster Youth
\par }{\i\f95\fs24 Angel M. Y. Lin
\par Department of English, City University of Hong Kong
\par T. Wing Lo
\par Department of Applied Social Studies, City University of Hong Kong
\par }\pard \sl-480\slmult0\widctlpar {\f95\fs24
\par (Draft; please do not quote without the authors\rquote permission; comments and feedback most welcome! E-mail: ENANGEL who-is-at CITYU.EDU.HK)
\par }\pard \qc\sl-480\slmult0\widctlpar {\b\f95\fs24 Abstract
\par }\pard \sl-480\slmult0\widctlpar {\f95\fs24
This paper presents an analysis of the discourse formats and strategies used in research interviews of gangster teenagers. The potential advantages and disadvantages of the discourse tools and potential value of them for use by social work practitioners
and researchers in counselling interactions with gangster teenagers are discussed.
\par
\par }{\b\f95\fs24 The Research Interview: A Special Speech Event}{\f95\fs24
\par
\par The research interview is not simply a neutral, transparent means of obtaining information from informants, as is sometimes a
ssumed in the positivist sciences. Being a method of research data collection, it is at the same time constitutive of the data it collects (Mishler, 1986). The research interviewing process is itself a highly interesting interactional phenomenon worthy
of detailed analysis in its own right. Epistemologically, understanding the discourse structure and strategies in the research interview will contribute to our understanding of how interview research data are shaped and constituted in particular ways. O
nt
ologically, understanding the interactional process in the research interview will contribute to our understanding of how different subject positions are created or excluded and how particular identities are imposed, resisted or co-constructed in the inte
rviewing process.
\par
\par The research interview is distinguished from other speech events (e.g., ordinary conversations, debates, lectures) by its typical discourse structure of a series of question-answer pairs. The interviewer occupies the questioner speaking
turns and the interviewee the respondent speaking turns most of the time. Conversation analysts have long noted the strength of the question-answer sequence or adjacency pair (Sacks, 1972). The interviewer and interviewee take turns to speak and the int
erviewer's questioning turn exerts strong interactional pressure on the interviewee both to respond and to respond with material relevant to the question in the immediately preceding questioning turn. No response or irrelevant response will pose high int
er
personal pressure on the interviewee. For instance, the interviewee becomes perceived as un-cooperative/unreasonable, the relationship breaks down and the interview cannot continue. Given this special discourse structure of the speech event of the resea
rch interview, the interviewer typically possesses much more power than the interviewee in decisions regarding selection, initiation, continuation or change of topics.
\par
\par In the following sections, we shall present the results of a discourse analysis of 14
audio-recorded research interviews of gangster youth. The interviews were conducted in community youth centres in the interviewees' neighbourhood by a social worker and/or a college student majoring in social work. Usually the social worker who had befr
iended the teenager(s) and who introduced the teenager(s) to the interviewers was also present in the interview. The number of interviewees was usually one or two but there were also two interviews, each of four teenagers, and one interview of six teenag
ers. The interviews ranged from one hour to one and a half hours long. The interviews were conducted as part of a university research project with three major aims:
\par (1) to understand why adolescents join gangs
\par (2) to identity the typical activities of gangsters
\par }\pard \fi-720\li720\sl-480\slmult0\widctlpar {\f95\fs24 (3) to identify different kinds of effect on adolescents after their joining gangs
\par }\pard \sl-480\slmult0\widctlpar {\f95\fs24 The interviews were semi-structured with the interviewers following a schedule of basic items to be elicited from the teenagers but the interviewers could be flexible
and ask other open-ended questions as well. The list of items reflected the three major aims of the research project mentioned above. Among the 30 teenagers interviewed, 23 were male, 7 female, aged from 13 to 19. Some were studying in secondary school
s, some working and some unemployed. Most of them had joined gangs for more than one year and some for as long as seven or eight years. Most of them started joining gangs young, in primary school or secondary one (i.e., grade 7).
\par
\par In the next section, w
e shall analyse the recurrent discourse format and strategies used by the participants in the research interviews. In the final section we shall discuss the implications of the analysis for social work practitioners as well as researchers.
\par
\par }{\b\f95\fs24 Discourse Formats and Strategies in the Research Interviews
\par }{\f95\fs24
\par A discourse format is a recurrent discourse structure characterized by a patterned sequence of speaker-turns each with specific discourse functions (Heap, 1988). For instance, a typical discourse format in th
e school classroom is Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) (Sinclair and Coulthard, 1975; Mehan, 1979). The teacher typically does the initiation by asking a question. The response speaker-turn is typically taken by a student or students and the student r
esponse is invariably followed by the teacher's feedback turn in which the teacher typically comments on the student response. Most school lessons are organized by the use of a series of IRF formats. The use of the IFR format enables the teacher to have
t
he power of topic selection, initiation, continuation or change. It also enables the teacher to monitor student attention, understanding and performance. It gives the teacher the opportunity to provide feedback tailor-made for a specific student respons
e. It typically allows the teacher to "have the last word" on a lesson topic. It marks the school lesson as a special speech event in which participants do not have equal power regarding decisions on topic selection and change.
\par
\par The research interviews an
alysed in this study are characterized by a recurrent discourse format that somewhat resembles the school lesson IRF format. Let us look at an example to see how the format is used in the interviews. The following example is taken from the early part of
a research interview of two gangster girls, Candy (C) and Winnie (W), 15 and 16 years old respectively. In this interview, a social work college student was the interviewer (I). The social worker who introduced Candy and Winnie to the interviewer was n
ot present in the interview.
\par
\par }\pard \fi-720\li720\sl-480\slmult0\widctlpar {\f95\fs24\ul Excerpt (1):}{\f95\fs24
\par (From Data Set 261093A)
\par (Cantonese utterances are transcribed in the Yale system and English translations are given in pointed brackets immediately following the Cantonese utterances)
\par 1. I: Gum Winnie neih ne? Neih gaa-yahp-jo ji-houh, di friend yauh dim-yeung tai neih aa? <Then what about you Winnie? After you had joined the gang, how did your friends look at you?>
\par 2. W: Waaih-jo.. gok dak ngoh! <Changed bad.. felt that I had!>
\par 3. I: Gok-dak neih waaih-jo, heui-deih gok-dak neih waai-jo, daahn gok-dak neih gok-yeuhng-yeh yauh-mouh bin-dou? <Felt that you had changed bad, they felt that you had changed bad, but did they find changes in the other aspects of you?>
\par 4. W: Yauh! <Yes!>
\par 5. I: Dim-yeung? <How?>
\par 6. W: Yauh-haih ok-jo! Chyun-jo gum-yeung! <Also more violent! And arrogant!>
\par 7. I: Gum heui-deih yauh-mouh beih-hoi neih, dihng yihng-yihn gum jip-juk neih? <And did they avoid you, or did they stay in touch with you?>
\par .....
\par }\pard \sl-480\slmult0\widctlpar {\f95\fs24 In the above example, we see that the interviewer asks a }{\f95\fs24\ul question}{\f95\fs24 about how Winnie's friends saw her after she had joined the gang (1). This question is followed by Winnie's }{
\f95\fs24\ul answer}{\f95\fs24 that her friends felt that she had changed bad (2). The interviewer }{\f95\fs24\ul acknowledegs}{\f95\fs24
Winnie's answer by restating it two times and then asks a follow-up question which requires Winnie to further elaborate the changes perceived by her friends (3).
\par }\pard \fi-720\li720\sl-480\slmult0\widctlpar {\f95\fs24
\par }\pard \sl-480\slmult0\widctlpar {\f95\fs24 We can schematically represent the discourse format in use in the above example as follows:
\par 1. Interviewer: Question
\par 2. Winnie: Answer
\par }\pard \fi-720\li720\sl-480\slmult0\widctlpar {\f95\fs24 3. Interviewer: Acknowledgement of Answer
\par
\par }\pard \sl-480\slmult0\widctlpar {\f95\fs24
This cycle is observed to be repeated many times in all the 14 research interviews albeit with some variation in the acknowledgement slot. Sometimes, there is a short acknowledgement particle (e.g., Mh. <Yes.>) or a comment in the place of restatement of
the answer. Sometimes the acknowledgement is omitted altogether and a new question is asked immediately.
\par
\par Since the pre-set list of questions referred to by the intervie
wers during the interview includes a large section on how different kinds of people (e.g., parents, neighbours, friends, classmates, teachers) see the teenagers after they have joined gangs, the teenagers are in effect led to actively co-construct with th
e interviewer a corpus of more or less negative statements about how other people see them after they have joined gangs. The discourse format in effect induces the teenagers into active participation in the co-construction of a corpus of negative stateme
nt
s about themselves and their image that comes with gang membership. Examples of this abound in all the 14 research interviews analysed. For instance, in the following excerpt taken from the second half of another interview, Aah-Mouh (A-M), a 19-year-old
male who has joined a gang since grade six, is led to state in his own words that in the eyes of his neighbours he and his gangster friends were not good guys and would cause fear in the neighbours:
\par
\par }{\f95\fs24\ul Excerpt (2):
\par }\pard \fi-720\li720\sl-480\slmult0\widctlpar {\f95\fs24 (From Data Set 201193A)
\par 1. I: Di gaai-fong gin-dou neih-deih waahk-je heui-deih goh-di yat-kwahn yih-dong yauh di mat-yeh faan-ying aa? <When the neighbours saw you guys or other gangsters, what were their response?>
\par 2. A-M: Sehng daaih baan yahn cho haih-douh, mh-fong hou-yahn lo! <Such a big group of people squatting there, (and they) certainly won't be good people!>
\par }\pard \sl-480\slmult0\widctlpar {\f95\fs24 3. I: Wui geng aah? <Would be afraid?>
\par }\pard \fi-720\li720\sl-480\slmult0\widctlpar {\f95\fs24 4. A-M: Wui geng ge ngoh lam! <Would be afraid I guess!>
\par }\pard \sl-480\slmult0\widctlpar {\f95\fs24 ....
\par In the above example, the discourse format of question-answer (with the option
al acknowledgement slot omitted) is repeated in the co-construction of statements about the negative, unwelcome image that Ah-Mouh and his gangster friends gave to their neighbours.
\par
\par In many similar examples, the question-answer(-acknowledgement)}{\cs16\super \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \fi-720\li720\sl-480\slmult0\widctlpar \f4\fs20\lang2057 {\cs16\super \chftn }{\f95\fs24
. The brackets around "acknowledgement" indicates that this functional part of the format is optional.}}}{\f95\fs24
discourse format is used quite skilfully by the interviewers (perhaps not consciously) to lead the teenagers into expressing in their own words the negative
effect and image that come with gang membership. However, some defiant teenagers might resist such a collusion in co-constructing negative statements about themselves and gang membership, especially when the interviewer does not ask apparently factual qu
estions but uses obviously value-laden words in the questions. For instance, in the following excerpt, Aah-Huhng (A-H), a 19-year-old male who has joined a gang since twelve, refuses to directly answer the interviewer's questions:
\par
\par }{\f95\fs24\ul Excerpt (3):
\par }{\f95\fs24 (From Data Set 271093A)
\par }\pard \fi-720\li720\sl-480\slmult0\widctlpar {\f95\fs24 1. I: Gum yauh-mouh gok-dak gan-jo yahn go-di pang-yauh hou-chih waaih-jo di? <Then do you think those friends who have joined gangs seem to have become a bit bad?>
\par 2. A-H: Gong gwaai neih dou mh-seuin laa! <If I say they're good, you won't believe it!>
\par 3. I: Mh mh... heui-deih haih dim-yeung waaih faat aa? <Yes yes... they are bad in what ways?>
\par }\pard \sl-480\slmult0\widctlpar {\f95\fs24 4. A-H: Dim-yeung waaih faat aa? <Bad in what ways?>
\par }\pard \fi-720\li720\sl-480\slmult0\widctlpar {\f95\fs24 5. I: Je-haih heui-deih gan-jo yahn ji-hauh wui heui si-haa <That is after they have joined a gang they would go to try (drugs)>
\par 6. A-H: Do-jo yi-di yeh cheuit aa-maa, neih pihng-sih bin wui waah yauh ho-yih hai sau je! <More of these (drugs) become available that is; otherwise, usually how can you have them in hand!>
\par }\pard \sl-480\slmult0\widctlpar {\f95\fs24 7. I: Mh mh. <Yes yes.>
\par }\pard \fi-720\li720\sl-480\slmult0\widctlpar {\f95\fs24 8. A-H: Taam-dak yi, maih si leuhng haah. <For fun, might try a couple of times.>
\par 9. I: Mh mh... gum-yeung, je-haih yauh-mouh waah, gan-jo yahn ji-hauh, tuhng uk-kei yahn ge gwaan-haih, wui-mh-wui chaa-jo? <Yes yes... in that manner, that is after having joined gangs, would the relationship with family members become bad?>
\par 10. A-H: Go-biht gwaa. <It varies (from person to person).>
\par 11. I: Go-biht. Gum neih ji-gei ne? .... <It varies. But what about you? .... >
\par
\par }\pard \sl-480\slmult0\widctlpar {\f95\fs24
In the above excerpt, we can see that Aah-Hung does not directly answer the interviewer's obviously value-laden, leading question (1: "Then do you think those friends who have joined gangs seem to have become a bit bad?"). Instead of saying "yes" or "no"
, Aah-Hung exposes the hidden assumption that
seems to be already firmly held by the interviewer by saying that if he says they are good the interviewer will not believe it (2). This statement of Aah-Hung is remarkable because it seems to have achieved multiple functions:
\par
\par }\pard \fi-720\li720\sl-480\slmult0\widctlpar {\f95\fs24
(1) It enables him to avoid giving a direct answer of either "yes" or "no" to the interviewer's immediately preceding question. If he says "yes", he's condemning his friends, which most probably he does not feel comfortable doing. If he says "no", he is
likely to be pestered further with questions about why and how he thinks these friends have not become bad and probably he knows he cannot gather enough warrants acceptable to this mainstream authority figure (the interviewer from the university).
\par (2) It exposes the assumption hidden in the interviewer's leading question.
\par (3) It asserts that the real point of the interviewer's question is not one of obtaining information but one of forcing Aah-Hung to take a stance with regard to the mainstream societal assumption that gang membership causes one to become bad.
\par
\par }\pard \sl-480\slmult0\widctlpar {\f95\fs24
By subverting the normal question-answer cycle, Aah-Hung seems to succeed in resisting to participate in co-constructing a negative statement about his gangster friends. In turns 3 to 8, he further subverts the question-answer cycle by changing the quest
ion-answer sequence into a question-question sequence. When the interviewer asks in what ways his friends are bad (turn 3), Aah-Hung simply asks the same question back (turn 4: Bad in what ways?). The interviewer answers b
y suggesting that after joining gangs they would try drugs (turn 5). Notice that this is no longer formulated as a question but as a statement or a claim. Aah-Hung then offers another statement/claim about how this is facilitated by the greater degree o
f availability of drugs (turn 6). Notice also that he does not directly link gang membership to drug-taking. In turn 7, the interviewer acknowledges Aah-Hung's statement and in turn 8, Aah-Hung offers another statement claiming drugs are tried for fun.
Turns 6 to 8 are rare instances of utterances that do not fit the question-answer format recurring in the research interviews. These 2 turns resemble more ordinary conversation between equal interactional partners than research interview conversation.
\par
\par Aah-Hung's substitution of a question-answer sequence with a question-question sequence (turns 3-4) is quite remarkable as it rarely occurs in research interviews. In fact the interviewer resumes his questioner role soon. In turn 9, she asks another obv
ious
ly value-laden, leading question about the effect of gang membership on one's relationship with family members. In turn 10, Aah-Hung answers by saying it varies (across people), thereby avoiding to give a definite answer. However, the interviewer zooms
in by forcing Aah-Hung to answer the question about his own relationship with his family members. What follows (not shown in Excerpt 3 above) is another lengthy negotiation process between Aah-Hung and the interviewer with Aah-Hung refusing to collude wi
th the interviewer to cast himself and his gangster friends in a negative light.
\par
\par }{\b\f95\fs24 Implications for Social Work Practitioners and Researchers}{\f95\fs24
\par
\par The above analysis shows that the question-answer discourse format in interviews can be used to induce gangster youth to come face-to-face with the effect of gang membership on the image others have of them as well as the social and personal consequences
that come with gang membership. They can be led to express in their own words what happened to them after they have joined gangs. However, this discourse strategy has to be used judiciously and tactfully. Explicitly value-laden questions that already ca
st the teenagers and their friends in a negative light can incite resistance and might put the teenagers on the defensive.
\par
\par Moreover, the seemingly one-sided questions (e.g., asking much more questions of how others see them than how they see others after they have joined gangs) puts the teenagers into a narrow range of subject positions that render them as more or less passiv
e objects of ridicule or inspection by others. They are positioned as more or less passive victims on the receiving end of the effec
ts of gang membership or positioned as contagious objects who can pass on the effects to other teenagers rather than as actors with agency who choose specific life styles and kinds of friends sometimes for reasons other than concretely formulated advantag
es (e.g., money, companionship, confidence, fear of violence, assurance of protection). A more comprehensive and in-depth picture of the psychological history and journey of the gangster teenagers can be gained by asking a wider range of questions that d
o not prioritize a narrow range of subject positions.
\par
\par However, the statements made above must be taken as tentative hypotheses and further interaction data obtained from social work researchers as well as gangster counsellors who try out different formats of interactions with these teenagers will further inf
orm, revise or enrich our current understanding of how particular discourse formats and discourse strategies can be fruitfully employed with gangster teenagers in different contexts for different purposes.
\par
\par }\pard \qc\sl-480\slmult0\widctlpar {\f95\fs24 \page }{\b\f95\fs24 References
\par }\pard \fi-720\li720\sl-480\slmult0\widctlpar {\f95\fs24 Heap, J. L. (1988). On task in classroom discourse. }{\f95\fs24\ul Linguistics and Education}{\f95\fs24 , }{\f95\fs24\ul 1}{\f95\fs24 , 177-198.
\par Mehan, H. (1979). }{\f95\fs24\ul Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom}{\f95\fs24 . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
\par Mishler, E. G. (1986). }{\f95\fs24\ul Research interviewing: Context and narrative}{\f95\fs24 . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
\par }{\f82\fs24 Sacks, H. (1972). On the analyzability of stories by children. In Gumperz, J., & Hymes, D. (Eds.), }{\f82\fs24\ul Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of speaking}{\f82\fs24 . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
\par }{\f95\fs24 Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). }{\f95\fs24\ul Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils}{\f95\fs24 . London: Oxford University Press.
\par }\pard \fi-720\li720\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar {\f82\fs24
\par }\pard \sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar {\f82\fs24
\par
\par }}
--=====================_911162285==_--