"Thinking aloud’as" a tool for data collection and basis for analysis

Бесплатный доступ

On the basis of video records of church attendance, in which ‘thinking aloud’ was used as a method of collecting data, this paper analyses the similarities and differences in the church attendance of Aurelia, Saskia and Anton. They viewed the same church and - this was the explicitly stated task - accompanied their visual perception by verbal comments and descriptions of the church interior. The ultimate goal of the analysis of ‘thinking aloud’ was the reconstruction of the underlying concepts of the attendance, which are largely based on relevancies that the viewers bring along. After outlining the focus of this paper and placing our approach within the context of relevant research, we identify the similarities of the forms of ‘thinking aloud’ and their functions exhibited in the three church attendances. We then focus on the differences and particularities of the three attendances and identify three independent, inherently conclusive concepts of attendance. These concepts are each characterized by their independent constitution of the church interior during its attendance. We’ve shown that the church interior is constituted as a religious functional space (Aurelia), as a place of representations of Christ (Saskia) and as an architectural historical context (Anton). The model-like independency of the concepts became clear exclusively through the use of ‘thinking aloud’. This method of verbally addressing topics alongside one’s visual perception is therefore an important tool for data collection and a technique to access situated cognition within the context of multimodal cultural practices.

Еще

Multimodality, multimodal analysis of interaction, church attendance, cultural practice, interactionist analysis of space, thinking aloud, language, cognition

Короткий адрес: https://readera.org/14970376

IDR: 14970376   |   DOI: 10.15688/jvolsu2.2018.2.17

Список литературы "Thinking aloud’as" a tool for data collection and basis for analysis

  • Auer P., 1992. Introduction: John Gumperz’ approach to contextualization. Auer P., Di Luzio A. (eds.) The contextualization of language. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, John Benjamins Publ. Co., pp. 1-37.
  • Buttkereit F.-A., Heinrich H.-A., Reithmayr L., Watmann A., Weyland V., 2014. Prozeßbegleitendes lautes Denken im Museum: Methodenbericht und Ergebnisdokumentation. Passau, Universität Passau. URL: https://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-unipassau/frontdoor/index/index/docId/229.
  • Cicourel A.V., 1975. Sprache in der sozialen Interaktion. München, List. 268 p.
  • Deppermann A., 2012. How does ‘cognition’ matter to the analysis of talk-in-interaction? Language Sciences, vol. 34, pp. 746-767.
  • Fiehler R., 1994. Formen des Sprechens mit sich selbst. Brünner G., Graefen G. Opladen (eds.) Texte und Diskurse. Methoden und Forschungsergebnisse der Funktionalen Pragmatik. Ursprünglich erschienen bei Westdeutscher Verlag GmbH, pp. 179-198.
  • Giddens A., 1976. New rules of sociological method. London, Hutchinson. 196 p.
  • Hausendorf H., Kesselheim W., 2013. Können Räume Texte sein? Linguistische Überlegungen zur Unterscheidung von Lesbarkeits-und Benutzbarkeitshinweisen. Arbeitspapiere des UFSP Sprache und Raum (SpuR), No. 2. 31 p. URL: http://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/84555/1/SpuR_Arbeitspapiere_Nr02_Aug2013.pdf
  • Hinnenkamp V., 1989. Interaktionale Soziolinguistik und interkulturelle Kommunikation: Gesprächsmanagement zwischen Deutschen und Türken. Tübingen, Niemeyer. 192 p.
  • Huber G.L., Mandl H., 1994. Verbale Daten. Eine Einführung in die Grundlagen und Methoden der Erhebung und Auswertung. (2. Aufl.). Weinheim, Beltz. 284 p.
  • Konrad K., 2010. Lautes Denken. Mey G., Mruck K. Wiesbaden (eds.) Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie. VS Verlag, pp. 476-490.
  • Lynch M., 2002. From naturally occurring data to naturally organized ordinary activities: comment on Speer. Discourse Studies, no. 4, pp. 531-537.
  • Mondada L., 2012. The conversation analytic approach to data collection. Sidnell J., Stivers T. (eds.) The handbook of conversation analysis. London, Wiley, pp. 32-56.
  • Rehbein J., 1977. Komplexes Handeln. Stuttgart, Metzler. 399 p.
  • Sacks H., Schegloff E.A., Jefferson G., 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turntaking for conversation. Language, no. 50, pp. 696-735.
  • Schmitt R., 2015. Positionspapier: Multimodale Interaktionsanalyse. Dausendschön-Gay U., Gülich E., Krafft U. Bielefeld (eds.) KoKonstruktionen in der Interaktion. Die gemeinsame Arbeit an Äußerungen und anderen sozialen Ereignissen. Transcript, pp. 43-51.
  • Schmitt R., 2017. Multimodale Objektkonstitution: Wie eine Kirchenbesichtigung funktioniert. Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya 2, Yazykoznanie , vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 163-183.
  • Selting M., Auer P., Barden B., Bergmann J.R., CouperKuhlen E., Günthner S., Meier C. et al., 2009. Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2). Gesprächsforschung -OnlineZeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, No. 10, pp. 353-402. URL: www.gespraechsforschungozs.de/heft2009/px-gat2.pdf
  • Speer S.A., 2002. Natural and contrived data: a sustainable distinction? Discourse Studies, no. 4, pp. 511-525.
  • Wise S., 2011. Visitors encounter the dust: How People think with objects in a history museum exhibition (Dissertation). Stanford, Stanford University. URL: http://purl.stanford.edu/zs034ry4864.
Еще
Статья научная