1887
Language as Action
  • ISSN 0155-0640
  • E-ISSN: 1833-7139

Abstract

In the context of low fertility and Australia’s ageing population, a national longitudinal telephone survey, (NLC), asks women about their childbearing intentions. This paper uses conversation analysis (CA) to examine interaction between an interviewer and respondents on one NLC question about the likelihood of having children, Question 165. The analysis focuses on excerpts from troubled interviews, making transparent the task of negotiating responses acceptable to the interviewer and shedding light on problems inherent in the question for older women and women for whom prediction is difficult. Analysis shows the trouble to result from lack of congruence in the purposes of the researcher and the respondent: the researcher asks about likelihood, whereas the respondent tells her own story.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.2104/aral0732
2007-01-01
2019-09-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Australian Academy of Science
    Australian Academy of Science 1995Population 2040: Australia’s Choice. Symposium of the 1994 Annual General Meeting of the Australian Academy of Science. Canberra: Australian Academy of Sciences.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Australian Bureau of Statistics
    Australian Bureau of Statistics 2004Australian Historical Population Statistics – 4, Births. Catalogue No. 3105.0.65.001. Canberra.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS)
    Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) 1998Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing: Interviewer Manual. Melbourne.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bailey, K. D.
    1982Methods of Social Research. New York: The Free Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Button, G. ; Casey, N.
    1984 ‘Generating topic: The use of topic initial elicitors’. InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, edited by Atkinson, J.M. ; Heritage, J. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Coates, J.
    1996Women Talk: Conversation Between Women Friends. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Coombs, L. ; Freedman, R.
    1964 ‘Use of telephone interviews in a longitudinal fertility survey’. Public Opinion Quarterly28 (1): 112–117. doi: 10.1086/267225
    https://doi.org/10.1086/267225 [Google Scholar]
  8. Fowler, F. J. ; Mangione, T.W.
    1990Standardized Survey Interviewing: Minimizing Interviewer-Related Error. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781412985925
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985925 [Google Scholar]
  9. Gardner, R.
    2004 ‘Conversation analysis transcription’. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics SeriesS. 11: 185–191.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 2005 ‘Acknowledging strong ties between utterances in talk: Connections through right as a response token’. Proceedings of the 2004 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society, October 10. RetrievedAugust 29, 2006, fromhdl.handle.net/2123/115.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Headey, B. ; Warren, D. ; Harding, G.
    2006Families, Incomes and Jobs: A Statistical Report of the HILDA Survey. Melbourne: Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Heritage, J. C. ; Watson, D.R.
    1979 ‘Formulations as conversational objects’. InEveryday Language Studies in Ethnomethodology, edited by Psathas, G. New York: Irvington.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Houtkoop-Steenstra, H.
    1995 ‘Meeting both ends: Between standardization and recipient design in telephone survey interviews’. InSituated Order: Studies in the Social Organization of Talk and Embodied Activities, edited by ten Have, P. ; Psathas, G. Washington, DC: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis, and University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 1996 ‘Probing behaviour of interviewers in the standardized semi-open research interview’. Quality and Quantity30: 205–30. doi: 10.1007/BF00153988
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00153988 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2000Interaction and the Standardized Survey Interview: The Living Questionnaire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511489457
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489457 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2002 ‘Questioning turn format and turn-taking problems in standardized interviews’. InStandardization and Tacit Knowledge: Interaction and Practice in the Survey Interview, edited by Maynard, D.W. ; Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. ; Schaeffer, N.C. ; van der Zouwen, J. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. ; Antaki, C.
    1997 ‘Creating happy people by asking yes-no questions’. Research on Language and Social Interaction30 (4): 285–313. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3004_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3004_2 [Google Scholar]
  18. Institute for Resource Development (IRD) and Westinghouse Electric Corporation (WEC)
    Institute for Resource Development (IRD) and Westinghouse Electric Corporation (WEC) 1987a ‘Model A questionnaire with commentary for high contraceptive prevalence countries’. DHS Basic Documentation Phase II. Columbia, Maryland.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Institute for Resource Development (IRD) and Westinghouse Electric Corporation (WEC)
    Institute for Resource Development (IRD) and Westinghouse Electric Corporation (WEC) 1987b ‘Model B questionnaire with commentary for low contraceptive prevalence countries’. DHS Basic Documentation Phase II. Columbia, Maryland.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Institute for Resource Development (IRD) and Macro Systems Inc. (MSI)
    Institute for Resource Development (IRD) and Macro Systems Inc. (MSI) 1990a ‘Model A questionnaire with commentary for high contraceptive prevalence countries’. DHS Basic Documentation Phase II. Columbia, Maryland.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Institute for Resource Development (IRD) and Macro Systems Inc.(MSI)
    Institute for Resource Development (IRD) and Macro Systems Inc.(MSI) 1990b ‘Model B questionnaire with commentary for low contraceptive prevalence countries’. DHS Basic Documentation Phase II. Columbia, Maryland.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Jefferson, G.
    1984 ‘Transcription notation’. InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, edited by Atkinson, J.M. ; Heritage, J. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Kippen, R.
    2003 ‘Trends in age- and parity-specific fertility in Australia’. Working Papers in Demography91. Canberra: Demography and Sociology Program, Research School of Social Sciences, The Australian National University.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Kippen, R. ; McDonald, P.
    2004 ‘Can increased immigration be perceived as a substitute for low fertility?’ People and Place12 (3): 18–27.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 2006 ‘Projecting fertility using synthetic parity progression ratios with application to Australia’. Paper presented atEuropean Population Conference, Liverpool, United Kingdom, 21–24 June, 2006.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Legge, K.
    2005 ‘Born lucky’. Weekend Inquirer Special Edition (9–10 April): 19, 28.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Levelt, W. J. M.
    1989Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. McDonald, P.
    1997 Personal communication concerning purpose of NLC questions, November 1997.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 2005 ‘Has the Australian fertility rate stopped falling?’ People and Place13 (3): 1–5.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. May, M. B.
    2002 ‘Asking Women About Having Children: Interaction in Telephone Survey Interviews’. PhD thesis, Canberra: The Australian National University.
  31. Maynard, D. W. ; Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. ; Schaeffer, N. C. ; van der Zouwen, J.
    eds 2002.Standardization and Tacit Knowledge: Interaction and Practice in the Survey Interview.New York: John Wiley and Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Maynard, D. W. ; Schaeffer, N.C.
    1997 ‘Keeping the gate’. Sociological Methods and Research26 (1): 34–79. doi: 10.1177/0049124197026001002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124197026001002 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2002 ‘Standardization and its discontents’. InStandardization and Tacit Knowledge: Interaction and Practice in the Survey Interview, edited by Maynard, D.W. ; Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. ; Schaeffer, N.C. ; van der Zouwen, J. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Mazeland, H. ; ten Have, P.
    1998Essential Tensions in (Semi-) Open Research Interviews. RetrievedOctober 21, 1998, fromwww.pcsw.uva.nl/emca/ET.htm.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research
    Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research 2004The HILDA Survey. RetrievedAugust 28, 2006, frommelbourneinstitute.com/hilda/.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Melbourne Survey Group
    Melbourne Survey Group 1979Melbourne Survey 1977: Vol. 2 Recently Married 516 Females. Canberra: Department of Demography, The Australian National University.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Molenaar, N. J. ; Smit, J.H.
    1996 ‘Asking and answering yes/no questions in survey interviews: A conversational approach’. Quality and Quantity30: 115–36. doi: 10.1007/BF00153983
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00153983 [Google Scholar]
  38. O’Donnell, N. ; Adams, K.
    1983 ‘“Heheh” in conversation: Some coordinating accomplishments of laughter’. Western Journal of Communication47: 175–91. doi: 10.1080/10570318309374114
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10570318309374114 [Google Scholar]
  39. Office of the Status of Women
    Office of the Status of Women 1999Women in Australia 1999. Canberra.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Pomerantz, A.
    1984 ‘Pursuing a response’. InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, edited by Atkinson, J.M. ; Heritage, J. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Potter, J.
    2003 ‘Review essay: Studying the standardized interview as interaction’. Qualitative Research3 (2): 269–78. doi: 10.1177/14687941030032007
    https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941030032007 [Google Scholar]
  42. Psathas, G.
    1995Conversation Analysis: The Study of Talk in Interaction. Thousand Oaks: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781412983792
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412983792 [Google Scholar]
  43. Sacks, H. ; Schegloff, E. A. ; Jefferson, G.
    1974 ‘A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation’. Language50: 696–735. doi: 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  44. Sacks, H.
    1987 ‘On the preference for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation’. InTalk and Social Organization, edited by Button, G. ; Lee, J.R.E. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Schaeffer, N. C. ; Maynard, D. W. ; Cradock, R.
    1993 ‘Negotiating uncertainty: Uncertainty proposals and their disposal in standardized survey interviews’. Draft paper presented at the annual meetings of theAmerican Association for Public Opinion Research, St Petersburg, Florida May 1992, and at the meeting of the International Sociological Association Research Committee (Sociolinguistics),June 25, 1992, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Schaeffer, N. C. ; Thomson, E.
    1992 ‘The discovery of grounded uncertainty: Developing standardized questions about the strength of fertility motivation’. Sociological Methodology22: 37–82. doi: 10.2307/270992
    https://doi.org/10.2307/270992 [Google Scholar]
  47. Schegloff, E. A.
    1987 ‘Recycled turn beginnings: A precise repair mechanism in conversation’s turn-taking organisation’. InTalk and Social Organization, edited by Button, G. ; Lee, J.R.E. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 1995 ‘Post-expansion’. InSequence Organization, edited by Schegloff, E. Los Angeles: University of California.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Schegloff, E. A. ; Jefferson, G. ; Sacks, H.
    1977 ‘The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation’. Language53: 361–382. doi: 10.1353/lan.1977.0041
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041 [Google Scholar]
  50. Schegloff, E. A. ; Sacks, H.
    1973 ‘Opening up closings’. Semiotica8 (4): 289–327. doi: 10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289 [Google Scholar]
  51. Schober, M. F. ; Conrad, F.G.
    2002 ‘A collaborative view of standardized survey interviews’. InStandardization and Tacit Knowledge: Interaction and Practice in the Survey Interview, edited by Maynard, D.W. ; Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. ; Schaeffer, N.C. ; van der Zouwen, J. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Silverman, D.
    1998Harvey Sacks: Social Science and Conversation Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Singh, S.
    1984Comparability of questionnaires: Forty-one WFS countries. WFS Comparative Studies32 (June). London: World Fertility Survey.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Smit, J. H.
    1995 ‘Suggestieve vragen in survey-interviews: Voorkomen, oorzaken en gevolgen’. PhD dissertation, Amsterdam: Faculteit der Sociaal-Culturele Wetenschappen, Vrije Universiteit.
  55. Stanton, D.
    2002 ‘The fertility crisis? Director’s report’. Family Matters63: 2–3.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Suchman, L. ; Jordan, B.
    1990 ‘Interactional troubles in face-to-face survey interviews’. Journal of the American Statistical Association85 (409): 232–241. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1990.10475331
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1990.10475331 [Google Scholar]
  57. Tesfaghiorghis, H.
    2006 ‘Australia’s fertility: A HILDA Survey based analysis’. 87–104. Canberra: Australian Government Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.
  58. The Australian National University, no date
    The Australian National University, no date. Negotiating the Life Course. RetrievedAugust 28, 2006, from[email protected].
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.2104/aral0732
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error