Text analysis of blog posts and comment threads: discourse analysis vs. conversation analysis
Hello everybody, I'm interested in qualitative text analysis of posts and comment treads in LiveJournal. I've found previous request on this topic in the aoir archieves, but it was 2 years ago ( http://listserv.aoir.org/htdig.cgi/air-l-aoir.org/2008-September/017172.html).
From one of the responses ( http://listserv.aoir.org/htdig.cgi/air-l-aoir.org/2008-September/017187.html) I've founded the following articles relevant to my interest:
Harrison S (2004) 'Subverting conversational repair in computer-mediated communication: pseudo repair and refusal to repair in a hostile email discussion' in Mike Baynham, Alice Deignan and Goodith White (eds.) Applied Linguistics at the Interface, British Studies in Applied Linguistics Volume 19. London: BAAL Equinox, pp63-77 Harrison, S (2007) 'Transgressions, miscommunication and flames: problematic incidents in email discussions' in Mia Consalvo & Caroline Haythornthwaite, (Eds.) AoIR Internet Annual Volume 4, New York: Peter Lang, pp 105-117 Harrison, S (2008) 'Turn taking in email discussions' in Sigrid Kelsey and Kirk St.Amant (eds.) Handbook of Research on Computer Mediated Communication. Hershey, Pennsylvania: Information Science Reference Harrison S and Allton D (forthcoming - draft paper submitted) 'Apologies in email discussions' But I still have some questions: 1) Which method would you prefer for such kind of analysis: discourse analysis or conversational analysis? 2) Are there any other artcles about qualitative text analysis of blog posts and comment threads? Thanks in advance. -- Alexander Semenov. MA student Faculty of Sociology Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES) http://www.msses.ru/English/index.html Graduate Student in Sociology at State University - Higher School of Economics http://www.hse.ru/eng
I guess the choice between conversational discourse analysis and other kinds would depend on what you are interested in in the data, a generic response for which I apologise in advance. Papers vaguely described as having used "discourse analysis", appear below. There are plenty of studies which report "content analysis" of text from discussion boards, I've dumped some of them below too. -- Natalya Godbold PhD Candidate (Human Information Behaviour / Health Communication) Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences University of Technology, Sydney Kokkonen, R. (2009). "The fat child - a sign of 'bad' motherhood? An analysis of explanations for children's fatness on a Finnish website." *Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology* *19*(5): 336. Riley, S., K. Rodham, et al. (2009). "Doing weight: Pro-ana and recovery identities in cyberspace." *Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology * *19*(5): 348. Sharf, B. F. (1997). "Communicating Breast Cancer On-Line: Support and Empowerment on the Internet." *Women & Health* *26*(1): 65 - 84. some content analysis studies: Na, J.-C., T. T. Thet, et al. (2010). "Comparing sentiment expression in movie reviews from four online genres." *Online Information Review* *34*(2): 317. Nimrod, G. (2010). "Seniors' Online Communities: A Quantitative Content Analysis." *The Gerontologist* *50*(3): 382-392. Pfeil, U. and P. Zaphiris (2010). "Applying qualitative content analysis to study online support communities." *Universal Access in the Information Society* *9*(1): 1. On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Semenov Alexander < semenoffalex@googlemail.com> wrote:
Hello everybody, I'm interested in qualitative text analysis of posts and comment treads in LiveJournal. I've found previous request on this topic in the aoir archieves, but it was 2 years ago (
http://listserv.aoir.org/htdig.cgi/air-l-aoir.org/2008-September/017172.html ).
From one of the responses (
http://listserv.aoir.org/htdig.cgi/air-l-aoir.org/2008-September/017187.html ) I've founded the following articles relevant to my interest:
Harrison S (2004) 'Subverting conversational repair in computer-mediated communication: pseudo repair and refusal to repair in a hostile email discussion' in Mike Baynham, Alice Deignan and Goodith White (eds.) Applied Linguistics at the Interface, British Studies in Applied Linguistics Volume 19. London: BAAL Equinox, pp63-77
Harrison, S (2007) 'Transgressions, miscommunication and flames: problematic incidents in email discussions' in Mia Consalvo & Caroline Haythornthwaite, (Eds.) AoIR Internet Annual Volume 4, New York: Peter Lang, pp 105-117
Harrison, S (2008) 'Turn taking in email discussions' in Sigrid Kelsey and Kirk St.Amant (eds.) Handbook of Research on Computer Mediated Communication. Hershey, Pennsylvania: Information Science Reference
Harrison S and Allton D (forthcoming - draft paper submitted) 'Apologies in email discussions'
But I still have some questions:
1) Which method would you prefer for such kind of analysis: discourse analysis or conversational analysis? 2) Are there any other artcles about qualitative text analysis of blog posts and comment threads?
Thanks in advance.
-- Alexander Semenov. MA student Faculty of Sociology Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES) http://www.msses.ru/English/index.html
Graduate Student in Sociology at State University - Higher School of Economics http://www.hse.ru/eng _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
¯`~.. ¸><((((º>¸. .~´¯`~.. ¸><((((º>¸. .~´¯`~.. ¸><((((º>¸. .><((((º>`~.¸¸.~´¯`~.¸.~´¯`~...¸><((((º> .,,.~´¯`~.. ¸><((((º>¸. .....,,.><((((º>`~.¸¸.~´¯`~.¸.~´¯`~...¸><((((º> .~´¯`~.. ¸><((((º>¸. .,,.~´¯`~.. ¸><((((º>¸. .~´¯`~.. UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of the University of Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects. Think. Green. Do. Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Hi Alexander (and list as this is the first public post for me), I'm currently in the 3rd year of my PhD in Linguistic Anthropology, and my data come from 3 different textual sources including online discussion forums, so let me jump in here with my 2p. In the research I did for my own thesis, I came to the conclusion that CA was not the most appropriate methodology for me or my data. I felt that its micro-focus strictly on how interlocutors orient to ideologies, etc, only by analysing the talk-in-interaction (and not taking into account contextual and ethnographic influences on the discourse) did not offer the type and level of analysis which I wanted. Moreover, I felt that CA was more useful and applicable for spoken conversations or back-and-forth talk between two or more interlocutors, as opposed to the often asynchronous talk one gets in textual discourse and CMC. For my thesis I'm using two complementary methodologies, Interactional Sociolinguistics and Ethnography of Communication. Both emphasise the importance of analysing situated discourse - this is in contrast with CA which can tend to abstract the discourse as it focuses almost exclusively on how participants themselves orient in the talk being analysed to various world views, attitudes, contextualising factors, etc. Interactional Sociolinguistics and Ethnography of Communication both use ethnographic methods to understand the contexts framing and perhaps driving the discourse being analysed. Having said all that, I don't know what specifically you are focussing on with your research, so perhaps CA would be good for you after all. I can recommend the Hutchby & Wooffitt (1998) book on CA (I'm pretty sure there's a newer, revised edition available) for more information on CA. Also, if you're interested in discourse analysis, I'd recommend Schiffrin's incredibly useful (1994) book, Approaches to Discourse, wherein she discussed several major qualitative approaches to analysing discourse. Very helpful, detailed book. I couldn't do my thesis without it. Finally, Duranti (1997) Linguistic Anthropology is a useful text on, well, linguistic anthropology! And associated methods :-) He writes in an approachable, uncomplicated manner, and would be very suitable for someone who needs to know information but doesn't want to or can't take the time to wade through extraneous words. Best of luck to you in your research! Barb -- Barbara Clark, PhD student School of Languages, Linguistics and Film Queen Mary, University of London Mile End Road London E1 4NS United Kingdom b.l.clark@qmul.ac.uk @drjavafox On 9 Jul 2010, at 01:23, Semenov Alexander wrote:
Hello everybody, I'm interested in qualitative text analysis of posts and comment treads in LiveJournal. I've found previous request on this topic in the aoir archieves, but it was 2 years ago ( http://listserv.aoir.org/htdig.cgi/air-l-aoir.org/2008-September/017172.html).
From one of the responses ( http://listserv.aoir.org/htdig.cgi/air-l-aoir.org/2008-September/017187.html) I've founded the following articles relevant to my interest:
Harrison S (2004) 'Subverting conversational repair in computer-mediated communication: pseudo repair and refusal to repair in a hostile email discussion' in Mike Baynham, Alice Deignan and Goodith White (eds.) Applied Linguistics at the Interface, British Studies in Applied Linguistics Volume 19. London: BAAL Equinox, pp63-77
Harrison, S (2007) 'Transgressions, miscommunication and flames: problematic incidents in email discussions' in Mia Consalvo & Caroline Haythornthwaite, (Eds.) AoIR Internet Annual Volume 4, New York: Peter Lang, pp 105-117
Harrison, S (2008) 'Turn taking in email discussions' in Sigrid Kelsey and Kirk St.Amant (eds.) Handbook of Research on Computer Mediated Communication. Hershey, Pennsylvania: Information Science Reference
Harrison S and Allton D (forthcoming - draft paper submitted) 'Apologies in email discussions'
But I still have some questions:
1) Which method would you prefer for such kind of analysis: discourse analysis or conversational analysis? 2) Are there any other artcles about qualitative text analysis of blog posts and comment threads?
Thanks in advance.
-- Alexander Semenov. MA student Faculty of Sociology Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES) http://www.msses.ru/English/index.html
Graduate Student in Sociology at State University - Higher School of Economics http://www.hse.ru/eng _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Hi Alex, I don't have any resources to add, but am interested in what you find. Can you post a summary to the list? I am in the final stretch of coding Twitter messages found in the public feed for my thesis on social media and self-disclosure. The content analysis looks at levels/depths of disclosure. On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Semenov Alexander < semenoffalex@googlemail.com> wrote:
1) Which method would you prefer for such kind of analysis: discourse analysis or conversational analysis? 2) Are there any other artcles about qualitative text analysis of blog posts and comment threads?
-- Best Regards, S. Courtney Walton scw@umail.ucsb.edu MA/PhD Student Department of Communication 4309 Social Sciences & Media Studies Bldg University of California, Santa Barbara 93106
participants (4)
-
Barbara Clark -
natalya godbold -
S. Courtney Walton -
Semenov Alexander