Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T21:22:12.803Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Linguistic stance: An integrative paradigm for mixed methods social science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2019

Robert W. Schrauf ,
Patria López De Victoria  and
Brett Diaz
Robert W. Schrauf*
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University, USA
Patria López De Victoria
Affiliation:
University of Puerto Rico at Cayey, Puerto Rico
Brett Diaz
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University, USA
*
Address for correspondence: Robert W. Schrauf, Department of Applied Linguistics, 240 Sparks Building, Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity Park, PA16802, USA[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article develops an integrative mixed methods framework grounded in stancetaking as the originary act through which qualitative interview and quantitative survey data are generated. The article examines how the basics of ‘everyday’ social stance—evaluation, positioning, and alignment within a sociocultural field—are strategically manipulated by social scientists in the twinned conditions of the interview and the survey. Relative to interview data, we demonstrate how participants link their stancetaking to wider sociocultural frames via the discursive devices of indexicality, accounting practices, and appeal to norms. Relative to survey data, we show how participants construct a ‘public’ via their engagement in the survey task, and how their stancetaking on survey items is virtually equivalent to ‘votes’ that are later aggregated to create second-order group-level stances. Mixed methods researchers then transform both qualitative and quantitative first-order stances into second-order stances that serve to describe and model social life. (Mixed methods, discourse devices, indexicality, normativity, interview, survey)

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , April 2020 , pp. 257 - 281
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Agha, Asif (2007). Language and social relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Antaki, Charles (1994). Explaining and arguing: The social organization of accounts. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
Bazeley, Pat (2018). Integrating analyses in mixed methods research. London: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, & Finegan, Edward (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text 9:93–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloor, David (1997). Wittgenstein: Rules and institutions. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Briggs, Charles L. (2007). Anthropology, interviewing, and communicability in contemporary society. Current Anthropology 48(4):551–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryman, Alan (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research 6(1):97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (1998). Coherent voicing: On prosody in conversational reported speech. InLiSt: Interaction and Linguistic Structures 1:1–28.Google Scholar
Creswell, John, & Clark, Vicki L. Plano (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 3rd edn.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. (2007). The stance triangle. In Engelbretson, Robert (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 139–81. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, Derek, & Potter, Jonathon (1992). Discursive psychology. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Enfield, Nick J. (2000). The theory of cultural logic: How individuals combine social intelligence with semiotics to create and maintain cultural meaning. Cultural Dynamics 12(1):35–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, Nick J., & Sidnell, Jack (2017). The concept of action. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Englebretson, Robert (2007). Stancetakeing in discourse. In Engelbretson, Robert (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 1–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Favret-Saada, Jeanne (1981). Deadly words: Witchcraft in the Bocage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Galasiński, Dariusz (2008). Constructions of the self in interaction with the Beck Depression Inventory. Health 12(4):515–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galasiński, Dariusz, & Kozłłowska, Olga (2010). Questionnaires and lived experience: Strategies of coping with the quantitative frame. Qualitative Inquiry 16(4):271–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galasiński, Dariusz, & Kozłłowska, Olga (2013). Interacting with a questionnaire: Respondents’ constructions of questionnaire completion. Quality & Quantity 47(6):3509–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold (2001). Ethnomethodology's program: Working out Durkheim's aphorism. London: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Harré, Rom, & van Langenhove, Luk (eds.) (1999). Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Harrits, Gitte S. (2011). More than a method? A discussion of paradigm differences within mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 5(2):150–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hesse-Biber, Sharlene Nagy, & Johnson, R. Burke (eds.) (2015). The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilton, Denis J. (1995). The social context of reasoning: Conversational inference and rational judgment. Psychological Bulletin 118(2):248–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holstein, James A., & Gubrium, John F. (1997). Active interviewing. In Silverman, David (ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method, & practice, 113–29. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Houtkoop-Steenstra, Hanneke (2000). Interaction and the standardized survey interview: The living questionnaire. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchby, Ian, & Woofit, Robin (1998). Conversation analysis: Principles, practices, and applications. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Jaffe, Alexandra (2009). Stance: Sociolinguistic perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail (1990). List construction as a task and resource. In Psathas, George (ed.), Interaction competence, 63–92. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Lerner, Gene H. (ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, 13–31. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R. Burke, & Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher 33:14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise (2003). Epistemic stance in English conversation: A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on I Think. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiesling, Scott F. (2011). The interactional construction of desire as gender. Gender and Language 5(2):213–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klewitz, Gabriele, & Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (1999). Quote-unquote: The role of prosody in the contextualization of reported speech sequences. Pragmatics 9(4):459–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in the black English vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lampropoulou, Sofia, & Myers, Greg (2013). Stance-taking in interviews from the qualidata archive. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitatative Social Research 14(1), article 12.Google Scholar
Lee, Carole J. (2006). Gricean charity: The Gricean turn in psychology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 36(2):193–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, Steve (2011). A critical review of qualitative interviews in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics 32(1):6–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, Steve (2016). The research interview: Reflective practice and reflexivity in research processes. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, David L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1(1):48–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, Greg, & Lampropoulou, Sofia (2012). Impersonal you and stance-taking in social research interviews. Journal of Pragmatics 44(10):1206–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ochs, Elinor (1996). Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In Gumperz, John & Levinson, Stephen C. (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity, 407–37. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita M. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, J. Maxwell & Heritage, John (eds.), Structures of social action, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Potter, Jonathon (1996). Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric, and social construction. London: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapley, Tim J. (2001). The Art(fulness) of open-ended interviewing: Some considerations on analyzing interviews. Qualitative Research 1(3):302–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapley, Mark, & Antaki, Charles (1998). ‘What do you think about…?’: Generating views in an interview. Text 18(4):587–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review 68(6):939–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey (2010). Grammar and social relations: Alternative forms of yes/no-type initiating actions in health visitor interactions. In Freed, Alice F. & Ehrlich, Susan (eds.), ‘Why do you ask?’: The function of questions in institutional discourse, 87–107. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roulston, Kathryn (2006). Close encounters of the ‘CA’ kind: A review of the literature analyzing talk in research interviews. Qualitative Research 6:535–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roulston, Kathryn (2014). Interactional problems in research interviews. Qualitative Research 14(3):277–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roulston, Kathryn, Baker, Carolyn D.; & Liljestrom, Anna (2001). Analyzing the researcher's work in generating data: The case of complaints. Qualitative Inquiry 7(6):745–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah (1987). Discourse markers. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoonenboom, Judith (2017). A performative paradigm for mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. Online: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1558689817722889.Google Scholar
Schrauf, Robert W. (2016). Mixed methods: Interviews, surveys, and cross-cultural comparisons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schrauf, Robert W. (2018). Mixed methods designs for making cross-cultural comparisons. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 12(4):477–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schrauf, Robert W., & Iris, Madelyn (2011a). Using consensus analysis to investigate cultural models of Alzheimer's disease. In Kronenfeld, David, Bennardo, Giovanni, de Munck, Victor, & Fischer, Michael D. (eds.), A companion to cognitive anthropology, 548–68. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schrauf, Robert W., & Iris, Madelyn (2011b). A direct comparison of popular models of normal memory loss and Alzheimer's disease in samples of African Americans, Mexican Americans, and refugees and immigrants from the Former Soviet Union. Journal of The American Geriatrics Society 59(4):628–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schrauf, Robert W., & Iris, Madelyn (2012). Very long pathways to diagnosis among African Americans and Hispanics with memory and behavioral problems associated with dementia. Dementia 11(6):726–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schrauf, Robert W., & Iris, Madelyn (2014). ‘What they're said to say’: The discursive construction of Alzheimer's disease by older adults. In Schrauf, Robert W. & Müller, Nicole (eds.), Dialogue and dementia: Cognitive and communicative resources for engagement, 27–57. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Schrauf, Robert W., Iris, Madelyn, Navarro, Ellen, & Smotrova, Tanya (2014). How to construct a case of Alzheimer's disease in three languages: Case-based reasoning in narrative gerontology. Ageing & Society 34(2):280–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shannon-Baker, Peggy (2015). Making paradigms meaningful in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 10(4):1–16.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael (2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language & Communication 23:193–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael (2004). Cultural concepts and the language-culture nexus. Current Anthropology 45(5):621–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya (2008). Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41(1):31–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, & Hayashi, Makoto (2010). Transformative answers: One way to resist a question's constraints. Language in Society 39:1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. Mondada, Lorenzo, & Steensig, Jakob (2011). Knowledge, morality & affiliation in social interaction. In The morality of knowledge in conversation, edited by Stivers, Tanya, Lorenzo Mondada, & Jakob Steensig, 3–24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Suchman, Lucy, & Jordan, Brigitte (1990). Interactional troubles in face-to-face survey interviews. Journal of the American Statistical Association 85(409):232–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Steven, & Richards, Keith (2011). Theorizing qualitative research interviews in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics 32(1):1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teddlie, Charles, & Yu, Fen (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1(1):77–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Geoff, & Hunston, Susan (2000). Evaluation: An introduction. In Hunston, Susan & Thompson, Geoff (eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse, 1–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van Langenhove, Luk, & Harré, Rom (1999). Introducing positioning theory. In Harré, Rom & van Langenhove, Luk (eds.), Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action, 14–31. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wortham, Stanton; Mortimer, Katherine; Lee, Kathy; Allard, Elaine; & White, Kimberly Daniel (2011). Interviews as interactional data. Language in Society 40:39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar