Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Applied Linguistics Review

Editor-in-Chief: Wei, Li

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 1.286

Online
ISSN
1868-6311
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Interaction in qualitative questionnaires: From self-report to intersubjective achievement

Meike Wernicke
  • Corresponding author
  • Language and Literacy Education, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Steven Talmy
  • Language and Literacy Education, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2017-05-09 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2017-0030

Abstract

Survey questionnaires are among the most widely-used research methods in applied linguistics, adopted for everything from large-scale quantitative studies measuring social-psychological variables to qualitative studies that solicit participant views on a range of different topics. Despite the variety of purposes that survey questionnaires are used for, the most common approaches to analysis of the data they yield involve content analysis using descriptive or inferential statistics and/or enumeration of emergent themes. The study reported in this article conceives of questionnaire data in notably different terms: as occasioned (conditionally-relevant responses sequentially-projected by a question), recipient-designed (devised for the research context and researcher), and thus, as thoroughly interactional phenomena (Drew 2006; Sacks 1992). The study examines the identity construction of French as a second language (FSL) teachers on a professional development sojourn in France, drawing on a data-set in part comprised of participants’ open-ended responses to a 48-item questionnaire concerning whether their “confidence as French language teachers” increased as a result of their involvement in the sojourn. However, rather than conceiving of participants’ answers as revelations of changes in their interior states, the study draws on insights from conversation analysis and membership categorization analysis to examine how “confidence” was recruited as a discursive resource to “do being” a particular kind of L2 French teacher. We demonstrate how the presence and problematics of a (French) native-speaker archetype for the FSL teachers was in part formulated through close analytic attention to both the sequential and categorial features of researcher/respondent interactions occasioned by one open-ended response item in the questionnaire. This alternative approach to analyzing questionnaire data offers important insights about L2 teacher identity. It also addresses more fundamental questions concerning the discursive and interactional basis of ostensibly non-interactional research methods like survey questionnaires. Additionally, the insistence on an explicit methodological framing of the research process promotes greater theoretical and methodological consistency, and of particular importance, a significantly expanded conception of and accounting for researcher reflexivity.

Keywords: survey questionnaires; conversation analysis; membership categorization analysis; French teacher identity; researcher reflexivity

References

  • Aldridge, Jill, Barry Fraser & Tai-Chu Huang. 1999. Investigating classroom environments in Taiwan and Australia with multiple research methods. Journal of Educational Research 93. 48–62.Google Scholar

  • Atkinson, J. Maxwell & John Heritage. 1984. Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Baker, Carol. 2003. Ethnomethodological analyses of interviews. In James A. Holstein & Jaber F. Gubrium (eds.), Inside interviewing: New lenses, new concerns, 395–412. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar

  • Bayliss, Doreen & Marie-Josée Vignola. 2000. Assessing language proficiency of FSL teacher candidates: What makes a successful candidate? Canadian Modern Language Review 57. 217.Google Scholar

  • Bayliss, Doreen & Marie-Josée Vignola. 2007. Training non-native second language teachers: The case of anglophone FSL teacher candidates. Canadian Modern Language Review 63. 217–244.Google Scholar

  • Berry, Roger. 1990. The role of language improvement in in-service teacher training: Killing two birds with one stone. System 18. 97–105.Google Scholar

  • Bradburn, Norman M., Seymour Sudman & Brian Wansink. 2004. Asking questions: The definitive guide to questionnaire design. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar

  • Braun, V., & V. Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2). 77–101.Google Scholar

  • Briggs, Charles. 1986. Learning how to ask: A sociolinguistic appraisal of the role of the interviewer in social science research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Briggs, Charles. 2007. Anthropology, interviewing, and communicability in contemporary society. Current Anthropology 48. 551–580.Google Scholar

  • Brown, James Dean. 2009. Open-response items in questionnaires. In Juanita Heigham & Robert Croker (eds.), Qualitative research in applied linguistics: A practical introduction, 200–219. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

  • Bucholtz, Mary & Kira Hall. 2005. Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies 7. 585–614.Google Scholar

  • Cashman, H. 2005. Identities at play: Language preference and group membership in bilingual talk in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 37. 301–315.Google Scholar

  • Cicourel, Aaron V. 1964. Method and measurement in sociology. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar

  • Cicourel, Aaron V. 1982. Interviews, surveys, and the problem of ecological validity. American Sociologist 17. 11–20.Google Scholar

  • Creswell, James 2007. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar

  • Denzin, Norman K. & Yvonna S. Lincoln (eds.). 2011. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research, 4th edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar

  • Deschambault, Ryan. 2011. From “analytic nuisance” to interactional resource: Re-viewing small stories within interviews in a mixed methods study. Journal of Pragmatics 43. 3080–3090.Google Scholar

  • Dörnyei, Zoltán. 2003. Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Drew, Paul. 2006. When documents “speak”: Documents, language and interaction. In Paul Drew, Geoffrey Raymond & Darin Weinberg (eds.), Talk and interaction in social research methods, 63–80. London: SAGE.Google Scholar

  • Drew, Paul. 2013. Turn design. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 131–149. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Fitzgerald, Richard & William Housley (eds.). 2015. Advances in membership categorisation analysis. London: SAGE.Google Scholar

  • Freebody, Peter. 2004. Qualitative research in education. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar

  • Gardner, Robert, Paul Tremblay & A. Anne-Marie Masgoret. 1997. Towards a full model of second language learning: An empirical investigation. Modern Language Journal 81. 344–362.Google Scholar

  • Goodwin, Charles. 2000. Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 32. 1489–1522.Google Scholar

  • Hammond, Kay. 2006. More than a game: A critical discourse analysis of a racial inequality exercise in Japan. TESOL Quarterly 40. 545–571.Google Scholar

  • Hayano, Kaoru. 2012. Question design in conversation. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 395–414. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar

  • Hester, Stephen & Peter Eglin (eds.). 1997. Culture in action: Studies in membership categorization analysis. Washington, DC: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis & University Press of America.Google Scholar

  • Holstein, James & J. Gubrium. 1995. The active interview. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar

  • Jackson, Kristin & William Trochim. 2002. Concept mapping as an alternative approach for the analysis of open-ended survey responses. Organizational Research Methods 5(4). 307–336.Google Scholar

  • Johnson, Robert & Larry Christensen. 2013. Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches, 5th edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar

  • Kanno, Yasuko & Christian Stuart. 2011. Learning to become a second language teacher: Identities-in-practice. Modern Language Journal 95. 236–252.Google Scholar

  • Lapkin, Sharon, Alina MacFarlane & Larry Vandergrift. 2006. Teaching French as a second language in Canada: Teachers’ perspectives research report. Ottawa: CASLT/ACPLS.Google Scholar

  • Leung, Constant, Roxy Harris & Ben Rampton. 1997. The idealised native speaker, reified ethnicities, and classroom realities. TESOL Quarterly 31. 543–560.Google Scholar

  • Mackey, Alison & Susan Gass. 2005. Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • McNeill, Patrick & Steve Chapman. 2005. Research methods, 3rd edn. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Miller, Elizabeth. 2011. Indeterminacy and interview research: Co-constructing ambiguity and clarity in interviews with an adult immigrant learner of English. Applied Linguistics 32. 43–59.Google Scholar

  • Murdoch, George. 1994. Language development provision in teacher training curricula. ELT Journal 48. 253–265.Google Scholar

  • O’Cathain, Alicia & Kate Thomas. 2004. “Any other comments?” Open questions on questionnaires-a bane or a bonus to research? BMC Medical Research Methodology 4(25).Google Scholar

  • O’Dwyer, Laura & James Bernauer. 2014. Quantitative research for the qualitative researcher. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar

  • Paltridge, Brian & Aek Phakiti. 2015. Research methods in applied linguistics: A practical resource. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Phillipson, Robert. 1992. ELT: The native speaker’s burden? ELT Journal 46. 12–18.Google Scholar

  • Pomerantz, Anita & John Heritage. 2012. Preference. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 210–228. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Potter, Jonathan & Alexa Hepburn. 2005. Qualitative interviews in psychology: Problems and possibilities. Qualitative Research in Psychology 2. 1–27.Google Scholar

  • Prior, Matthew. T. 2014. Re-examining alignment in a “failed” L2 autobiographic research interview. Qualitative Inquiry 20(4). 495–508.Google Scholar

  • Rampton, Ben. 1990. Displacing the “native speaker”: Expertise, affiliation, and inheritance. ELT Journal 44(2). 97–101.Google Scholar

  • Raymond, Geoffrey. 2003. Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review 68(6). 939–967.Google Scholar

  • Reddy, M. 1979. The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and thought, 284–324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Richards, Keith. 2003. Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar

  • Rissel, Dorothy. 1995. Learning by doing: Outcomes of an overseas summer project for teachers. Foreign Language Annals 28. 121–133.Google Scholar

  • Roulston, Kathryn. 2010. Reflective interviewing: A guide to theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar

  • Roulston, Kathryn. 2011. Interview “problems” as topics for analysis. Applied Linguistics 32. 77–94.Google Scholar

  • Sacks, Harvey. 1972. On the analyzability of stories by children. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (eds.),Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication, 325–345. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar

  • Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on conversation: Volumes I & II. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel Schegloff & Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50. 696–735.Google Scholar

  • Salvatori, Michael & Alina MacFarlane. 2009. Profile and pathways: Supports for developing FSL teachers’ pedagogical, linguistic, and cultural competencies (CASLT Research Series).Ottawa, ON: Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers.Google Scholar

  • Schegloff, Emanuel. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction: Volume 1: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Schegloff, Emanuel & Harvey Sacks. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 22. 289–327.Google Scholar

  • Scholl, Juliann, Jacquee Wilson & Patrick Hughes. 2011. Expression of patients’ and providers’ identities during the medical interview. Qualitative Health Research 21. 1022–1032.Google Scholar

  • Shrum, Judith & Eileen Glisan. 2009. Teacher’s handbook: Contextualized language instruction, 4th edn. Toronto: Heinle.Google Scholar

  • Sidnell, Jack. 2011. Conversation analysis. Malden, MA: Wiley.Google Scholar

  • Silverman, David. 2004. Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice. London, UK: SAGE.Google 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.Google Scholar

  • Stokoe, Elizabeth. 2012. Moving forward with membership categorization analysis: Methods for systematic analysis. Discourse Studies 14(3). 277–303.Google Scholar

  • Talmy, Steven. 2009. Resisting ESL: Categories and sequence in a critically “motivated” analysis of classroom interaction. In H. T. Nguyen & G. Kasper (eds.), Talk-in-interaction: Multilingual perspectives, 181–213. Honolulu, HI: NFLRC.Google Scholar

  • Talmy, Steven. 2010. Qualitative interviews in applied linguistics: From research instrument to social practice. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 30. 128–148.Google Scholar

  • Talmy, Steven. 2011. The interview as collaborative achievement: Interaction, identity, and ideology in a speech event. Applied Linguistics 32. 25–42.Google Scholar

  • Talmy, Steven. 2014. Toward an interpretivist turn in L2 Studies. In Jan H. Hulstijn, Richard F. Young & Lourdes Ortega (eds.), Bridging the gap. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 36(3). 23–29.Google Scholar

  • Talmy, Steven & Keith Richards. 2011. Theorizing qualitative research interviews in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics 32. 1–5.Google Scholar

  • Tashakkori, Abbas & Charles Teddlie (eds.). 2010. SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar

  • Toerien, Merran & Sue Wilkinson. 2004. Exploring the depilation norm: A qualitative questionnaire study of women’s body hair removal. Qualitative Research in Psychology 1. 69–92.Google Scholar

  • Wagner, Elvis. 2015. Survey research. In Brian Paltridge & Aek Phakiti (eds.), Research methods in applied linguistics: A practical resource, 83–99. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Watson, Rod. 1997. Some general reflections on “categorization” and “sequence” in the analysis of conversation. In Stephen Hester & Peter Eglin (eds.), Culture in action: Studies in membership categorization analysis, 49–75. Washington, DC: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis & University Press of America.Google Scholar

  • Watson, Rod. 2015. De-reifying categories. In Richard Fitzgerald & William Housley (eds.), Advances in membership categorisation analysis, 23–50. London: Sage.Google Scholar

  • Wernicke, Meike. 2017. Navigating native speaker ideologies as FSL teacher. Canadian Modern Language Review, 73(2). https://doi.org/10.3138/CMLR.2951

  • Willig, Carla & Wendy Stainton-Rogers. 2007. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2017-05-09

Published in Print: 2018-10-25


Citation Information: Applied Linguistics Review, Volume 9, Issue 4, Pages 513–537, ISSN (Online) 1868-6311, ISSN (Print) 1868-6303, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2017-0030.

Export Citation

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in