Framing in interactive academic talk

Pragmatics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yun Pan

Abstract Framing involves how language users conceptualize what is happening in interaction for situated interpretation of roles, purposes, expectations, and sequences of action, thus show significant conceptual relevance to the analysis of routinized institutional communication. Having established a working definition of framing based on an intensive review of previous research, this study investigates university students’ and tutors’ framing behaviors in interactive small group talk. Two types of framing-in-interaction, -alternate framing of a single situation and co-framing within/beyond speaker role boundary-, are identified, examined, and characterized from a conversation-analytic perspective. The findings suggest that alternate framings co-occur with traceable interactional devices for sequential organization when the single situation at talk takes on divergent meaning potentials to be accessed. Co-framings happen when at least one (group) of participants is highly goal-oriented, showing conditional relevance to the prior courses of action and more explicit negotiation of epistemic stances. Framing, therefore, can be arguably taken as a global organization resource to characterize contextualization in institutional communication.

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 268-278
Author(s):  
Lisa DiCarlo

This paper explores design anthropology as a topic of study among university students.  After establishing a working definition of design anthropology, I will use a case study from class to illustrate several aspects of the discipline that appeal to students: holism in research, understanding before action, and stakeholder engagement. I conclude with a discussion of the importance of informed intervention as an appealing outcome for students.


PsycCRITIQUES ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 58 (25) ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Farr

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda S Newton ◽  
Sonja March ◽  
Nicole D Gehring ◽  
Arlen K Rowe ◽  
Ashley D Radomski

BACKGROUND Across eHealth intervention studies involving children, adolescents, and their parents, researchers have measured users’ experiences to assist with intervention development, refinement, and evaluation. To date, there are no widely agreed-on definitions or measures of ‘user experience’ to support a standardized approach for evaluation and comparison within or across interventions. OBJECTIVE We conducted a scoping review with subsequent Delphi consultation to (1) identify how user experience is defined and measured in eHealth research studies, (2) characterize the measurement tools used, and (3) establish working definitions for domains of user experience that could be used in future eHealth evaluations. METHODS We systematically searched electronic databases for published and gray literature available from January 1, 2005 to April 11, 2019. Studies assessing an eHealth intervention that targeted any health condition and was designed for use by children, adolescents, and their parents were eligible for inclusion. eHealth interventions needed to be web-, computer-, or mobile-based, mediated by the internet with some degree of interactivity. Studies were also required to report the measurement of ‘user experience’ as first-person experiences, involving cognitive and behavioural factors, reported by intervention users. Two reviewers independently screened studies for relevance and appraised the quality of user experience measures using published criteria: ‘well-established’, ‘approaching well-established’, ‘promising’, or ‘not yet established’. We conducted a descriptive analysis of how user experience was defined and measured in each study. Review findings subsequently informed the survey questions used in the Delphi consultations with eHealth researchers and adolescent users for how user experience should be defined and measured. RESULTS Of the 8,634 articles screened for eligibility, 129 and one erratum were included in the review. Thirty eHealth researchers and 27 adolescents participated in the Delphi consultations. Based on the literature and consultations, we proposed working definitions for six main user experience domains: acceptability, satisfaction, credibility, usability, user-reported adherence, and perceived impact. While most studies incorporated a study-specific measure, we identified ten well-established measures to quantify five of the six domains of user experience (all except for self-reported adherence). Our adolescent and researcher participants ranked perceived impact as one of the most important domains of user experience and usability as one of the least important domains. Rankings between adolescents and researchers diverged for other domains. CONCLUSIONS Findings highlight the various ways user experience has been defined and measured across studies and what aspects are most valued by researchers and adolescent users. We propose incorporating the working definitions and available measures of user experience to support consistent evaluation and reporting of outcomes across studies. Future studies can refine the definitions and measurement of user experience, explore how user experience relates to other eHealth outcomes, and inform the design and use of human-centred eHealth interventions.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 713-722
Author(s):  
Vincent Boswijk ◽  
Matt Coler

AbstractA commonly used concept in linguistics is salience. Oftentimes it is used without definition, and the meaning of the concept is repeatedly assumed to be self-explanatory. The definitions that are provided may vary greatly from one operationalization of salience to the next. In order to find out whether it is possible to postulate an overarching working definition of linguistic salience that subsumes usage across linguistic subdomains, we review these different operationalizations of linguistic salience. This article focuses on salience in sociolinguistics, cognitive linguistics, second-language acquisition (SLA), and semantics. In this article, we give an overview of how these fields operationalize salience. Finally, we discuss correlations and contradictions between the different operationalizations.


ICL Journal ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-69
Author(s):  
Eszter Polgári

AbstractThe present article maps the explicit references to the rule of law in the jurisprudence of the ECtHR by examining the judgments of the Grand Chamber and the Plenary Court. On the basis of the structured analysis it seeks to identify the constitutive elements of the Court’s rule of law concept and contrast it with the author’s working definition and the position of other Council of Europe organs. The review of the case-law indicates that the Court primarily associates the rule of law with access to court, judicial safeguards, legality and democracy, and it follows a moderately thick definition of the concept including formal, procedural and some substantive elements. The rule of law references are predominantly ancillary arguments giving weight to other Convention-based considerations and it is not applied as a self-standing standard.


2007 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 22-34
Author(s):  
Lee R. Briggs

This paper presents a set of best practices and lessons learned from a set of 93 impact evaluations conducted on community-level, small grants activities implemented between March 2003 and September 2007 by the Sri Lanka country programme of the Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI) of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). It analyses the change theories that guided programme development and common trends in impact which emerged, and discusses ways in which programme staff can improve project impact. It provides a working definition of ‘process’, a key element of OTI's approach and a key concept used by facilitators to understand the work they do with groups and communities. It also delineates a general typology of peacebuilding projects likely to emerge in the community setting. Finally, it formulates a postulate for predicting and observing generic programme impact based upon the relative richness of process, which is considered useful for informing further research design.


Author(s):  
Dillon Stone Tatum

Abstract Can there be a “radical IR?” Scholars have given little attention to the question of the following: where is radicalism in the discipline? I argue that not only is it possible to think about radical international theory, but that it is necessary in the contemporary world. International theorists have to grapple with developments of fundamental change, including the so-described decline of the (neo)liberal international order, transformations in global capital, and an upsurge in populist political movements that advocate for fundamental political change. In approaching the question of radicalism in IR, the article develops a working definition of radicalism as an approach to politics that focuses on the International as a whole, uses theoretical tools from the humanistic sciences to engage in an active politics of fundamental transformation, and deploys methods that are historicist, genealogical, and oriented toward “getting to the root of things.” Additionally, the paper illustrates the virtues and promises of a radical IR by using the case of (neo)liberal world order arguments to show how a radical IR could change the trajectory of these engagements.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document