Standardized survey interviewing is a form of institutional talk whose special constraints often conflict with ordinary conversational practices. Although survey manuals tend to recognize the conflict between standardization and respondents' requests for clarification, an alternative strategy for managing troubles in answering—“projective reporting”—is largely missing from the literature. Respondents may report circumstances in response to fixed-choice questions rather than providing an answer option. Such reports invite the interviewer to infer its relevance for an answer. Respondents use projective reporting in two different ways: to account for particular answers and to defer judgments in answering. Speakers and recipients in ordinary conversation have a variety of options for dealing with the upshots of projective reportings, but some of these options are prohibited in standardized interviews. When respondents use reporting to defer judgment, ordinary conversation and standardized interviewing can conflict.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AtkinsonJ. MaxwellDrewPaul1979. Order in Court: The Organization of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings.London: Macmillan.
2.
AtkinsonJ. MaxwellHeritageJohn, eds. 1984. Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
3.
BodenDeirdreZimmermanDon1991. Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis.Berkeley: University of California Press.
4.
BrennerMichael1981. “Patterns of Social Structure in the Research Interview.” Pp. 115–58 in Social Method in Social Life, edited byBrennerMichael. London: Acadence.
5.
BrownPenelopeLevinsonStephen C.1978. “Universals in Language Use: Politeness Phenomena.” Pp. 56–311 in Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, edited byGoodyEsther. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
6.
CicourelAaron V.1964. Method and Measurement in Sociology.New York: Free Press.
7.
CicourelAaron V.1974. Theory and Method in a Study of Argentine Fertility.New York: Wiley.
8.
ClaymanSteven1992. “Footing in the Achievement of Neutrality: The Case of News Interview Discourse.” Pp. 163–98 in Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, edited byDrewPaulHeritageJohn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
9.
ClaymanStevenHeritageJohn2002. The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10.
ConverseJean M.1987. Survey Research in the United States: Roots and Emergence 1890–1960.Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
11.
CzajaRonaldBlairJohnny1996. Designing Surveys: A Guide to Decisions and Procedures.Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
12.
DeMaioTheresa J.RothgebJennifer M.1996. “Cognitive Interviewing Techniques: In the Lab and in the Field.” Pp. 177–95 in Answering Questions, edited bySchwarzNorbertSudmanSeymour. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
13.
DrewPaul1984. “Speakers' Reportings in Invitation Sequences.” Pp. 129–51 in Structures of Social Action, edited byAtkinsonJ. MaxwellHeritageJohn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14.
DrewPaul1992. “Contested Evidence in Courtroom Cross-Examination: The Case of a Trial for Rape.” Pp. 470–520 in Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, edited byDrewPaulHeritageJohn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15.
DrewPaulHeritageJohn1992. “Analyzing Talk at Work: An Introduction.” Pp. 3–65 in Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, edited byDrewPaulHeritageJohn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
16.
FowlerFloydMangioneThomas1990. Standardized Survey Interviewing: Minimizing Interviewer-Related Error.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
17.
GarfinkelHarold1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
18.
GarfinkelHarold1988. “Evidence for Locally Produced, Naturally Accountable Phenomena of Order, Logic, Reason, Meaning, Method, Etc. in and as of the Essential Quiddity of Immortal Ordinary Society (I of IV): An Announcement of Studies.”Sociological Theory6: 10–39.
19.
GillVirginiaMaynardDouglas Forthcoming. “Patients' Explanations for Health Problems and Physicians' Responsiveness in the Medical Interview.” In Practicing Medicine: Talk and Action in Primary Care Encounters, edited byHeritageJohnMaynardDouglas W.. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
20.
GriceH. Paul [1967] 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” Pp. 41–58 in Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3: Speech Acts, edited byColePeterMorganJ.. New York: Academic.
21.
HeritageJohn1984. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology.Cambridge, UK: Polity.
22.
HeritageJohn2002. “Ad Hoc Inquiries: Two Preferences in the Design of ‘Routine’ Questions in an Open Context.” Pp. 323–33 in Standardization and Tacit Knowledge: Interaction and Practice in the Survey Interview, edited byMaynardDouglas W.Houtkoop-SteenstraHannekeSchaefferNora Catevan der ZouwenJohannes. New York: Wiley.
23.
Houtkoop-SteenstraHanneke1995. “Meeting Both Ends: Standardization and Recipient Design in Telephone Survey Interviews.” Pp. 91–106 in Situated Order: Studies in the Social Organization of Talk and Embodied Activities, edited byten HavePaulPsathasGeorge. Washington, DC: University Press of America.
24.
JeffersonGail1989. “Preliminary Notes on a Possible Metric Which Provides for a ‘Standard Maximum’ Silence of Approximately One Second in Conversation.” Pp. 166–96 in Conversation: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, edited byRogerDerekBullPeter. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
25.
JeffersonGailLeeJohn R.E.1981. “The Rejection of Advice: Managing the Problematic Convergence of a ‘Troubles Telling’ and a ‘Service Encounter.’”Journal of Pragmatics5: 399–422.
26.
LevinsonStephen C.1983. Pragmatics.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
27.
LuffPaulHindmarshJonHeathChristian, eds. 2000. Workplace Studies: Recovering Work Practice and Informing System Design.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
28.
MaynardDouglas W.ClaymanSteven E.1991. “The Diversity of Ethnomethodology.”Annual Review of Sociology17: 385–418.
29.
MaynardDouglas W.SchaefferNora Cate2002a. “Standardization and Its Discontents.” Pp. 3–46 in Standardization and Tacit Knowledge: Interaction and Practice in the Survey Interview, edited byMaynardDouglas W.Houtkoop-SteenstraHannekeSchaefferNora Catevan der ZouwenJohannes. New York: Wiley.
30.
MaynardDouglas W.SchaefferNora Cate2002b. “Opening and Closing the Gate: The Work of Optimism in Recruiting Survey Respondents.” Pp. 179–204 in Standardization and Tacit Knowledge: Interaction and Practice in the Survey Interview, edited byMaynardDouglas W.Houtkoop-SteenstraHannekeSchaefferNora Catevan der ZouwenJohannes. New York: Wiley.
31.
MooreRobert J.MaynardDouglas W.2002. “Achieving Understanding in the Standardized Survey Interview: Repair Sequences.” Pp. 281–312 in Standardization and Tacit Knowledge: Interaction and Practice in the Survey Interview, edited byMaynardDouglas W.Houtkoop-SteenstraHannekeSchaefferNora Catevan der ZouwenJohannes. New York: Wiley.
32.
Morton-WilliamsJean1979. “The Use of ‘Verbal Interaction Coding’ for Evaluating a Questionnaire.”Quantity and Quality13: 59–75.
33.
OchsElinorSchegloffEmanuel A.ThompsonSandra A., Eds 1996. Interaction and Grammar.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
34.
PomerantzAnita1980. “Telling My Side: ‘Limited Access’ as a Fishing Device.”Sociological Inquiry50: 186–98.
35.
PomerantzAnita1984. “Agreeing and Disagreeing With Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” Pp. 299–345 in Structures of Social Action, edited byAtkinsonJ. MaxwellHeritageJohn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
36.
PomerantzAnita1988. “Offering a Candidate Answer: An Information Seeking Strategy.”Communication Monographs55: 360–73.
37.
RaymondGeoffrey Forthcoming. “Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No type Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding.”American Sociological Review..
38.
SchaefferNora CateMaynardDouglas W.1996. “From Paradigm to Prototype and Back Again.” Pp. 65–90 in Answering Questions: Methodology for Determining Cognitive and Communicative Processes in Survey Research, edited bySchwarzNorbertSudmanSeymour. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
39.
SchaefferNora CateMaynardDouglas W.2002. “Occasions for Intervention: Interactional Resources for Comprehension in Standardized Survey Interviews.” Pp. 261–80 in Standardization and Tacit Knowledge: Interaction and Practice in the Survey Interview, edited byMaynardDouglas W.Houtkoop-SteenstraHannekeSchaefferNora Catevan der ZouwenJohannes. New York: Wiley.
40.
SchegloffEmanual1987. “Analyzing Single Episodes of Interaction: An Exercise in Conversation Analysis.”Social Psychology Quarterly50: 101–14.
41.
SchegloffEmanual1997. “Practices and Actions: Boundary Cases of Other-Initiated Repair.”Discourse Processes23: 499–545.
42.
SuchmanLucyJordanBrigitte1990. “Interactional Troubles in Face-to-Face Survey Interviews.”Journal of the American Statistical Association85: 232–41.
43.
Van der ZouwenJohannesDijkstraWilSmitJohannes H.1991. “Studying Respondent-Interviewer Interaction: The Relationship Between Interviewing Style, Interviewer Behavior, and Response Behavior.” Pp. 419–37 in Measurement Errors in Surveys, edited byBiemerPaul P.GrovesRobert M.LybergLars E.MathiowetzNancy A.SudmanSeymour. New York: Wiley.
44.
ZimmermanDon H.1988. “On Conversation: The Conversation Analytic Perspective.” Pp. 406–32 in Communication Yearbook 11, edited byAndersonJames A.. Beverly Hills: Sage.
