Instead of viewing the ‘observer’s paradox’ or the presence of ‘tape-affected speech’ as a methodological problem that spoils ‘natural’ data, in this article, I advocate exploring the opportunities that a recorder offers to research study participants, and the insights tape-affected speech gives to researchers. In my discourse analysis of the week-long self-audio-recorded discourse of members of four American families, I draw on the notions of ‘frame’ and ‘footing’ to uncover the various ways the recorder is conceptualized and oriented to in interaction—as an object and a person, and in literal and playful ways—and demonstrate how participants use the recorder as a resource for identity work in interaction. Analysis reveals how recording shapes the interactions that constitute ‘data’ and how study participants manipulate the presence of the recorder to display identities.
BatesonG (1972) Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballantine Books.
2.
BellA (1984) Language style as audience design. Language in Society13(2): 145–204.
3.
BucholtzMHallK (2005) Identity and interaction: a sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies7(4–5): 585–614.
4.
CameronD (1996) Women Talk: Conversation between Women Friends. Oxford: Blackwell.
5.
EricksonF (2004) Origins: a brief intellectual and technological history of the emergence of multimodal discourse analysis. In: LevinePScollonR (eds) Discourse and Technology: Multimodal Discourse Analysis (Proceedings of the Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics, 2002). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 196–207.
6.
GoffmanE (1974) Frame Analysis. New York: Harper & Row.
7.
GoffmanE (1981) Forms of Talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
8.
GordonC (2004) ‘Al Gore’s Our Guy’: linguistically constructing a family political identity. Discourse & Society15(5): 607–631. (Reprinted with minor alterations in TannenDKendallSGordonC (eds) Family Talk: Discourse and Identity in Four American Families. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 233–262.).
9.
GordonC (2009) Making Meanings, Creating Family: Intertextuality and Framing in Family Interaction. New York: Oxford University Press.
10.
JohnstoneB (2000) Qualitative Methods in Sociolinguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.
11.
LabovW (1972) Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society1(1): 97–120.
12.
MonahanTFisherJA (2010) Benefits of ‘Observer Effects’: lessons from the field. Qualitative Research10(3): 357–376.
13.
OchsE (1993) Constructing social identity: a language socialization perspective. Research on Language and Social Interaction26(3): 287–306.
14.
Schilling-EstesN (1998) Investigating ‘Self-Conscious’ speech: the performance register in Ocracoke English. Language in Society27(1): 53–83.
15.
ScollonRScollonSW (2004) Nexus Analysis: Discourse and the Emerging Internet. New York: Routledge.
16.
SpeerS (2008) Natural and contrived data. In: AlasuutariPBickmanLBrannenJ (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Social Research Methods. London: Sage, 290–312.
17.
SpeerSA (2002a) ‘Natural’ and ‘Contrived’ data: a sustainable distinction?Discourse Studies4(4): 511–525.
18.
SpeerSA (2002b) Transcending the ‘Natural’/‘Contrived’ distinction: a rejoinder to ten Have, Lynch and Potter. Discourse Studies4(4): 543–548.
19.
SpeerSAHutchbyI (2003) From ethics to analytics: aspects of participants’ orientations to the presence and relevance of recording devices. Sociology37(2): 315–337.
20.
TannenD (2005) Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk among Friends. New York: Oxford University Press (previously published in 1989 by Ablex).
21.
TannenDWallatC (1993) Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: examples from a medical examination/interview. In: TannenD (ed.) Framing in Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press, 57–76.
22.
TannenDKendallSGordonC (2007) Family Talk: Discourse and Identity in Four American Families. New York: Oxford University Press.
23.
TaylorCE (1995) ‘You Think It Was a Fight?’: co-constructing (the struggle for) meaning, face, and family in everyday narrative activity. Research on Language and Social Interaction28(3): 283–317.
24.
WertheimS (2006) Cleaning up for company: using participant roles to understand fieldworker effect. Language in Society35(5): 707–727.
25.
WilsonJ (1987) The sociolinguistic paradox: data as a methodological product. Language & Communication7(2): 161–177.
26.
WilsonJ (1994) Paradoxes, sociolinguistics and everyday accounts. Multilingua: Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication13(3): 285–300.
27.
WolfsonN (1976) Speech events and natural speech: some implications for sociolinguistic methodology. Language in Society5(2): 189–209.
