Despite recommendations for a more reflexive and theoretical turn to interviewing, the analysis of language and speech still occupies center stage. This study attempts to advance our understanding of the interview by including the use of gesture, gaze, and other embodied resources in concert with speech. Looking at a focus group interview evaluating community policing policy, I show how inclusion of embodied conduct offers a more robust approach to co-constructed meaning in the interview than looking at language practices alone. More explicitly, I investigate how an interviewee’s narrative includes gestures to solicit an affiliative stance from other interviewees and how ambiguous metacommunicative norms in the focus group influence the contributions of other police participants. I show how jurisdictional boundary and professional identity emerge in and through the integration of embodied conduct and sociocultural solidarity.
AtkinsonPSilvermanD (1997) Kundera’s immortality: The interview society and the invention of the self. Qualitative Inquiry3(3): 304–325.
2.
BarbourRKitzingerJ (eds) (1999) Developing Focus Group Research: Politics, Research and Practice. London: SAGE.
3.
BarbourR (2007) Doing Focus Groups. London: SAGE.
4.
BeachW (1990) Language as and in technology: Facilitating topic organization in a videotext focus group meeting. In: MedhurstMJGonzalezAPetersonTR (eds) Communication and the Culture of Technology. Pullman, WA: Washington State University Press, pp. 197–220.
5.
BeyeaSCNicollLH (2000) Collecting, analyzing and interpreting focus group data. Association of peri-Operative Registered Nurses (AORN) Journal71(6): 1281–1283.
6.
BloorMFranklandJThomasM. (2001) Focus Groups in Social Research. London: SAGE.
7.
BoldenG (2003) Multiple modalities in collaborative turn sequences. Gesture3(2): 187–211.
8.
BriggsC (1986) Learning How to Ask: A Sociolinguistic Appraisal of the Role of the Interview in Social Science Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9.
BriggsC (2009) Interview. In: SenftGOstmanJVerschuerenJ (eds) Culture and Language Use (Handbook of Pragmatic Highlights, vol. 2). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 202–209.
10.
ChappellALanza-KaduceL (2010) Police academy socialization: Understanding the lessons learned in a paramilitary-bureaucratic organization. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography39(2): 187–214.
11.
Goldin-MeadowS (2003) Hearing Gesture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12.
GoodwinC (2000) Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics32: 1489–1522.
13.
GoodwinC (2009) Embodied hearers and speakers constructing talk and action in interaction. Cognitive Studies16(1): 51–64.
14.
HolsteinJGubriumJ (2004) The active interview. In: SilvermanD (ed.) Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice. London: SAGE, pp. 140–161.
15.
Houtkoop-SteenstraH (2000) Interaction and the Standardized Survey Interview: The Living Questionnaire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16.
KendonA (1967) Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica26: 22–63.
17.
KendonA (2004) Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18.
KovenM (2014) Interviewing: Practice, ideology, genre and intertextuality. Annual Review of Anthropology43: 499–520.
19.
KraskaPCubellisLJ (1997) Militarizing Mayberry and beyond: Making sense of American paramilitary policing. Justice Quarterly14: 607–629.
20.
LernerG (1987) Collaborative turn sequences: Sentence construction and social action. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of California, Irvine, CA.
21.
LernerG (1991) On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society20: 441–458.
22.
LiX (2014) Multimodality, Interaction and Turn-taking in Mandarin Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
23.
MacnaghtenPMyersG (2004) Focus groups: The moderator’s view and the analyst’s view. In: GoboJGSealeCSilvermanD (eds) Qualitative Research Practice. London: SAGE, pp. 65–79.
24.
McNeillD (1992) Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
25.
McNeillD (2005) Gesture and Thought. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
26.
McNeillD (2006) Gesture and communication. In: BrownK (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Linguistics, 2nd edn. New York: Elsevier, pp. 58–67.
27.
MannS (2011) A critical review of qualitative interviews in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics32(1): 6–24.
28.
MatoesianG (2005) Struck by speech revisited: Embodied stance in jurisdictional discourse. Journal of Sociolinguistics9(2): 167–193.
29.
MatoesianG (2012) Gesture’s community: Social organization in multimodal conduct. Language in Society41(3): 365–391.
30.
MatoesianGColdrenJ (2002) Language and bodily conduct in focus group evaluations of legal policy. Discourse & Society13(4): 469–493.
31.
MatoesianGGilbertK (2016) Multifunctionality of beat gestures and material conduct during closing argument. Gesture15(1): 79–114.
32.
MaynardDSchaefferN (2000) Sociology of social scientific knowledge: Survey research and ethnomethodology’s asymmetric alternates. Social Studies of Science30(3): 323–370.
33.
MyersG (2004) Matters of Opinion: Talking about Public Issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34.
PuchtaCPotterJ (2004) Focus Group Practice. London: SAGE.
35.
RapleyT (2004) Interviews. In: SealeCGoboGGubriumJ (eds) Qualitative Research Practice. London: SAGE, pp. 15–34.
36.
RosenbaumD (2002) Evaluating multi-agency anti-crime partnerships: Theory, design and measurement issues. In: TilleyN (ed.) Evaluation for Crime Prevention: Crime Prevention Studies, vol. 14. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, pp. 171–225.
37.
RoulstonK (2006) Close encounters of the CA kind: A review of literature analyzing talk in research interviews. Qualitative Research6(4): 515–534.
38.
RoulstonK (2011) Interview ‘problems’ as topics for analysis. Applied Linguistics32(1): 77–94.
39.
ShawIGreenJMarkM (2006) Introduction: The evaluation of polices, programs and practices. In: ShawIGreenJMarkM (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Evaluation. London: SAGE, pp. 1–31.
40.
SilversteinM (1979) Language structure and linguistic ideology. In: ClynePHanksWHofbauerC (eds) The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 193–247.
41.
SilversteinM (1981) The limits of awareness. Sociolinguistic working paper no. 84, June. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
42.
TalmyS (2011) The interview as collaborative achievement: Interaction, identity and ideology in a speech event. Applied Linguistics32(1): 25–42.
43.
TalmySRichardsK (2011) Theorizing qualitative research interviews in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics32(1): 1–5.
44.
TannenD (1989) Talking Voices. New York: Cambridge University Press.
45.
TraversM (2005) Evaluation research and criminal justice: Beyond a political critique. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology38(1): 39–58.
46.
WilkinsonS (1999) Focus groups: A feminist method. Psychology of Women Quarterly23: 181–203.
47.
WilkinsonS (2004) Focus group research. In: SilvermanD (ed.) Qualitative Research: Theory, Method, and Practice. London: SAGE, pp. 177–199.
48.
WilkinsonS (2006) Analysing interaction in focus groups. In: DrewPRaymondGWeinbergD (eds) Talk and Interaction in Social Research Methods. London: SAGE, pp. 50–62.
