Praktiskt kan studiens resultat användas för att utveckla riktlinjer för, och kunskap om, intervjuer med barn. För detta syfte kan studiens resultat om barns trovärdighetsarbete på ett övergripande plan bidra med en förståelse av barn som trovärdiga samspelsdeltagare som både markerar när information de ger är säker och osäker. Mer specifikt kan studiens resultat om problematiken i frågor som antar att barn vet svaret utveckla utformningen av intervjufrågor och bidra till intervjuares kunskap om vilka frågor barn kan ha svårt att hantera.
Det finns fortfarande många frågor kvar att besvara kring trovärdighetsarbete. Min studies resultat antyder att barn förhåller sig kategoritillhörighet som en grund för trovärdighet, men har med undersökningens begränsade omfång inte närmare studerat vilka kategorier som hanteras som trovärdiga. För att få en djupare kunskap om människors trovärdighetsarbete krävs vidare forskning som undersöker hur människor förhåller sig till trovärdighet utifrån kategoritillhörighet. Vidare krävs forskning för att undersöka vilka institutionella villkor som påverkar barns handlingsutrymme
i institutionell interaktion och hur olika typer av intervjufrågor begränsar och möjliggör barns möjlighet att berätta om sina erfarenheter.
7 Referenslista
Antaki, C. & O’Reilly, M. (2014). Either/or questions in child psychiatric assessments: the effect of the seriousness and order of the alternatives. Discourse Studies, 16(3), 327-345.
Boyd, E. & Heritage, J. (2006). Taking the history: questioning during comprehensive history-taking. I Heritage, J. & Maynard, D.W. (Red.) Communication in medical care: interaction between primary care physicians and patients. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Briggs, C. (1986). Learning how to ask: a sociolinguistic appraisal of the role of the interview in social science research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Broberg, A., Almqvist, K., Appell, P. et al. (2015). iRiSk Utveckling av bedömningsinstrument och stödinsatser för våldsutsatta barn. Rapport, Göteborg: Göteborgs universitet.
Button, G. (1992). Answers as interactional products: two sequential practices used in job interviews. I Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (Red.) Talk at work: interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ss 200-212.
Bühler-Niederberger, D. (2010). Childhood sociology in ten countries: current outcomes and future directions. Current Sociology, 58(2), 369-384.
Cederborg, A. C. (2004). Factors influencing child witnesses. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 45, 197-205.
Clayman, S. (1992). Footing in the achievement of neutrality: the case of news interview discourse. I Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (Red.) Talk at work: interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ss 163-198.
Drew, P. (1992). Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: the case of trial for rape. I Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (Red.) Talk at work: interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ss 470-520.
Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (1992). Analyzing talk at work: an introduction. I Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (Red.) Talk at work: interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ss 3-65.
Edwards, D. & Potter, J. (2001). Discursive psychology. I McHoul, A. & Rapley, M. (Red.) How to analyse talk in institutional settings. New York: Continuum, ss 3-11.
Edwards, D. (2005). Moaning, whining ang laughing: the subjective side of complaints. Discourse Studies 7(1), 5-29.
Edwards, D. & Potter, J. (2005). Discursive psychology, mental states and descriptions. I te Molder, H. & Potter, J. (Red.) Conversation and cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press, ss 241-259.
Edwards, D. (2007). Managing subjectivity in talk. I Hepburn, A. & Wiggins, S. (Red.) Discursive research in practice: new approaches to psychology and interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ss 31-49.
Fasulo, A. & Fiore, F. (2007) A valid person: non-competence as a conversational outcome. I Hepburn, A. & Wiggins, S. (Red.) Discursive research in practice: new approaches to psychology and interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
González, M. (2015). Introduction. Discourse Studies 17(2), 117-120.
Gumperz, J. (1972). Introduction. I Gumperz, J. & Hymes, D. (Red.) Directions in sociolinguistics: the ethnography of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, ss 1-31.
Hepburn, A. & Wiggins, S. (Red.) (2007) Discursive research in practice: new approaches to psychology and interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, J. (1988). Explanations as accounts: a conversation analytic perspective. I Antaki, C. (Red.) Analyzing Lay Explanation: a casebook of methods. London: Sage, ss 127-144.
Heritage, J. & Clayman, S. (2010) Talk in action: interactions, identities, and institutions. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Heritage, J & Raymond (2005) The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Talk-in-Interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1), 15-38.
Hutchby, I. (2005). ”Active listening”: formulations and the elicitation of feelings-talk in child counselling. Research on language & social interaction, 38(3).
Hutchby, I. & Wooffitt, R. (2006). Conversation analysis: principles, practices and applications. Oxford: Polity.
Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. I Gumperz, J. & Hymes, D. (Red.) Directions in sociolinguistics: the ethnography of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, ss 35-71.
Iversen, C. (2013). Making questions and answers work: negotiating participation in interview interaction. Uppsala: Acta Sociologica.
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. I Learner, G. H. (Red.) Conversation analysis: studies from the first generation. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, ss. 13-23. Keevallik, L. (2011). The terms of not knowing. I Stivers, T., Mondada, L. & Steensig, J. (Red.). The morality of knowledge in conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S. (1992). Activity types and language. I Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (Red.) Talk at work: interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ss 66-100.
Lobley, J. (2001). Whose personality is it anyway? The production of ’personality’ in a diagnostic interview. I McHoul, A. & Rapley, M. (Red.) How to analyse talk in institutional settings. New York: Continuum, ss 113-123.
Mondada, L. (2013). The conversation analytic approach to data collection. I Sidnell, J & Stivers, T. (Red.) The handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, ss 32-56.
Potter, J. & Hepburn, A. (2005). Qualitative interviews in psychology: problems and possibilities. Qualitative research in psychology, 2(4), 281-307.
Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality: discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London: Sage. Pomerantz, A. (1984). Giving a source or basis: the practice in conversation of telling
’how I know’. Journal of Pragmatics 8, 607-605.
Pomerantz, A. (1986). Extreme case formulations: a way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies, 9, 219- 229.
Pomerantz, A. (1987). Descriptions in legal settings. I Lee, J. & Button, G. (Red.) (1987). Talk and social organisation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. & Jefferson, G, (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation.
Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: an introduction. Chicheste: Wiley-Blackwell.
Sidnell, J. (2012). ”Who knows best?” Evidentiality and epistemic asymmetry in conversation. Pragmatics and Society 3(2), 294-320.
Stivers, T. & Hayashi, M. (2010). Transformative answers: one way to resist a question’s constraints. Language in Society 39, 1-25.
Vetenskapsrådet. (2002) Forskningsetiska principer inom humanistisk-samhällsvetenskaplig forskning. Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet.
Winther Jorgensen, M. & Phillips, L. (2000). Diskursanalys som teori och metod. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Wooffitt, R (2001). Researching Psychic Practitioners: Conversation Analysis. I Wetherell, M., Taylor, S. & Yates, S.J. (Red.). Discourse as data: a guide for analysis. London: Sage, in association with the Open University.
Zimmerman, D. (1992). The interactional organisation of calls for emergency assistance. I Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (Red.) Talk at work: interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 418-469.
8 Bilaga
Utdrag från Gail Jefferson (2004: 24-31) transkriptionssystem:
[ The point of overlap onset
] The point at which two overlapping utterances end
= No break or gap
(0.0) Elapsed time in tenths of seconds
(.) Micro pause (± a tenth of a second) within or between utterances
:: Prolongation of the immediately prior sound, the more colons the longer the prolongation
word Stress via pitch and/or amplitude ↑↓ Shifts into especially high or low pitch
. Usual intonation
, Weak rise in intonation ? High rise in intonation WORD Especially loud sounds °word° Especially soft sounds
wo- Cut off
>word< The sounds within the brackets are sped up <word> The sounds within the brackets are slowed down .hhh Inbreath
hhh. Outbreath
( ) Emptby brackets indicates that the transcriber was unable to get what was said (word) Indicates that the transcriber is uncertain what was said
(( )) Double parentheses contain transcriber’s comments
Utöver Jefferson’s transkriptionssymboler har symbolen # använts i transkriberingen för att indikera skrovlig röst.