Conversation Analysis Discussions and Their

Conversation Analysis

Discussions and their evaluations that take place are simultaneously significant for a society to identify and solve any problem or deficits that they are facing. Conversation analysis is one of the ways that was initiated 3 decades ago to analyze discussions. It is considered the most popular offshoot of the field of discourse analysis. Since its birth, the concept of conversation analysis has proven to a popular overall tool especially when dealing with social and communal issues. The reason for the escalation of popularity and significance of this concept is a direct result of the rising importance that is given to the evaluation of discussions as a domain of breakthrough investigation.

Conversation Analysis

The main idea of the conversation analysis concept was first constructed by two American philosophers namely Erving Goffman and Harold Garfinkel. They both tackled and included different aspects of conversations and discussions. Goffman (1955; 1983) in his studies explained that all evaluators of discussions or conversation analysts should understand that the whole idea behind discussions is that they not only represent the personal identity, opinion and inclination of the individual but also all the social agencies that operate in and have an influence on his environment. Garfinkel (1967) in his study added that the analysts should, simultaneously, be able to analyze the role of social agencies as well as be able to use their common sense and consensus of the group to diverge the true meaning behind the topics discussed and the manner in which they are discussed.

The whole approach of Garfinkel is purely based on the idea that analysts should be able to filter all the extra jibber-jabber that the community members forward in a discussion backed up by traditions and laws. The analysts have to understand that most community members will continue to use the traditions and laws to identify and represent their input and contribution within a social setting and discussion. Hence, the analysts have to understand that apart from the filtration of all unnecessary interactions there is a "reflexive" element where by the members of the discussion are not only putting forth their opinions but by doing so they are moving their entire contribution forward for evaluation and growth as a result of the evaluation (Garfinkel, 1967).

Conversation analysis, for the majority of its early years, was focused on evaluation of discussions and debates that did not have a set agenda or weren't restricted to a specific circumstance or situation. This basically means that court hearing or wedding ceremonies or Baptist ceremonies were never a focus for evaluations despite the fact that discussions happened on these occasions too. These were termed "ordinary conversations." Later in the 1970s the trend or focus of conversation analysis started incorporating the more confined agendas where discussions took place. The confined or fixed agendas that were included for conversation analysis were chosen on the following criteria:

The entire conversation/discussion is restricted on and around a specific institution and/or situation;

The overall objectives of the members of the discussions are also confined within the institution or the circumstance they are in; and All the conclusions and recommendations that are made at the end of the discussion are also confined to the circumstance or the interest of the institution that was the cause for the discussion taking place (Drew and Heritage 1992). This form of conversation analysis was termed as "institutional talk" because of its specific or restricted nature.

The link between the two forms of researches that conversation analysts have focused on: ordinary conversation and institutional talk is of hierarchical nature. One of the two, the ordinary conversation, because of its existence from the initiation of conversation analysis takes the higher place on the ladder of hierarchy. Furthermore, the ordinary conversation format is far more experienced and has been far more researched then the institutional talk format because of its nature to include both the individuals' outlook as well as the community's outlook. The format of institutional talk, which includes the schools, media, courts, etc., is comparatively a newer concept and hence has been more popular for the recent researchers; this is also why it has been going through far more shared modifications in recent years.

One other reason that the ordinary conversation format is considered to be higher in importance in comparison to the institutional talk is that it includes almost every imaginable sphere within an evaluative environment whereas the nature of the intuitional talk forces it to be more restrictive and a more condensed approach towards evaluation. There is a lot more freedom of experimentation and context analysis in ordinary conversation as opposed to institutional talk as in the institutional interaction there is very little room for diversification (Drew and Heritage 1992). Atkinson (1982) in his study also pointed out that the other disadvantage of the institutional conversation format is that it is very regularly disregarded by the common man because it seems too limiting, difficult to grasp and at times ominous or hostile.

Conversation Analysis: Practical Groundwork

The main aim of the theory of conversation analysis (CA) is to carefully analyze and identify the different denotations, implications, backgrounds and perspectives of the discussions that take place within a community or an institution. In this way it is very similar to the numerous other discussion analysis theories but what makes it different is that it links the different denotations, implications, backgrounds and perspectives to the basic flow and spectrum of the thoughts and viewpoints expressed (Sacks 1987). In this study we will study the impact that conversation analysis has in the assistance of respondents in a corporate call centre.

The fact of the matter is that the pioneers of the CA concept have designed it in such a way that the concept prioritizes the sequence or chain of events that leads to a pattern of discussion over the ideas and thoughts that are expressed in the discussion. The CA concept supports that any denotation of a discussion is a direct circumstance of all the actions that occurred prior to it and that all social constructs are a direct result of the build-up of the sequence of prior interactions. This is perhaps one of the most important facets of CA within the environment of the call centre where it is the quick and on-the-toes thinking of the corporate respondent that allows him/her to engage the caller with everything that had already been exchanged in their conversation. This, of course, helps the corporate respondents to assist the caller get familiar with the corporation in direct relation to their own thoughts (Sacks 1987). This approach of the CA concept has been heavily influenced by the normal and standard familiarities of people in a discussion which can be broadly explained as:

1) All discussions are based on previous chain of discussions done that could be related to the current topic of discussion as well as the potential point-of-views that can be discussed in the future (Sacks 1987 [1973], 1992 [1964-72]; Schegloff and Sacks 1973; Schegloff 1984).

2) All the current discussions are structured in such a way that they help to provide foundations for the context of future discussions on similar topics. They are also structured in ways that can be materialized into action for references and experience of future discussions (Schegloff 1972).

3) the members of discussion groups by designing the future actions and incorporating the previous results achieved in the process are able to create a mutually respected atmosphere and understanding of common grounds and procedures over a period of time (Heritage 1984).

CA, fundamentally, treats all of the above elements in a direct relation to the already standardized and accepted social and lawful traditions and activities. CA realizes that the main elements that, more often then not, dominate or influence an individual's thoughts, inclinations and activities are the sequential evaluations of discussions, the denotation and meaning behind these evaluations, the filtration of the relevant evaluations, common sense and standardized social traditions. Also, the concept of CA understands that the members for the discussions should be made to realize that their expressions, thoughts or deductions can cause them trouble socially and lawfully if they aren't expressed under the most relevant and constructive light.

Conversation Analysis within a Call Centre

The focus of researchers when shifted to the more restrictive institutional interaction format, the approach to studying and analyzing discussion under this format remained the same as the one that worked for the ordinary conversation format. The general idea was that all the context and denotations and conclusions that were going to be made would be a direct result of the construction of the interaction made by the members of the discussion. This was considered more useful as opposed to the collection of bulk load of data that was collected as part of the historical background provided (Heritage 1987). This approach can work like a charm in the call centre industry where the conversation between the caller and the company respondent is purely based upon the construction or configuration of the conversation and all relevant points are exchanged as outcrop of the previous comments or expressions.

The main idea in call centers when they use the concept of CA is that, at its core, all the conversation and discussions that take place between the caller and the company respondent can be very easily constructed, referenced and supervised to help the company as well as the caller come to common grounds of mutual understanding. Also, most of the implementers of the CA concept in a call centre can apply the exterior company rules and practices during different phases within the conversation so as to see their influence and whether they can be implemented in the long run for the betterment of both the company and the callers.

Practically, if one needed to prove that the callers are the ones that actually lay down the foundations for the pattern of the conversation, then one can find this proof in the police call centre that is set up for emergency calls (911). The CA setup can help us evaluate the reaction of the individual has towards the situation he/she is in, on what basis has the individual treated or expressed the situation as an emergency, the stress he/she is feeling, the intensity of the situation, the legitimate-significance of the situations, and so on.

There are of course some difficulties that can surface which are probably led by the one significant affair of trying to avoid the enticement of defining the traits of a discussion in an unplanned manner while at the same time preserving the organization of the theoretical and practical influences (Schegloff 1991; Wilson 1991). Schegloff (1991) in his study sheds light on this issue and explains that along with the member's (in our study a caller's) personal input, thoughts, inclinations, etc. The relevance of these within the company's profile have to be identified and added to represent a complete profile of the caller. In other words, if the caller has been exchanging his/her inclinations, viewpoints, assumptions, etc. In a conversation with a corporate respondent then it is the additional task of the respondent to identify and represent that set of context in the conversation that is either directly or indirectly relevant to the company and add that context's relevance to the customer's profile.

The fact of the matter is that while this additional analysis is perhaps a very important facet for the company, it is a really intimidating, difficult and daunting task for the corporate respondent in the call centre. Schegloff explains this under a different light in his study and says that it might be very easy for an analyst to point out that two corporations are very different from each other when it comes to their implementations of rules and regulations, like for instance within a call centre setting. However, Schegloff points out that if these analysts were to be told to point out these differences in a specific set, they would be unable to do so. This is so as the main features of these differences lie in the additional relevance that can be gathered by corporations through their call centre respondents or other channels.

Facets of Conversational Exchanges within a Corporate Call Centre

The facets that can be included in the conversation exchanges are as vast as the elements of conversation can possibly be. However, we have been able to use the guidelines given in the Paltridge report of 2000 and can divide the facets into the following: taking turns, adjacency pairs, preference management, the commencement of a topic of discussion, the progress of the topic of discussion, response, preservation, conversational openers and enders and the normal short terms used in discussions or as responses like "depends," "huh," "ahuh" or "hmm" (Paltridge, 2000).

Taking turns

Cameron explains that a "continual negotiation is a general feature of conversational organization" (Cameron, 2001: 90). To explain this more profoundly, we can look at the study conducted by Sacks in 1974, where he explains that for a conversation to occur, there have to be at least two or more people who have to be willing to engage and interact on a common topic. Of course since a conversation is about expressing views, both the people in the conversation will get a chance to express their point-of-view on a topic. The interesting fact here is that a conversation is an on-going exchange like a see-saw where both the speakers continually exchange their views (Sacks et al., 1974). This can be more clearly explained with the example of a call centre. In a call centre, the person initiating the conversation topic has the upper hand as he/she is the one who can lead or design the pattern of the entire conversation, which normally is the corporate respondent. This is so because the caller will always be the one to respond to the suggestion or opinions voiced by the respondent to the problem voiced by the caller, and hence the corporate respondent can further lead the conversation into areas where the caller's input can benefit the company to understand its market better.

The concept of taking turns was fundamentally laid down by Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson in 1974 under a design that they called "A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation" (Sacks et al. 1974). Here they basically laid down the idea to allow one person to talk and the other reacting to what they say by waiting for the turn. Furthermore they simultaneously justified how and why taking turns was necessary or helpful in carrying out successful conversation analysis.

There are two main aspects of the taking turn conversation that are highlighted in the Sacks et al. design. These two aspects are: one, turns can be assigned to the different participants in a conversation which will allow the whole discussion to be a lot more calculated and organized (this is usually the case in group therapy sessions); and two, everyone involved in the conversation knows that he/she will have more then one chance to have their turn and get their message across; this of course can help many people to discern when someone's turn is near the end and how they can react to it (this is the reason that the corporate call centre facility is such a success, because both the caller and the respondent know that they will have more then one chance to say what they want irrespective of the time that they get that chance in) (Sacks et al. 1974).

Continuing with the prior thought, it is also very much possible that upon discerning the end of someone's turn, one might intercede the turn in a way that the conversation might be interrupted. However, there has only been a 5% record of such intrusion taking place. This record shows us that even though the speaker waiting for his/her turn might speak near the end of someone's turn, it usually does not interrupt or harm the entire conversation by its interfering nature (Cook, 1989). This is also why we see a new emerging dimension with the CA setup where researchers are beginning to design a model for organizing or supervising interfering comments (Schegloff, 2000, quoted by Heritage, 2003: 5) and are initiating the concept of "collaborative" comments i.e. comments that might intercede one's turn without interfering with the thought, instead intercession is only used as a form of support or confirmation of someone's thought (Heritage, 2003: 5). The concept of collaborative commenting, if incorporated, can a huge success at the corporate call centre facility because it will allow both the respondents and the callers to agree on certain matters without repetition or unnecessary justifications. The normal short terms used in discussions or as responses like "depends," "huh," "ahuh" or "hmm" with the addition of statements like "I agree" or word inputs like "exactly" and "definitely" are usually enough in a call centre setting to create an environment of collaborative conversation and understanding.

Drew and Heritage (1992) in their study highlighted six main elements of a conversation that have been modified below to stand true for a call centre setting precisely. These elements are:

1) the setup or structure of taking turns

2) the design of the conversation or topics in a conversation

3) Management of series or sequence of conversation

4) the plan for taking turns

5) the freedom of the use of words in different contexts

6) Relevance and identification of potential irregularities in a conversation (Drew and Heritage 1992; Drew and Sorjonen 1997; Heritage 1997).

Adjacency pairs

The main idea that the CA setup has about a conversation is that it is a continuous exchange of ideas and opinion that takes place over a certain period of time, has a beneficial or unconstructive aftermath and is interlinked to the very first sentence or statement of the conversation (Cameron, 2001). A good example of this in a call centre setting would be if a customer called with a concern about one of the services or products provided by the corporation and the corporate respondent not only helps the customer in eradicating their problem but highlights certain other beneficial and related features or products that the customer might be interested in. The conversation, in accordance to what Cook presented in his 1989 study, does not remain adjacent in nature once the topic of discussion changes into one that is unrelated to the initial statement. This change in the topic also marks or identifies the necessary end of the discussion on the initial statement. Hence, considering this, Cook has outlined that every conversation has an inserted topic that makes the entire conversation dynamic, reciprocal, structured and semi-structure and collaborated over a period of time (Cook, 1989).

Preference Management

Up until now, we have highlighted that the person who initiates the conversation is in control of the design or pattern of the interaction. This stands true in most cases as opposed to when the initiator asks or states something that requires the approval or disapproval of the respondent e.g. An invitation or proposal. In this scenario, the control of the pattern of the conversation can only remain in control of the initiator if the respondent agrees to or affirms the statement made or answer "yes" to the query. In the case of a disagreement from the respondents' part the entire structure of the conversation then lies in the hands of the respondent. This also stands true for moments within a conversation as well where the response might be designed to change the structure of the conversation by invoking a certain statement from the initiator of the conversation or the respondent. Agreements have always been made in specific patterns while disagreements have always been made in different and varying patterns, as have been highlighted in numerous conversation analytical studies (Chen, 2005). This ability to change or invoke a change in the conversation for the benefit of the company is one of the strongest features of the criteria for hiring respondents in a corporate call centre.

The commencement of a topic of discussion

The commencement or initiation of the discussion is perhaps as important, if not more, then its continuation. The one who initiates the conversation is the one in control of the design of the interaction.

The progress of the topic of discussion

The progress of the discussion has twofold meanings: one, that the conversation remains a constant exchange of ideas and opinions on the same topic; and two, the initial topic of the conversation pans out into numerous sub-topics, related topics and unrelated topics depending upon how similar or dissimilar the opinions of the conversationalists are.

Preservation

Preservation mainly signifies the correction or alteration of a previous statement to understand the conversation better and move it forward. The most common feature of preservation is the change in a previous statement with the changing instances within a conversation. This mainly allows not only the conversation to progress but allows the conversationalists to analyze their statements and better structure them for understanding (Cook, 1989).

Response

Responding to the initiator's statement is what constitutes a conversation. This is perhaps the important element of CA setup as continuous responses show that both or all the conversationalists are engaged and interested in making conversation and moving it forward (Chen, 2005).