RUTGERS CONVERSATION ANALYSIS SUMMER
WORKSHOP
May 24-26, 2005
University Inn and
Conference
Center, Rutgers
University, New Brunswick, NJ
Sponsored by
The SCILS Initiative in Inter-Disciplinary Study of Issues in Privacy and Security, Rutgers University
The Committee to Advance Our Common Purposes, Rutgers University
The School of Communication, Information and Library Studies, Rutgers University
The Department of Communication, Rutgers University
Final
Report
An international workshop on Conversation Analysis, with special application to the domain of police interrogation, was held at Rutgers' University Inn and Conference Center, May 24-26, 2005. The event was supported by the SCILS Initiative in Inter-Disciplinary Study of Issues in Privacy and Security, Rutgers University, with additional support from the Committee to Advance Our Common Purposes; the School of Communication, Information and Library Studies; and the Department of Communication. The workshop was led by four internationally recognized scholars in the field of Conversation Analysis: Professor John Heritage (UCLA), Professor Gene Lerner (University of California, Santa Barbara), Professor Anita Pomerantz (The University at Albany), and Professor Emanuel A. Schegloff (UCLA). Attendees were faculty and graduate students from Australia, China, England, Japan, South Africa, and the United States.
Conversation analysis involves an
inductive theory of the social rules of talk in human interaction that persons
rely on to accomplish particular actions (e.g., informings, warnings, threats)
and achieve mutual understanding. Conversation analysis is applicable to
the study of privacy and security issues because the social rules of talk are
simultaneously manipulated by, and used to detect, liars. This 2.5 day
workshop trained participants in fundamental principles of conversation
analysis, and then applied these principles to videotapes of actual
interrogations between police detectives and suspected sex offenders.
Specifically, the participants analyzed: (1) how interrogators develop
relational familiarity with suspects prior to questioning; (2) the design
features of interrogators' questions used to solicit private information; (3)
how suspects' answers provide, or evade the provision of, such information; and
(4) whether, and how, suspects' answers are treated as (in)adequate by
interrogators.
The Rutgers Conversation Analysis Summer Workshop resulted in participants
upgrading their skills as conversation analysts, and applying them to the
detailed analysis of police interrogation. Participant comments, in
unsolicited emails, indicated a high level of satisfaction with the event (see
attachment 2).
Attachment 1 -
Schedule
RUTGERS CONVERSATION
ANALYSIS SUMMER WORKSHOP
(AKA The Rutgers
Instructional Reunion)
May 24-26, 2005
University Inn and
Conference Center, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
Sponsored by
The SCILS Initiative in Inter-Disciplinary Study of Issues in Privacy and Security, Rutgers University
The Committee to Advance Our Common Purposes, Rutgers University
The School of Communication, Information and Library Studies, Rutgers University
The Department of Communication, Rutgers University
Tuesday 5/24
4:30-5:30 Opening
meeting and the nature of the project
5:30-6:30 Dinner
6:30-7:30 Meet as one
group, work-up data extract
7:30-7:45 Break
7:45-8:45
Meet as two groups as presented in
Break-out groups handout under 5/24 Session 2; work-up a second data extract
8:45-9:00 Full group
meeting: questions, troubles, etc. Homework distributed.
Homework: get familiar with 6 extracts to be worked on
next morning
Wednesday 5/25
7:30-9:00
Breakfast, University Inn and Conference Center
9:00-10:30 Meet as two groups (as
per 5/25 Session 1); work-up 4 more extracts
11:00-12:30 Meet as two groups (as per 5/25
Session 2); work-up 2 more extracts
12:30-2:00 Lunch
2:00-5:15 Meet as one
group to further advance the analysis
5:30-6:30
Dinner
6:30-8
Data session – Police Interrogation
Homework: get familiar with supplementary collection
of 6 increments
Thursday 5/26
7:30-9:00
Breakfast, University Inn and Conference Center
9:00-12:15
Break into 6 work groups (as per “Thursday break-out”
groups); each works for 20 minutes on assigned task. Thereafter we meet as one
group until lunch.
12:15-1:30 Lunch
1:30-3:00 Plenary
Session, open discussion
Attachment 2 –
Participant Feedback
Unsolicited
Feedback, received via email
Thanks for extending your kindness and support to me during
the Rutgers
conference. It was both challenging and invigorating.
~~
Thanks so much for organizing and holding the CA reunion
at Rutgers. It
was a terrific intellectual and social experience and I
enjoyed myself
tremendously.
~~
Jeff,
I thought the workshop was a major success, in
very large part due to the
planning and hard work that you and Jenny
did in preparation for it.
Everything was superbly organized, from the
notebooks to the data sets
and the presentational equipment.
Thanks
again for the time and effort that you devote to building our
community
~~
Dear Jenny and Jeff,
Thanks again for the invitation
to attend the Rutgers/CA workshop. You
both did a superb job organizing
and running the show, attending to all
the details that mattered. I'm amazed
at all the work you put into it! We
are all very appreciative. I enjoyed the
intensive workshop immensely.
Sumary of
Participants’ Written Post-Assessment
1.
Mean score for "I am satisfied with my learning experience" was 4.7 out of
5.
2.
4. Below are comments reported by more than one participant; the asterisk
"*" indicates that the comment was reported by three or more participants.
Positives:
1.
*Well organized
2.
*Enjoyed feedback and challenges from leaders
3.
*Liked interacting with multiple leaders simultaneously
4.
*Liked small groups of 8 (vs. large group of 16)
5.
*Liked the pre-established 'focus' on one candidate phenomenon for 2.5-day
seminar
6.
*Liked hearing leaders talk about their own working processes
7.
*Liked watching leaders articulate their (sometimes competing) stances
Negatives:
1.
*Wanted more break-out (vs. entire) group work
2.
*Wanted smaller break-out groups (N=4-5 vs. 8)
3.
Wanted to spend more time on each fragment; some felt 'rushed'
4.
Wanted either more time for homework or to end earlier in the evening