Yes! It’s hard. When I was researching my dissertation, I thought to code who spoke, who was addressed, and whether their comment was positive, negative, or a question. The positive and negative categories didn’t survive the first meeting; it was simply too hard to tell how a comment was intended, and how it was received. Instead I limited myself to speaker, addressee, and, for a time, whether a remark was a grammatical sentence. Even that was hard and only possible because I had a broad category for “undirected” remarks, which basically meant all utterances for which there wasn’t a clear addressee.
No, but I guess Graphic Recorders must have an (implicit) live coding scheme in their head to translate issues mentioned into text and graphics.
Hi Matthias, great to “see” you again after so many years! What about this paper of yours:
Fietkau, H.-J. & Trénel, M. (2002). Interaktionsmuster in einem Diskursverfahren zur Indikatorenentwicklung im Umweltbereich. Discussion Paper FS II 02 - 301. Berlin. URL: Interaktionsmuster in einem Diskursverfahren zur Indikatorenentwicklung im Umweltbereich
Informal discourses are a current trend. Roundtable discussions, mediation procedures, state-of-the-future workshops and consultative bodies of every sort accompany political decision-making. Proper decisions are supposed to be ensured through ordered and fair communication. At the same time, however, only very few studies are available, which describe systematically communications structures and procedures directly related to a policy discourse. On the basis of surveyed verbal indicators gathered in the course of a four-day, moderated debate on the development of environmental indicators, the researchers were able to show that it was possible to objectify the form of the dispute. The characteristic feature of the discourse under investigation here (scientists posing questions to representatives of various organizations and associations) is reflected in the interactions, as was revealed by means of an interaction process analysis. Thus, as a result of corresponding preparations and well-directed moderation, it was possible to hold a constructive discussion of research-relevant issues within a political setting among an expert public. Parallels with other findings in small group and discourse research as well as implications for the practice of moderators are discussed."
Didn’t you use some sort of in-vivo coding there? I seem to remember that it was a version of Bales’ interaction process analysis?