1 / 18

Gender and Power in Televised Panel Interviews

Gender and Power in Televised Panel Interviews. Gisela Redeker & Wendy Wagenaar University of Groningen. Overview. Gender and Power in Public Discourse Political Interviews/Discussions on Dutch TV Data: Two Panel Discussions from Buitenhof Analysis: Interruptions, Overlaps, Backchannels

brinly
Download Presentation

Gender and Power in Televised Panel Interviews

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Gender and Power in Televised Panel Interviews Gisela Redeker & Wendy Wagenaar University of Groningen

  2. Overview • Gender and Power in Public Discourse • Political Interviews/Discussions on Dutch TV • Data: Two Panel Discussions from Buitenhof • Analysis: Interruptions, Overlaps, Backchannels • Discussion and Preliminary Conclusions: Gender, Power, and “Habitus” IPrA 2005

  3. Gender and Power in Public Discourse • Public discourse (e.g., in parliament and in the media) used to be and still is dominated by men. But participation of women is increasing. • In discussions between men and women, men have often been found to dominate the floor (Holmes 1995). Men also tend to violate the formal rules of debate more often than women (e.g., Shaw 2000). • Gender differences tend to be more pronounced in formal/public genres and in groups of three of more participants (Anderson & Leaper 1998). IPrA 2005

  4. Panel Interviews on Dutch TV • Regular feature in the weekly interview and discussion program Buitenhof. • 2 – 4 panelists, usually including politicians and experts (academic or executive). • Style varies from group interview to involved debate among panelists. • Less polemic than interviews on British and American television (as described e.g. by Clayman & Heritage 2002). IPrA 2005

  5. Panel 1: Buitenhof 26 Oct 2003(length: 31’27’’) Paul Witteman (interviewer) Hans Crombag (professor) Marleen de Pater (MP) Ybo Buruma (professor) Laetitia Griffith (MP) IPrA 2005

  6. Panel 2: Buitenhof 13 March 2005(length: 23’45’’) Rob Trip (interviewer) Joke de Vries (health inspector) Coskun Çörüz (MP) Andries van Dantzig (psychiatrist) IPrA 2005

  7. Speaking Time and Turns IPrA 2005

  8. Did the Male Panelists Talk More? * for panel 1: % minus 25, for panel 2: % minus 33.3 IPrA 2005

  9. Interruption Coding System(adapted from Roger, Bull & Smith 1988) Simultaneous start?  false start, parallel talk S2 is non-interruptive  overlap backchannel: continuer backchannel: assessment S2 is interruptive  successful/unsuccessful single/multiple attempts interjection, snatch back IPrA 2005

  10. Ratio of active to passive interruptions (panelists only) Speaker interrupts more often than s/he is interrupted IPrA 2005

  11. Interruptions per 100 turns (incl. interrupting the interviewer) count 6 7 10 5 11 11 0 IPrA 2005

  12. Interruptions per 100 turns (panelists only) count 5 6 7 2 7 9 0 IPrA 2005

  13. Backchannels(per 1000 words of other participants) count 9+7 8+1 1+4 1+1 6+0 3+4 0+3 IPrA 2005

  14. Backchannels(per 1000 words of other panelists) count 5+6 6+0 1+2 1+1 1+0 1+3 0+0 IPrA 2005

  15. Overlaps per 100 turns (incl. overlaps with interviewer) count 4 2 3 4 6 6 5 IPrA 2005

  16. Overlaps per 100 turns (panelists only) count 3 1 3 2 2 3 0 IPrA 2005

  17. (Tentative) Conclusions • No clear gender differences in speaking time, number of turns, or interruptions. • Male expert panelists tend to use more back-channels (signaling participation?). But this is probably not a gender effect: • Evidence from interruptions, backchannels, and overlaps suggests that politicians seem to orient more strongly to the interviewer, while academic experts seem to use more nonverbal participation cues (“habitus” from parliamentary vs. academic discussions?) IPrA 2005

  18. References • Anderson, K.J. & Leaper, C. (1998). Meta-analyses of gender effects on conversational interruption: Who, what, when, where, and how.Sex Roles 39 (3-4): 225-252. • Bourdieu, P. (1977).Outline of a Theory of Practice, trans. Richard Nice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Clayman, S. & Heritage, J. (2002).The news interview. Journalists and public figures on the air. Cambridge: CUP. • Dickerson, P. (2001). Disputing with care: analysing interviewees’ treatment of interviewers’ prior turns in televised political interviews. Discourse Studies 3(2): 203–222. • Lauerbach, G. (2004). Political interviews as hybrid genre. Text 24(3): 353–397. • Holmes, J. (1995).Women, men and politeness. London: Longman. • Roger, D., Bull, P.E. & Smith, S. (1988). The development of a comprehensive system for classifying interruptions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 7: 27-34. • Shaw, S. (2000).Language, gender and floor apportionment in political debates. Discourse & Society 11(3): 401–418. IPrA 2005

More Related