social interaction and chat rooms 9
practice, however, all studies of social interaction are shaped by theoretical and meth-
odological principles, and constrained by available time and resources. Paradoxical
as unmotivated looking may seem, the true utility in this approach or idea lies in its
understanding of, and importance placed on, social interaction as a site of inves-
tigation. Unmotivated looking, as the above quote suggests, is about embracing
the complexities involved in, and the nuances associated with, social interaction.
Unmotivated looking requires subscribing to the belief that these complexities and
nuances offer a rich understanding of human conduct.
For a study of second language chat rooms, this means capturing and represent-
ing online spoken communication so that little interactional detail is lost during
data collection and transcription (for a discussion of the practicalities of producing
highly detailed transcripts, see Jenks 2011). Again, the underpinning belief is that all
aspects of social interaction are potentially relevant to an understanding of online
communication.
Conversely, for text-based communication, very little, if any at all, transcription
work is needed, as most programs store written records of interactions that are ready
for analysis and dissemination—that is, data collected in text-based CMC settings
are “research ready.” The ease with which data are collected in text-based CMC set-
tings allows researchers to quickly disseminate research based on discussion boards,
emails, and blogs.
For online spoken communication, however, the task of capturing, transcrib-
ing, and disseminating recordings of social interaction is much more complex and
onerous. The time it takes to collect and transcribe online spoken communication
data is indeed one reason why few researchers have explored how voice-based inter-
actions in online settings are organized (for a review of research on online spoken
communication, see Section 3.2.4).
The theoretical and methodological principles outlined above have been used
to examine a range of issues and phenomena. For example, examinations have
developed a deeper understanding of how social structures are constructed in, and
through, social interaction: studies have examined how interactants construct cul-
tural identities (Brandt and Jenks 2011), mediate opposing views (Goodwin and
Goodwin 1990), shape gender and sexuality (Stokoe and Smithson 2001), and elicit
responses from students (Lee 2008), to name a few. Furthermore, studies have identi-
fied and explicated the sequential and organizational structures of many social activi-
ties, from opening a talk radio show (e.g. Hutchby 1999) to structuring pedagogical
lessons (e.g. Seedhouse 2010).
In addition to investigating social structures and structures of social activities,
studies have treated talk as an investigation in its own right; studies have expanded the
discourse analytic literature on, for instance, topic transitions (Holt and Drew 2005),
repair initiators (Drew 1997), turn-taking (Schegloff 2000), and preference organiza-
tion (Boyle 2000). As demonstrated by these different investigatory foci, studies of
social interaction have contributed much to an understanding of communication.
These studies provide a rich and diverse set of observations and findings that
can be used for investigating online communication, but they also have practical
relevance for the professionals, non-academics, and practitioners that take part in