Children’s interview responses are often read monologically, as mirror reflections of their spontaneous thinking. In contrast, analyses of alignments and collaboration imply a dialogical approach. We argue that in a dialogical analysis, children’s interview responses should be read in terms of a relational rationality. Against the backdrop of such a rationality, ‘immature’ responses can be understood in terms of children’s desire to please the interviewer, and by their rational desire to align themselves with their co-participants. In contrast to the scientific rationality of Grice’s conversational maxims, relational rationality is instead discussed in terms of social relations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aronsson et al. (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: