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

2. July 11, 2005 IPrA 2005 slide 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”

3. July 11, 2005 IPrA 2005 slide 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).

4. July 11, 2005 IPrA 2005 slide 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).

5. July 11, 2005 IPrA 2005 slide 5 Panel 1: Buitenhof 26 Oct 2003 (length: 31’27’’) Paul Witteman (interviewer) Hans Crombag (professor) Ybo Buruma (professor) Marleen de Pater (MP) Laetitia Griffith (MP)

6. July 11, 2005 IPrA 2005 slide 6 Panel 2: Buitenhof 13 March 2005 (length: 23’45’’) Rob Trip (interviewer) Joke de Vries (health inspector) Andries van Dantzig (psychiatrist) Coskun Çörüz (MP)

7. July 11, 2005 IPrA 2005 slide 7 Speaking Time and Turns Speakers # of words % of words # of turns % of turns words per turn Panel 1: male professor (HC)100714.75216.619.4 Panel 1: male professor (YB)150422.04514.433.4 Panel 1: female MP (LG)130519.16019.221.8 Panel 1: female MP (MP)134719.75918.822.8 Panel 2: male psychiatrist (AD)192838.26233.731.1 Panel 2: male MP (CC)119223.62614.145.8 Panel 2: female health insp.(JV)87717.42010.943.9 Panel 1: interviewer (PW)168224.69731.017.3 Panel 2: interviewer (RT)105320.97641.313.9 Totals1189549723.9

8. July 11, 2005 IPrA 2005 slide 8 Did the Male Panelists Talk More? Speaker Excess share of words* Excess share of turns* Panel 1: male professor (HC)-5.5-0.9 Panel 1: male professor (YB)4.1-4.2 Panel 2: male psychiatrist (AD)14.924.1 Panel 2: male MP (CC)-3.5-9.3 Panel 1: female MP (LG)0.32.8 Panel 1: female MP (MP)1.12.3 Panel 2: female health insp. (JV)-11.4-14.8 * for panel 1: % minus 25, for panel 2: % minus 33.3

9. July 11, 2005 IPrA 2005 slide 9 Interruption Coding System 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

10. July 11, 2005 IPrA 2005 slide 10 Ratio of active to passive interruptions (panelists only) Speaker interrupts more often than s/he is interrupted

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

12. July 11, 2005 IPrA 2005 slide 12 Interruptions per 100 turns (panelists only) count 5 6 7 2 7 9 0

13. July 11, 2005 IPrA 2005 slide 13 Backchannels (per 1000 words of other participants) count 9+7 8+1 1+4 1+1 6+0 3+4 0+3

14. July 11, 2005 IPrA 2005 slide 14 Backchannels (per 1000 words of other panelists) count 5+6 6+0 1+2 1+1 1+0 1+3 0+0

15. July 11, 2005 IPrA 2005 slide 15 Overlaps per 100 turns (incl. overlaps with interviewer) count 4 2 3 4 6 5

16. July 11, 2005 IPrA 2005 slide 16 Overlaps per 100 turns (panelists only) count 3 1 3 2 3 0

17. July 11, 2005 IPrA 2005 slide 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?)

18. July 11, 2005 IPrA 2005 slide 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.