All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Framing Problems in Crisis Negotiation: Reframing in the Case of Waco
Unformatted Document Text:  Reframing in the Waco Negotiations 31 Morris, G.H. (1988). Finding fault. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 7, 1-25. Mulkay, M. (1985). Agreement and disagreement in conversations and letters. Text, 5, 201-227. Pierson, T. (1980, Septemer). An approach to barricaded subjects. Law and Order, 40-42. Pomerantz, A. (1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis: the study of talk-in-interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Romer, D., Jamison, P., & Ahern, R.K. (2001). The catch-22 of smoking and quitting. In P. Slovic (Ed.), Smoking: Risk, perception, & policy (pp. 216-226). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ross, R. N. (1975). Ellipsis and the structure of expectation. San Jose State Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 1, 183-191. Sarangi, S. (1998). Rethinking recontextualization in professional discourse studies: An epilogue, Text, 18, 301-318. Slatkin, A. (1996). Enhancing negotiator training: Therapeutic communication. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 65, 1-6. Soo-Hoo, T. (1998). Applying frame of reference and reframing techniques to improve school consultation in multicultural stettings, Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 9, 325-345. Tannen, D. (1993). What’s in a frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectations. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Framing in discourse (pp. 14-56). New York: Oxford University Press. Tannen, D., & Wallet, C. (1993). Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/interview. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Framing in discourse (pp. 57-75). New York: Oxford University Press. Tracy, K. (1995). Action-implicative discourse analysis. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 14, 195-215. Tracy, K. (1997). Interactional trouble in emergency service requests: A problem of frames. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 30, 315-343. U.S. Department of Justice (1993a) Recommendations of Experts for Improvements in Federal Law Enforcement After Waco (Publication No. ISBN 0-16-042974-9). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Authors: Agne, Robert.
first   previous   Page 33 of 36   next   last



background image
Reframing in the Waco Negotiations 31
Morris, G.H. (1988). Finding fault. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 7, 1-25.

Mulkay, M. (1985). Agreement and disagreement in conversations and letters. Text, 5, 201-227.

Pierson, T. (1980, Septemer). An approach to barricaded subjects. Law and Order, 40-42.

Pomerantz, A. (1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of
preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of
social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis: the study of talk-in-interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Romer, D., Jamison, P., & Ahern, R.K. (2001). The catch-22 of smoking and quitting. In P.
Slovic (Ed.), Smoking: Risk, perception, & policy (pp. 216-226). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Ross, R. N. (1975). Ellipsis and the structure of expectation. San Jose State Occasional Papers in
Linguistics, 1, 183-191.

Sarangi, S. (1998). Rethinking recontextualization in professional discourse studies: An
epilogue, Text, 18, 301-318.

Slatkin, A. (1996). Enhancing negotiator training: Therapeutic communication. FBI Law
Enforcement Bulletin, 65, 1-6.

Soo-Hoo, T. (1998). Applying frame of reference and reframing techniques to improve school
consultation in multicultural stettings, Journal of Educational and Psychological
Consultation, 9, 325-345.

Tannen, D. (1993). What’s in a frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectations. In D.
Tannen (Ed.), Framing in discourse (pp. 14-56). New York: Oxford University Press.

Tannen, D., & Wallet, C. (1993). Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction:
Examples from a medical examination/interview. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Framing in
discourse (pp. 57-75). New York: Oxford University Press.

Tracy, K. (1995). Action-implicative discourse analysis. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology 14, 195-215.

Tracy, K. (1997). Interactional trouble in emergency service requests: A problem of frames.
Research on Language and Social Interaction, 30, 315-343.

U.S. Department of Justice (1993a) Recommendations of Experts for Improvements in Federal
Law Enforcement After Waco (Publication No. ISBN 0-16-042974-9). Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office.


Convention
All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 33 of 36   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.