The DOI matches its Crossref record; 95 of the 95 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Intersubjectivity: Towards a Dialogical Analysis
Open accessAbstract
Intersubjectivity refers to the variety of possible relations between perspectives. It is indispensable for understanding human social behaviour. While theoretical work on intersubjectivity is relatively sophisticated, methodological approaches to studying intersubjectivity lag behind. Most methodologies assume that individuals are the unit of analysis. In order to research intersubjectivity, however, methodologies are needed that take relationships as the unit of analysis. The first aim of this article is to review existing methodologies for studying intersubjectivity. Four methodological approaches are reviewed: comparative self‐report, observing behaviour, analysing talk and ethnographic engagement. The second aim of the article is to introduce and contribute to the development of a dialogical method of analysis. The dialogical approach enables the study of intersubjectivity at different levels, as both implicit and explicit, and both within and between individuals and groups. The article concludes with suggestions for using the proposed method for researching intersubjectivity both within individuals and between individuals and groups.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life.
Naegele, K. D., & Goffman, E. (1956) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2089106 · Cited by 25,991
James, W. (1913) · Henry Holt and Company eBooks · doi:10.1037/11059-000 · Cited by 25,226
The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life
Goffman, E. (2023) · Social Theory Re-Wired · doi:10.4324/9781003320609-59 · Cited by 17,562
Wallace, A. F. C., & Garfinkel, H. (1968) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2092245 · Cited by 12,445
Hutchins, E. (1995) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1881.001.0001 · Cited by 10,801 · cited 1×
“and cultures. But the basic approach has been widely developed in many empirical domains, from the study of tourist-local interactions (Gillespie, 2006a) to studies of distributed cognition ( Hutchins, 1995 ).”
BackgroundMerleau-Ponty, M. (1982) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203981139 · Cited by 9,841
The theory of communicative action
(2014) · The Philosophy of Habermas · doi:10.4324/9781315710495-5 · Cited by 8,634
Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144230 · Cited by 7,433
Wimmer, H. (1983) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/0010-0277(83)90004-5 · Cited by 6,305
Mind, Self, and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist
Mead, G. H., & Morris, C. W. (1967) · University of Chicago Press eBooks · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226516608.001.0001 · Cited by 4,896
Cited by
Patient complaints in healthcare systems: a systematic review and coding taxonomy
Reader, T. W., Gillespie, A., & Roberts, J. (2014) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002437 · Cited by 420
Self-citationHeasman, B., & Gillespie, A. (2019) · Autism · doi:10.1177/1362361318785172 · Cited by 316
Self-citationCorti, K., & Gillespie, A. (2016) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.039 · Cited by 118
Self-citationMy Bad! Repairing Intelligent Voice Assistant Errors Improves Interaction
Cuadra, A., Li, S., Lee, H., Cho, J., & Ju, W. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3449101 · Cited by 52
Erbil, C., Özbilgin, M. F., & Gündoğdu, N. (2025) · Human Resource Management Journal · doi:10.1111/1748-8583.12573 · Cited by 21
Metadata
- Authors
- GILLESPIE, A., & CORNISH, F.
- Venue
- Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-02-12
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 19-46
- ISSN
- 0021-8308 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-5914
- OpenAlex
- W2027215638
- Cited by
- 416
- References
- 95
- FWCI
- 8.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Intersubjectivity: Towards a Dialogical Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1468-5914.2009.00419.x
- The paper
- GILLESPIE, A., & CORNISH, F. (2010). Intersubjectivity: Towards a Dialogical Analysis. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.2009.00419.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
