Development of a Powerful Identity through Language

How Women Socially
Construct a ‘Powerful’ Identity Based on Language
As the world begins to move from an androcentric society, communication researchers have a responsibility to expand their areas of focus to include that of a changing viewpoint. Examining identity is no new task for communication researchers, but has begun to transform qualitative research, specifically in feminist studies. In modern society, feminist researchers continue to struggle with an accepted definition of feminism as they construct and deconstruct gender as a whole (Medved & Rawlins, 2011) as well as to study the language associated with gender (Gal, 1995). However, researchers can begin to look at how women are viewed as powerful and how their language shapes the identity with which they associate themselves (Baxter, 2015). When paired with an exploration of social construction and utilizing membership categorization analysis (Silverman, 1998), we can begin to look at how women are capable of constructing a more powerful communicative identity to aid in the development of feminist research as well as communication and language advancements.

Get Help With Your Essay
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Essay Writing Service

Literature Review
Social Constructionism        
Social constructionism
has been given a great deal of attention by communication scholars. One main
characteristic of those that believe in the social constructionist viewpoint holds
the notion that various experiences are determined by human behaviors and
decisions (Mallon, 2007). Perceptions of the formation of reality are of great
debate to social constructionists. The language and communicative strategies
individuals require to interact together are also altered by those perceptions.
The construction of one’s identity fosters how we communicate together and
incorporate language in every day conversations (Ajtony, 2015). As Stewart
(1995) explains, “language (speech communicating) is the human’s way of
being-in-the-world (everyday coping)” (p. 29), which allows for the development
of constructing one’s reality and in turn their identity as well.
Language holds no meaning
unless conducted interpersonally with another (Couper, 2011; Stewart, 1995). Through
the social construction of language, communication begins to obtain meaning and
value to the individuals involved. The philosophical perspective of social
constructionism begins to touch on what individuals view as reality and how
communication alters that sense of socially constructed reality. Communication describes
the process by which an object, or in this case, language, gives meaning and
“exist[s] in a social context” (Keaton & Bodie, 2011, p. 192; Stewart, 1995).
Through the establishment of meaning begins to develop with another, we are
able to expand our own language, which in turn affects other contexts as well.
Social constructionism
is largely affected by the situational contexts in which something is being
constructed, particularly language. According toStewart (1995), one consideration of social constructionism holds
that language exists as an event rather than a system. In his explanation,
understanding is the primary dynamic of being human and aids in the development
of socially constructing one’s reality. This social occurrence is a process
that is exhibited through interaction with another. In this sense, language and
communication are altered largely in various situational contexts, and are
determined by those that participate in the collaboration.
Through individuals’ perceptions,
people are able to co-construct their personal view of reality, which in turn impacts
how they interact and communicate with others (Stewart, 1995). These
interactions are not “representations of ‘natural objects’ formed independent
of cultural processes and literary forms,” (p. 31) but rather are contingent
upon social and cultural contexts and are expressed interpersonally and given
meaning. Social construction holds the standard that one’s perceived reality shifts
constantly and sustains subjectivity to each individual’s beliefs (Archakis
& Papazachariou, 2008).
Socially constructed reality. Through communication and the development of language, our perception of reality adjusts to meet the situational demands that are represented (Ajtony, 2015; Soukup, 2012; Stewart, 1995). We begin to question and alter how we fit into our perceived world that we co-construct during interactions. Although multiple views of social constructionism exist, one description claims to hold “a social process of creating the world,” (Barnett Pearce, 1995, p. 98) which asserts the lack of an already known world. This notion conflicts with the more positivist research, which aims to discover the perceived reality. Barnett Pearce (1995) distinguished how individual interests and behaviors, as well as one’s language take part in the process of construction through both the receiver and participant positions. This notion complements that of Richardson (2013) and her examination of identity. She claims the “understanding of reality and identity is constructed in the talk of the narrative” (p. 97). By conducting research through narratives and told accounts, we gain a glimpse of how others perceive the reality in which their lives are set. Through this understanding of reality, we are able to shape our identities further, which additionally affects how we communicate with others.
Socially
constructed identity.
Identity stands as a dynamic construction determined by multiple resources,
such as language and culture (Ajtony, 2015; Baxter, 2015; Hall & Bucholtz,
1995). As previously described, identity largely links to communication and
linguistic interactions (Ajtony, 2015; Archakis & Papazachariou, 2008; Richardson,
2013). The social construction of identities occurs as being “indexical”
(Archakis & Papazachariou, 2008, p. 627) where individuals develop and
produce such identities in “moment-to-moment interactions” (Archakis &
Papazachariou, 2008, p. 628; Hall & Bucholtz, 1995). Various properties
contribute to the construction of one’s identity including communicative
strategies incorporated in interactions, as well as prosodic, or intonation, combinations.
Each of these characteristics exists based on contextual cues and differs from
situation to situation. Baxter (2015) reasons that identity exists as a
socially constructed practice and maintains dependence upon the production of
our behavior and beliefs. In this sense, language is portrayed as a tool to be
utilized in communication and the development of one’s identity (Baxter, 2005;
Stewart, 1995), which is additionally determined by “social factors such as [one’s]
gender, ethnicity, education, professional status, and so on” (Baxter, 2015, p.
428). This tool is a reference used to shape how we communicate with others,
which aids in the development of one’s identity rather than one’s identity
shaping how we communicate using language.
Communication can
establish stereotypes of one’s identity based upon the dialogic representations
exhibited in interactions. These interactions also lead to the understanding
that an individual’s identity is largely relational. As Ajtony (2015) states, “the
primary marker of a person’s identity is his/her speech” (p. 48). In this
sense, stereotypes alter our beliefs and contribute to the construction of our
own identity, as well as those we interact with. Stereotyped identities are common
among gender research. However, researchers are beginning to examine the
effects of reversing these stereotypes and how they affect our socially
constructed view of identity (Baxter, 2015; Medved & Rawlins, 2011).
Socially
constructed gender. Gender
is intertwined with social construction and is consistently shaped due to the
communicative strategies employed in discourse (Medved & Rawlins, 2011). Through
interpersonal interactions with others, individuals are capable of constructing
a gendered identity within a specific social context. As the topic of gender
continues to transform, people begin to form and co-construct their individual
identities as well as their linked identities. However, gender is not a
singular aspect of identity, but rather a complex branch that intersects with
many other social identities (Richardson & Taylor, 2009). Each identity
plays a significant role in the construction of one’s identity and how their
gendered identity is created.
Social constructions are
revealed and created in situational experiences and do not simply exist, waiting
to be discovered (Medved & Rawlins, 2011). Through the process of
constructing a gendered identity, it is important to acknowledge the process by
which interaction occurs and the communicative approach that helps form one’s
gender in a social environment. It is a constantly changing and evolving
construction, where each individual construction is dependent upon the actions
and reaction of the other person (Medved & Rawlins, 2011; Soukup, 2012). Gendered
construction is often categorized into various identities and affects how our
language usage, as well as others’ perceptions of us, are depicted.
Membership Categorization Analysis
When examining how women
socially construct powerful language, it is advantageous to look into utilizing
membership categorization analysis (MCA) and how it can expand our knowledge of
language use. MCA is an analytic approach in which we categorize behaviors, or
activities, exhibited in interactions (Butler & Weatherall, 2006; Housley
& Fitzgerald, 2009). This correlates to identity in the same manner by “the
way people both do and recognize descriptions of themselves and others” (Butler
& Weatherall, 2006, p. 443). MCA begins to classify individuals in a series
of categories that can be described as various identities, such as gender,
race, familial membership, societal status, occupation, etc. (Butler &
Weatherall, 2006; Silverman, 1998). Originally, MCA constructed relatively
fixed categorizations, but has since expanded further (Leudar, Marsland &
Nekvapil, 2001). These categorizations can be misleading despite their frequently
obvious nature. For example, Eglin (2002) examines how despite calling an
individual ‘woman,’ an array of possible classifications is still revealed. The
obvious answer is to make an assumption of classifying the individual as female
over male, though the possibility stands of whether the classification is
indicating an adult female, over a child, or girl. In this sense, like much of
communication and language, MCA is grounded in context and the situation of the
individuals involved.
Various facets of MCA
can help to establish how one’s language and identity can be constructed in a
powerful manner. MCA is one method, which can be utilized in interactions and
lead to more knowledge on the development of language and identities
(Fitzgerald, 2012). Another tool of MCA that can be incorporated in the
establishment of such identities is that of a membership categorization device
(MCD). MCDs are classified as “collection(s) of categories” (Silverman, 1998,
p. 79) for which an individual is part of. Collections, or sets of categories,
include multiple identities of the same category, such as father and son being
members of a family. Through this categorization, we are able to examine and
observe a framework for the type of language expressed to identify ‘powerful’
women as well as how others help shape those identities.
People often construct
their own identity through the use of MCDs and language without the attempt to
do so. In one particular example, Stokoe (2010) began looking into how men’s
identities are formed based on actions and behaviors through violent assaults of
women. These men were likely to still lack blame for their activities, despite
the fact that the assault occurred. This was portrayed in classifying themselves
as not the type of men to hit women. On the opposite end, individuals looking
into this issue from the outside are likely to incorporate MCDs and categorize
these men as abusers, criminals, etc. MCA is one way we can help shape our
identities as well as others identities that we are apart of. Women, in
particular, are not often regarded as having powerful identities, but our
language use can assist in this categorization, as well as having others
improving their construction of what a powerful identity is.
Identity through Women’s Language
A woman’s identity is
often developed in comparison to men’s identities. In one example, researchers
found that financially successful women, when compared to men, often lessen
their success when communicating about their lives and “refrain from exercising
the traditional masculine link between money and power” (Medved & Rawlins,
2011, p.11). As previously described in her research, Richardson (2013) begins
to describe how women are able to develop their individual identity through
their telling of personal stories. In this sense, language allows for the
development and exploration of a woman’s identity and constructs their own notion
of reality, which leads to a more individual identity, as opposed to a
connected one. While it is important to acknowledge the comparison between each
gender, we must expand further. As gender begins to transform in today’s
society, it would be beneficial to develop an understanding of each gender individually,
which in turn will lead to a greater understanding of identity as a whole. While
it is difficult to pinpoint specific linguistic features that lead to a
gendered identity, examining language can assist in the development of learning
how we construct our identity through our communicative acts (Burkette &
Warhol, 2009).
One’s gender has the
ability to influence how we communicate and the type of language we utilize in
interactions with others (Medved & Rawlins, 2011; Sidelinger, Frisby &
McMullen, 2009). While gendered language is socially constructed based on
situational experiences, “gender style impacts communication in such a way that
an individual’s interpersonal relationships are affected” (Sidelinger, Frisby
& McMullen, 2009, p. 166), which alters the way women are viewed by others.
Methods
Data Collection
The data collected within
this study was obtained from interviews conducted and subsequently depicted on
the blog, Babes Who Hustle (http://babeswhohustle.com). Each interview produced
occurred prior to the formation of this study by the founder and writer of Babes
Who Hustle (C. DuDeVoire, personal communication, April 10, 2017). The majority
of the women featured on the blog were nominated by other women and were
contacted to inquire about interest in being featured on the blog. The
interview process was comprised of a moderately scheduled interview guide,
which permitted open-ended responses from the interviewee. The interviewer
developed specific questions pertaining to each person, but did follow a
relatively structured format for each interview. The questions were then subsequently
emailed to each interviewee and the respondents elected to proceed with the
interview at their will. After responding to each question with personal
information and answering the requested questions, the blog post was composed for
the website (C. DuDeVoire, personal communication, April 10, 2017). Each blog
post was collected as data and analyzed on behalf of language structure and
response styles.
The aim of the research
was to collect information from a female-only source to consider how women
socially construct a powerful identity. The sample chosen featured women from
different backgrounds, who are considered to be successful in their personal
and professional lives. In this sense, the information was gathered to gain
insight into how powerful language is structured and the development of a
powerful identity for women in particular.
Data Reduction and Coding
After the data
collection, a thematic analysis was utilized to determine commonly occurring patterns
exhibited throughout the collected interviews. While the interviews were
significantly reduced from the precise responses provided to suit the blog
format, the responses incorporated the chosen language from the interviewees
for each entry and question. In analyzing the data, an open coding process was
followed to gain insight into the type of language used by each interviewee as
well as to examine and establish themes and patters revealed throughout the collected
data.
Researcher’s Role and Ethical Considerations
The role of the
researcher was strictly observational and analytical and relied on information
provided by the writer. As the interviews were presented previously on the
blog, Babes Who Hustle (http://babeswhohustle.com), the study did not require
access to the participants and therefore, incorporated an exclusively analytic
approach to gathering and coding data. Due to the public nature of the
interviews, the participants’ true names were included in the data and referred
to as such throughout the data analysis.
Data Analysis
Each blog entry
highlights the successes, both personally and professionally, of various women
from a multitude of career fields. Sixty-four interviews were collected, each
of which included four sections: how the writer met the interviewee, The
Basics, The Interests, and The Hustle. The Basics included background
information, such as hometown, current city, degree and school, as well as what
is labeled as “Hustle,” and refers to the main topic of what they will discuss.
The Interests included a woman they admire, how the spend their free time, and
a few individually chosen questions of their favorite things. The Hustle is the
main section of the blog and incorporates the previously emailed question
responses of each woman and their success stories. The tone of the blog is
conversational and includes precise responses from the participants.
Multiple patterns were exposed
throughout the data including language that referenced positive self talk,
fear, confidence, speaking up about one’s thoughts and beliefs, surrounding
yourself with strong people, specifically women, as well as the use of incorporating
the pronoun we when discussing what their daily work day consists of. These
patterns were seen over multiple responses and can be attributed to assisting
with a ‘powerful’ identity perspective. Additionally, the majority of advice
given by each woman was aimed at improving personality imperfections or
internal characteristics about oneself, such as confidence, honesty, and
kindness, while few discussed specific tasks that would benefit your success,
such as having more internships, being organized or practicing more at various
tasks.
One theme frequently
found throughout the data was that of employing positive self-talk as well as
advising others to do so to achieve success. Many women, when describing obstacles
they had to overcome, used positive language to describe themselves or their
experiences. For example, Tessa Dee Miller, when asked how her gender has
affected her success, stated, “I am strong. I am smart. And I am damn capable
of running my own store and lifting heavy furniture, thank you very much”
(DuDeVoire, 2016p). She even went so far as to advise others on maintaining
positive self-talk by saying, “Never let anyone else tell you what you can or
cannot do – not even that deep, dark part of yourself.” This type of positive
language was exhibited in the data often. Another example was provided by Jen
Gurecki when she claimed, “I’m a visionary. I love big ideas that challenge the
status quo, and I’m not afraid to execute them” (DuDeVoire, 2016y). One
respondent additional offered blatant advise to women to be positive and to
avoid a negative attitude. She stated, “I hope to be able to
continue looking in the mirror, thinking, ‘Hey! There you are: unique and
shining. Keep doing your thing, girl!’”   (DuDeVoire, 2016e). In many instances, women
attributed parts of their success to improving their own self-talk as well as
to tell themselves they are capable and to feel confident in their ability to
do.
One recurring theme
discovered throughout the data was that of confidence, either the lack of
having it and the desire for more or the claim to be confident and speak up to
achieve greater success (DuDeVoire, 2016c; DuDeVoire, 2016d; DuDeVoire, 2016i;
DuDeVoire, 2016k; DuDeVoire, 2016l; DuDeVoire, 2016m; DuDeVoire, 2016o;
DuDeVoire, 2016q; DuDeVoire, 2016r; DuDeVoire, 2016s; DuDeVoire, 2016u;
DuDeVoire, 2016x; DuDeVoire, 2016y). One respondent in particular, Brittany
Norris, advised women to, “Practice a strong handshake. Stand like a superhero.
Be confident when you speak” (DuDeVoire, 2016b). Another respondent, Rachael
Tally, claimed that women should, “Stand up for yourself, even if you think it
is a small issue. These moments of confidence will add up overtime and truly
make a difference” (DuDeVoire, 2016i). Other women claimed the importance of
being proud of what you accomplish to have confidence when you speak
(DuDeVoire, 2016d). Taking pride in what you do, or recommending others to do
so, reoccurred by multiple women (DuDeVoire, 2016f; DuDeVoire, 2016g; DuDeVoire,
2016h; DuDeVoire, 2016w). Multiple women claimed being proud and confident,
while some advised others to have these traits to achieve success.
Another theme revealed was
expressions of overcoming fear and to avoid the fear of failure, as well as
accepting that fears exist. Various women offered advice or narratives about
overcoming one’s fear in order to succeed at their goals (DuDeVoire, 2016d;
DuDeVoire, 2016j; DuDeVoire, 2016m; DuDeVoire, 2016n; DuDeVoire, 2016r). One
woman, Donna Irene, discussed what not to fear by stating, “you don’t need to
have it all together, and failure is not to be feared but embraced because it
makes you better!” (DuDeVoire, 2016a). Another respondent, Sarafina Persuad, discussed
the importance of how we should “be curious, be fearless, and be kind” (DuDeVoire,
2016d). When asked about offering career advice to others, Cassidy Routh, responded
with “it’s okay to feel how you feel! Use it to your advantage and push
yourself through the fear or the frustration or whatever it is that could be
holding you back from getting what you want” (DuDeVoire, 2016j). Other women
discussed fear in the women they admire most, such as Olivia Wilson, who
stated, “I really love Chelsea Handler. One of my favorite things about her is
that she admits when she doesn’t know something…she’s also never afraid to
speak her mind, that’s for sure!” (DuDeVoire, 2016t). In the same manner,
Brittany Mignanelli offered her response to a woman she admires by responding
with the following:
Samantha Bee. I always
enjoyed her segments on The Daily Show, but this past year she has ignited a fire
in me…She’s been hitting harder than many other late night shows on the
subjects that matter most and isn’t afraid to ‘go there’. (DuDeVoire, 2016v)
According to these interview responses, women believe
overcoming and accepting fear is an integral part of being successful and can
aid in one’s identity management. By evolving from being afraid, we are able to
realize our capabilities and put that fear towards greater accomplishments.
Conclusion
Throughout this study,
the aim was to discover how women socially construct ‘powerful’ identities
through language use. While there were many types of language depicted
throughout the data, the three areas discussed were the most prominent. The
results supported the notion that women who express positive self-talk,
maintain confidence, and accept various characteristics, such as fear within
their lives leads to a more ‘powerful’ identity through the type of language
used when speaking about themselves. By integrating language of this type in one’s
mind as well as in daily conversations has the possibility to improve others
perceptions and the way we are categorized by others. This in turn has the
capability of constructing a more powerful identity. By incorporating social
construction ideas, as well as a membership categorization analysis approach to
analyzing identity, we can begin to analyze how women can construct these more
powerful identities. Noticeably, these findings do not provide definitive
results on socially constructing a powerful identity through language, but do
aid in the discovery of new ways to examine how women do construct such
identities through the language styles exhibited within this data set.
Limitations
Although the study
provided a great deal of data to analyze, it must be remembered that all
research was conducted on a singular blog site with multiple postings. Additionally,
time constraints existed, which led to the restriction of looking into further
data that will be posted after this study was conducted. As the blog continued
to evolve since its creation, the data is fixed to include responses held prior
to this study.
Technological
limitations. Although
an abundance of information was provided on the blog from which to pull data, the
limited landscape of an edited blog could have implications on the results of
this study and the responses portrayed on each entry. Additionally, the ability
for participants to conduct the interviews over email may have altered the type
of language generally exhibited from these women in face-to-face interactions.
Demographic
limitations. Despite
having over sixty different women from which to choose, the demographic was
relatively restricted to young, white females. Due to many of the blog entries
focusing on women part of small-businesses rather than successful women of
large corporations and businesses, one limitation could be depicted as lack of varying
success levels of each woman’s occupation.
Future Research
This study is capable of
providing a benchmark from which to expand the research conversation on how
women powerfully construct an identity through language. While there were over
sixty interviews from which to pull data, it would benefit the field of
research to examine powerful language of solely women in additional landscapes,
as well as additional blog websites. The blog utilized within this study has
progressed since its creation in 2016 and there are potential opportunities for
developing a longitudinal study to examine how women’s language depicted prior
to completing the interview as well as after the blog post is created.
By having the ability to
edit their own responses as well as extend the time for such responses, the women
interviewed had the potential to appear more powerful than would potentially be
seen in immediate face-to-face interview responses. In order to learn how
nonverbal communication and immediate responses differ, a study could
incorporate live interviews and compare the responses to those depicted on the
blog. The slight lack of diversity in participants allows for a greater
understanding of powerful identities by looking further into women from various
ethnic and racial backgrounds. This has the potential to improve the field’s
understanding of powerfully constructed identities and can be extended to
observing children and older women.
Additionally, the study
would support the examination of a comparison between an all-female blog and an
all-male blog to further discover the differences between men and women’s
language use in the same setting. There are numerous avenues from which this
study could expand upon and all lead to greater knowledge on an increasingly
important topic within the communication field.References
Ajtony, Z.
(2015). Dialogic representations of Britishness and Irishness: A pragmatic
view. Language and Dialogue, 5(1),
45-61. doi: 10.1075/ld.5.1.03ajt
Anderson,
J.A., & Baym, G. (2004). Philosophies and philosophic issues in
communication, 1995-2004. Journal of Communication,
54, 589-615. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.net.ucf.edu/10.1093/joc/54.4.589
Archakis,
A., & Papazachariou, D. (2008). Prosodic cues of identity construction:
Intensity in Greek young women’s conversational narratives. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(5),
627-647.
Barnett
Pearce, W. (1995). A sailing guide for social constructionists’. In W.
Leeds-Hurwitz (Ed.), Social approaches to
communication (pp. 88-113). New York: Guilford Press.
Baxter, J.
(2015). Who wants to be the leader? The linguistic construction of emerging
leadership in differently gendered teams. International
Journal of Business Communication, 52(4), 427-451. doi: 10.1177/2329488414525460
Burkette,
A., & Warhol, T. (2009). “The Bush Was No Place for a Woman”: Personal
pronouns and gender stereotypes. Women
and Language, 32(1), 70-76.
Butler, C.,
& Weatherall, A. (2006). “No, We’re Not Playing Families”:
Membership categorization in children’s play. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 39(4), 441-470. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3904_4
Couper, G.
(2011). What makes pronunciation teaching work? Testing for the effect of two
variables: socially constructed metalanguage and critical listening. Language Awareness, 20(3), 159-182. doi:
10.1080/09658416.2011.570347
DuDeVoire,
C. (2016). Babe #1: Donna Irene, freelance photographer [Blog post]. Retrieved
from http://babeswhohustle.com/home/babes/donna
DuDeVoire,
C. (2016). Babe #2: Brittany Norris, digital director @ Adjective & Co. [Blog
post]. Retrieved from http://babeswhohustle.com/home/babes/brittany
DuDeVoire,
C. (2016). Babe # 6: Alex Campanelli, marketing
specialiast @ Tesora [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://babeswhohustle.com/home/babes/alex
DuDeVoire,
C. (2016). Babe # 10: Sarafina Persuad, associate copywriter
@ FCB [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://babeswhohustle.com/home/babes/sarafina
DuDeVoire,
C. (2016). Babe # 13: Emily Powell, designer + owner
@ Emmy Eff Designs [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://babeswhohustle.com/home/babes/emmyeff
DuDeVoire,
C. (2016). Babe # 14: Micah Arfons, case manager @
Safe Children Coalition [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://babeswhohustle.com/home/babes/micah
DuDeVoire,
C. (2016). Babe # 15: Madison Geery, client services
manager @ Someecards [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://babeswhohustle.com/home/babes/brandy
DuDeVoire,
C. (2016). Babe # 22: Brandy Brong, owner @
StrongStrangStrung [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://babeswhohustle.com/home/babes/cassidy
DuDeVoire,
C. (2016). Babe # 27: Rachael Tally, flight attendant
@ Delta Airlines [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://babeswhohustle.com/home/babes/rachael
DuDeVoire,
C. (2016). Babe # 32: Cassidy Routh, graphic artist @
Full Frontal w/ Samantha Bee [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://babeswhohustle.com/home/babes/cassidy
DuDeVoire,
C. (2016). Babe # 33: Nicole Narvaez, art director @ Deutsch
[Blog post]. Retrieved from http://babeswhohustle.com/home/babes/nicole
DuDeVoire,
C. (2016). Babe # 34: Amy Phillips, marketing &
exec. support @ NDC Construction Co. [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://babeswhohustle.com/home/babes/amy
DuDeVoire,
C. (2016). Babe # 35: Shanley Caswell, actor @ SAG-AFTRA
[Blog post]. Retrieved from http://babeswhohustle.com/home/babes/shanley
DuDeVoire,
C. (2016). Babe # 38: Chelsea Moore Stutzman, founder
@ Well Soul Collective [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://babeswhohustle.com/home/babes/chelsea
DuDeVoire,
C. (2016). Babe # 39: Kat Villegas, owner &
operator @ babe.wear [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://babeswhohustle.com/home/babes/kait
DuDeVoire,
C. (2016). Babe # 43: Tessa Dee Miller, owner +
operator @ The Nest [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://babeswhohustle.com/home/babes/tessa
DuDeVoire,
C. (2016). Babe # 44: Bethany Watson, co-host @ Elvis
Duran and the Morning Show [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://babeswhohustle.com/home/babes/bethany
DuDeVoire,
C. (2016). Babe # 47: Susanna Liu, consultant @ ClearView
Healthcare Partners [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://babeswhohustle.com/home/babes/susanna
DuDeVoire,
C. (2016). Babe # 48: Chynna Ratner, director of
social marketing @ Exclusive Sports Marketing [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://babeswhohustle.com/home/babes/chynna
DuDeVoire,
C. (2016). Babe # 51: Olivia Wilson, senior publicist
@ X Games / ESPN [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://babeswhohustle.com/home/babes/olivia
DuDeVoire,
C. (2016). Babe # 53: Faith Krogulecki, production
assistant @ FOX Sports Detroit [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://babeswhohustle.com/home/babes/faith
DuDeVoire,
C. (2016). Babe # 54: Brittany Mignanelli, associate
field producer @ The Dr. Oz Show [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://babeswhohustle.com/home/babes/brit
DuDeVoire,
C. (2016). Babe # 55: Nellie Davis, boss lady @ Camp
Out Yonder + Outsiders Hair Studio [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://babeswhohustle.com/home/babes/nellie
DuDeVoire,
C. (2016). Babe # 61: Shannon Pilcher, bartender @ Sidecar
Jax [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://babeswhohustle.com/home/babes/shannon
DuDeVoire,
C. (2016). Babe # 62: Jen Gurecki, co-founder + CEO @
Coalition Snow [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://babeswhohustle.com/home/babes/olivia
Eglin, P.
(2002). Members’ gendering work: ‘women’, ‘feminists’ and membership
categorization analysis. Discourse &
Society, 13(6), 819-825.
Fitzgerald,
R. (2012). Membership categorization analysis: Wild and promiscuous or simply
the joy of Sacks?. Discourse Studies, 14(3),
305-311.
Gal, S. (1995).
Language, gender, and power: An anthropological review. In K. Hall & M.
Bucholtz (Eds.), Gender articulated:
Language and the socially constructed self (pp. 169-182). New York:
Routledge.
Hall, K.,
& Bucholtz, M. (1995). Gender articulated: Language and the socially
constructed self. New York: Routledge.
Housley, W.,
& Fitzgerald, R. (2009). Membership categorization, culture and norms in
action. Discourse & Society, 20(3),
345-362.
Keaton, S.
A., & Bodie, G. D. (2011). Explaining social constructivism. Communication Teacher, 25(4), 192-196. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.net.ucf.edu/10.1080/17404622.2011.601725
Leudar, I.,
Marsland, V., & Nekvapil, J. (2001). On membership categorization: ‘us’,
‘them’ and ‘doing violence’ in political discourse. Discourse & Society, 15(2/3), 243-266.
Mallon, R. (2007).
A field guide to social construction. Philosophy
Compass, 2(1), 93–108.

Medved, C.
E., & Rawlins, W. K. (2011). At-home fathers and breadwinning mothers: Variations
in constructing work and family lives. Women
and Language, 34(2), 9-39.
Richardson,
E. (2013). Social construction of self: Narratives of verbally abusive
relationships. The Florida Communication
Journal, 41, 97-105. doi:
Richardson,
B. K., & Taylor, J. (2009). Sexual harassment at the intersection of race
and gender: A theoretical model of the sexual harassment experiences of women
of color. Western Journal of
Communication, 73(3), 248-272. doi: 10.1080/10570310903082065
Sidelinger,
R. J., Frisby, B. N., & McMullen, A. L. (2009). The decision to forgive:
Sex, gender, and the likelihood to forgive partner transgressions. Communication Studies, 60(2), 164-179.
Silverman,
D. (1998). Membership categorization analysis. Harvey Sacks: Social Science and Conversation Analysis, (pp.
74-97). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Soukup, B.
(2012). Current issues in the social psychological study of ‘language
attitudes’: Constructionism, context, and the attitude–behavior link. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(4),
212-224. doi: 10.1002/lnc3.332
Stewart, J.
(1995). Philosophical features of social approaches to interpersonal
communication. In W. Leeds-Hurwitz (Ed.), Social
approaches to communication (pp. 23-41). New York: Guilford Press.
Stokoe, E.
(2010). I’m not gonna hit a lady’: Conversation analysis, membership
categorization and men’s denials of violence towards women. Discourse & Society, 21(1), 59-82.