Could anyone explain this?
Responses to challenges
Since attributed assertions are often introduced in the spirit of devil's advocacy, interviewees generally seek to refute them, but as Clayman (1992), Greatbatch (1998) and Clayman and Heritage (2002) point out, they do so in such a way so as not to challenge the interviewer's naturalistic posture. They do it in three distinctive forms of response: firstly, by citing the same party as responsible for the previously expressed viewpoint; secondly, by simply referring to the disputed viewpoint without attributing it to anyone in particular either by means of using a general word such as 'premise', or by using the passive ' if that is being said'; lastly, interviewee may simply present a contrasting argument without referring to the prior viewpoint in a direct way, but rather indirectly.
Thank you very much in advance.