Difference between revisions of "Drew2018a"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(BibTeX auto import 2018-02-02 11:20:09)
 
m
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{BibEntry
 
{{BibEntry
|Key=Drew2018a
+
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Key=Drew2018a
+
|Author(s)=Paul Drew;
 
|Title=Epistemics – The Rebuttal Special Issue : An introduction
 
|Title=Epistemics – The Rebuttal Special Issue : An introduction
|Author(s)=Paul Drew;
 
 
|Tag(s)=Conversation analysis; epistemics; ethnomethodology; heritage; oh; states of knowledge
 
|Tag(s)=Conversation analysis; epistemics; ethnomethodology; heritage; oh; states of knowledge
|BibType=ARTICLE
+
|Key=Drew2018a
 
|Year=2018
 
|Year=2018
 +
|Language=English
 
|Journal=Discourse Studies
 
|Journal=Discourse Studies
 
|Volume=20
 
|Volume=20

Revision as of 05:21, 2 February 2018

Drew2018a
BibType ARTICLE
Key Drew2018a
Author(s) Paul Drew
Title Epistemics – The Rebuttal Special Issue : An introduction
Editor(s)
Tag(s) Conversation analysis, epistemics, ethnomethodology, heritage, oh, states of knowledge
Publisher
Year 2018
Language English
City
Month
Journal Discourse Studies
Volume 20
Number 1
Pages 3–13
URL Link
DOI 10.1177/1461445617739742
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

A Special Issue of this journal, edited by Lynch et al., was published critiquing research in conversation analysis (CA) on epistemics and on oh. It would be more accurate to say that the articles in that Special Issue critique the work of Heritage on epistemics and oh. Their principal criticism is that Heritage's analyses of epistemics and oh are cognitivist. Other criticisms are that his analysis of each of these phenomena is not sequential, that it does not attend to the details of turn design, and that his analyses are not truly conversation analytic – indeed that he does not comprehend CA, that his analyses are false and unwarranted, that he has adopted an ‘informationist' perspective of knowledge transfer, and that epistemics represents some ‘hidden order' invisible at the surface of conversation. Underlying these criticisms is their contention that Heritage has not adhered to the ‘radical' agenda of ethnomethodology (or the agenda of ‘radical ethnomethodology') which, they claim, underlies the origins of CA. In this Introduction, I outline some of the principal reasons for regarding the criticisms in The epistemics of Epistemics to be misguided, inaccurate and scurrilous. In doing so, I am setting out in very broad outline the arguments made by the contributors to this Special Issue rebutting those criticisms of Heritage's work, and of CA more generally.

Notes