Difference between revisions of "How to explain conversation analysis to quantitative researchers"
SaulAlbert (talk | contribs) |
SaulAlbert (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
| − | + | ||
=== Recommended Reading === | === Recommended Reading === | ||
| Line 12: | Line 11: | ||
=== Related links / resources === | === Related links / resources === | ||
| − | |||
* [https://twitter.com/dirkvl @Dirkvl], however, points to [http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/11/28/stand-up-and-be-counted-social-science-qualitative-quantitative-dichotomy/ Stand Up and Be Counted: Why social science should stop using the qualitative/quantitative dichotomy] | * [https://twitter.com/dirkvl @Dirkvl], however, points to [http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/11/28/stand-up-and-be-counted-social-science-qualitative-quantitative-dichotomy/ Stand Up and Be Counted: Why social science should stop using the qualitative/quantitative dichotomy] | ||
* Two blog posts: [http://saulalbert.net/blog/conversation-analysis-for-geeks/ Conversation Analysis for Geeks] - a 5 minute presentation of CA for computer science nerds, and a related post on [http://saulalbert.net/blog/3-recurrent-complaints-about-conversation-analysis/ 3 recurrent complaints about Conversation Analysis] I have experienced in my quantitatively oriented cognitive science department --[[User:SaulAlbert|SaulAlbert]] ([[User talk:SaulAlbert|talk]]) 12:54, 4 December 2014 (CET) | * Two blog posts: [http://saulalbert.net/blog/conversation-analysis-for-geeks/ Conversation Analysis for Geeks] - a 5 minute presentation of CA for computer science nerds, and a related post on [http://saulalbert.net/blog/3-recurrent-complaints-about-conversation-analysis/ 3 recurrent complaints about Conversation Analysis] I have experienced in my quantitatively oriented cognitive science department --[[User:SaulAlbert|SaulAlbert]] ([[User talk:SaulAlbert|talk]]) 12:54, 4 December 2014 (CET) | ||
| + | |||
| + | === Credits === | ||
| + | |||
| + | This page is based on an [http://lists.hum.aau.dk/pipermail/languse/Week-of-Mon-20141201/004577.html original thread] thread initiated by Mario Veen on the [http://www.list.hum.aau.dk/mailman/listinfo/languse Languse] mailing list. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Any other articles / tips should be to this page stub added here. | ||
Revision as of 05:45, 7 December 2014
Recommended Reading
- Peräkylä, A. (2004). Reliability and validity in research based on naturally occurring social interaction. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (2nd ed., pp. 283-304). London: Sage. (or the 3rd edition)
- Roberts, F., & Robinson, J. D. (2004). Interobserver agreement on first-stage conversation analytic transcription. Human Communication Research, 30(3), 376-410.
- Jack Bilmes, " Preference and the conversation analytic endeavor," (Journal of Pragmatics, 64, 2014: 52-71).
- Parry, R. H., & Land, V. (2013). Systematically reviewing and synthesizing evidence from conversation analytic and related discursive research to inform healthcare communication practice and policy: an illustrated guide. BMC medical research methodology, 13(1), 69.
- Lorenza Mondada's and Galina Bolden & Alexa Hepburn's chapters in Jack Sidnell, Tanya Stivers, (2013), " The Handbook of Conversation Analysis", Malden, MA, Wiley-Blackwell.
Related links / resources
- @Dirkvl, however, points to Stand Up and Be Counted: Why social science should stop using the qualitative/quantitative dichotomy
- Two blog posts: Conversation Analysis for Geeks - a 5 minute presentation of CA for computer science nerds, and a related post on 3 recurrent complaints about Conversation Analysis I have experienced in my quantitatively oriented cognitive science department --SaulAlbert (talk) 12:54, 4 December 2014 (CET)
Credits
This page is based on an original thread thread initiated by Mario Veen on the Languse mailing list.
Any other articles / tips should be to this page stub added here.
