Have1990a
| Have1990a | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Have1990a |
| Author(s) | Paul ten Have |
| Title | Methodological issues in conversation analysis |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | Basic Resources, EMCA, Methodology |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 1990 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | BMS: Bulletin of Sociological Methodology / Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique |
| Volume | |
| Number | 27 |
| Pages | 23–51 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Conversation Analysis (CA), a research tradition that grew out of ethnomethodology, has some unique methodological features. It studies the social organization of 'conversation', or 'talk-in-interaction', by a detailed inspection of tape recordings and transcriptions made from such recordings. In this paper, the author describes some of those features in the interest of exploring their grounds. In doing so, he discusses some of the problems and dilemma's conversation analysts deal with in their daily practice, using both the literature and his own experiences as resources. He presents CA's research strategy as a solution to ethnomethodology's problem of the 'invisibility' of common sense and describe it in an idealized form as a seven step procedure. The author also discusses some of the major criticisms leveled against it and touches on some current developments. Conversation Analysis is a disciplined way of studying the local organization of interactional episodes, its unique methodological practice has enabled its practitioners to produce a mass of insights into the detailed procedural foundations of everyday life. It has developed some very practical solutions to some rather thorny methodological problems. As such it is methodologically 'impure', but it works.
Notes
