Stivers2015
| Stivers2015 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Stivers2015 |
| Author(s) | Tanya Stivers |
| Title | Coding social interaction: a heretical approach in Conversation Analysis? |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Coding, Conversation Analysis, Methodology |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2015 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Research on Language and Social Interaction |
| Volume | 48 |
| Number | 1 |
| Pages | 1–19 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1080/08351813.2015.993837 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Conversation Analysis has come to be the dominant approach to the systematic study of social interaction. Mixed methods studies combining CA with quantitative methods have been utilized since the 1980s to test associations between interaction practices and sociodemographic variables, attitudinal variables, outcomes, and even factors such as the economy. However, any sort of formal coding risks a massive reduction and flattening of complex human behavior to simplistic codes. Thus, a question arises as to whether it is possible to make use of formal coding in a way that remains true to CA principles about the study of social interaction. In this article, I argue that the formal coding of interaction behavior is not necessarily antithetical to conversation analysis. Although formal coding of interaction is frequently a top-down process that is not grounded in CA, interaction coding can be done in ways that do not sacrifice a CA sensibility and that are true to CA principles. In this article I discuss the aspects of CA methods that form a natural basis for formal coding and then go on to contrast non-CA-grounded formal coding with CA-grounded formal coding. Finally, I review some of the limitations of mixed methods CA formal coding studies of interaction. Data are in American and British English.
Notes
