Difference between revisions of "Ford2012"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Cecilia E. Ford; |Title=Clarity in applied and interdisciplinary conversation analysis |Tag(s)=EMCA; Applied; Conversation Analysis; |...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Cecilia E. Ford; | + | |Author(s)=Cecilia E. Ford; |
|Title=Clarity in applied and interdisciplinary conversation analysis | |Title=Clarity in applied and interdisciplinary conversation analysis | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Applied; Conversation Analysis; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Applied; Conversation Analysis; |
|Key=Ford2012 | |Key=Ford2012 | ||
|Year=2012 | |Year=2012 | ||
|Journal=Discourse Studies | |Journal=Discourse Studies | ||
|Volume=14 | |Volume=14 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Number=4 |
| − | |Note= | + | |Pages=507–513 |
| + | |URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1461445612450375 | ||
| + | |DOI=10.1177/1461445612450375 | ||
| + | |Note=Comment on Hansung et al, 2012 | ||
| + | |Abstract=Acknowledging the perils of interdisciplinary and applied conversation analysis, this essay argues for clarity in articulating relationships between methods, addressing, in particular, the language used to formulate claims regarding how participants’ post hoc reflections relate to findings from CA analyses. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 12:06, 30 November 2019
| Ford2012 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Ford2012 |
| Author(s) | Cecilia E. Ford |
| Title | Clarity in applied and interdisciplinary conversation analysis |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Applied, Conversation Analysis |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2012 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Discourse Studies |
| Volume | 14 |
| Number | 4 |
| Pages | 507–513 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/1461445612450375 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Acknowledging the perils of interdisciplinary and applied conversation analysis, this essay argues for clarity in articulating relationships between methods, addressing, in particular, the language used to formulate claims regarding how participants’ post hoc reflections relate to findings from CA analyses.
Notes
Comment on Hansung et al, 2012
