Difference between revisions of "How to explain conversation analysis to quantitative researchers"
SaulAlbert (talk | contribs) (→Credits) |
SaulAlbert (talk | contribs) (→Credits) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
=== Credits === | === 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. | + | 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, and responses by Ruth Parry, Israel Berger, Galina Bolden, Jacob Bilmes, Mats Andrén, Dennis Day, Sima Sadeghi, Julie Wilkes, Christian Nelson, Emo Gotsbachner, R.E.sanders, David Woods, Jeffrey Robinson and Rebecca Barnes (see [http://lists.hum.aau.dk/pipermail/languse/Week-of-Mon-20141201/thread.html#4577 the threaded list of replies] in the list archives. |
Revision as of 04:48, 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, and responses by Ruth Parry, Israel Berger, Galina Bolden, Jacob Bilmes, Mats Andrén, Dennis Day, Sima Sadeghi, Julie Wilkes, Christian Nelson, Emo Gotsbachner, R.E.sanders, David Woods, Jeffrey Robinson and Rebecca Barnes (see the threaded list of replies in the list archives.
