Difference between revisions of "DeRuiter-Albert2017"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=J. P. de Ruiter; Saul Albert; |Title=An Appeal for a Methodological Fusion of Conversation Analysis and Experimental Psychology |Tag(s)=...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Author(s)=J. P. de Ruiter; Saul Albert; | |Author(s)=J. P. de Ruiter; Saul Albert; | ||
|Title=An Appeal for a Methodological Fusion of Conversation Analysis and Experimental Psychology | |Title=An Appeal for a Methodological Fusion of Conversation Analysis and Experimental Psychology | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation Analysis; Psychology; Methodology; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation Analysis; Psychology; Methodology; |
|Key=DeRuiter-Albert2017 | |Key=DeRuiter-Albert2017 | ||
|Year=2017 | |Year=2017 | ||
| + | |Language=English | ||
|Journal=Research on Language and Social Interaction | |Journal=Research on Language and Social Interaction | ||
|Volume=50 | |Volume=50 | ||
|Number=1 | |Number=1 | ||
|Pages=90-107 | |Pages=90-107 | ||
| + | |URL=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08351813.2017.1262050 | ||
|DOI=10.1080/08351813.2017.1262050 | |DOI=10.1080/08351813.2017.1262050 | ||
| − | |Abstract=Human social interaction is studied by researchers in conversation analysis (CA) | + | |Abstract=Human social interaction is studied by researchers in conversation analysis (CA) and psychology, but the dominant methodologies within these two disciplines are very different. Analyzing methodological differences in relation to major developments in the philosophy of science, we suggest that a central difference is that psychologists tend to follow Popper’s falsificationism in dissociating the context of discovery and the context of justification. In CA, following Garfinkel’s ethnomethodology, these two contexts are much closer to one another, if not inextricable. While this dissociation allows the psychologist a much larger theoretical freedom, because psychologists “only” need to validate their theories by generating confirmed predictions from experiments, it also carries the risk of generating theories that are less robust and pertinent to everyday interaction than the body of knowledge accumulated by CA. However, as long as key philosophical differences are well understood, it is not an inherently bad idea to generate predictions from theories and use quantitative and experimental methods to test them. It is both desirable and achievable to find a synthesis between methodologies that combines their strengths and avoids their weaknesses. We discuss a number of challenges that would need to be met and some opportunities that may arise from creating such a synthesis. |
| − | and psychology, but the dominant methodologies within these two disciplines | ||
| − | are very different. Analyzing methodological differences in relation to major | ||
| − | developments in the philosophy of science, we suggest that a central difference | ||
| − | is that psychologists tend to follow Popper’s falsificationism in dissociating the | ||
| − | context of discovery and the context of justification. In CA, following Garfinkel’s | ||
| − | ethnomethodology, these two contexts are much closer to one another, if not | ||
| − | inextricable. While this dissociation allows the psychologist a much larger | ||
| − | |||
| − | generating confirmed predictions from experiments, it also carries the risk of | ||
| − | generating theories that are less robust and pertinent to everyday interaction | ||
| − | than the body of knowledge accumulated by CA. However, as long as key | ||
| − | philosophical differences are well understood, it is not an inherently bad idea | ||
| − | to generate predictions from theories and use quantitative and experimental | ||
| − | methods to test them. It is both desirable and achievable to find a synthesis | ||
| − | between methodologies that combines their strengths and avoids their | ||
| − | |||
| − | opportunities that may arise from creating such a synthesis. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 03:28, 26 September 2023
| DeRuiter-Albert2017 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | DeRuiter-Albert2017 |
| Author(s) | J. P. de Ruiter, Saul Albert |
| Title | An Appeal for a Methodological Fusion of Conversation Analysis and Experimental Psychology |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Conversation Analysis, Psychology, Methodology |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2017 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Research on Language and Social Interaction |
| Volume | 50 |
| Number | 1 |
| Pages | 90-107 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1080/08351813.2017.1262050 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Human social interaction is studied by researchers in conversation analysis (CA) and psychology, but the dominant methodologies within these two disciplines are very different. Analyzing methodological differences in relation to major developments in the philosophy of science, we suggest that a central difference is that psychologists tend to follow Popper’s falsificationism in dissociating the context of discovery and the context of justification. In CA, following Garfinkel’s ethnomethodology, these two contexts are much closer to one another, if not inextricable. While this dissociation allows the psychologist a much larger theoretical freedom, because psychologists “only” need to validate their theories by generating confirmed predictions from experiments, it also carries the risk of generating theories that are less robust and pertinent to everyday interaction than the body of knowledge accumulated by CA. However, as long as key philosophical differences are well understood, it is not an inherently bad idea to generate predictions from theories and use quantitative and experimental methods to test them. It is both desirable and achievable to find a synthesis between methodologies that combines their strengths and avoids their weaknesses. We discuss a number of challenges that would need to be met and some opportunities that may arise from creating such a synthesis.
Notes
