Difference between revisions of "Bushnell2012"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Cade Bushnell |Title=Talking the talk: the interactional construction of community and identity at conversation analytic data sessions i...") |
SaulAlbert (talk | contribs) m (Text replace - "Conversation analysis;" to "Conversation Analysis;") |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Author(s)=Cade Bushnell | |Author(s)=Cade Bushnell | ||
|Title=Talking the talk: the interactional construction of community and identity at conversation analytic data sessions in Japan | |Title=Talking the talk: the interactional construction of community and identity at conversation analytic data sessions in Japan | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Community; Identity; Data session; Japanese; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Community; Identity; Data session; Japanese; Conversation Analysis; Membership Categorization Analysis; Communities of practice; Terminology; |
|Key=Bushnell2012 | |Key=Bushnell2012 | ||
|Year=2012 | |Year=2012 | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Volume=35 | |Volume=35 | ||
|Number=4 | |Number=4 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=583–605 |
| + | |URL=http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10746-012-9248-7 | ||
| + | |DOI=10.1007/s10746-012-9248-7 | ||
| + | |Abstract=A communities of practice framework views learning in terms of identity (trans)formation within and through participation, utilizing a set of shared resources, in a community organized around a joint endeavor, or practice. From an ethnomethodological perspective, however, the theoretical notions of community, shared resources, and identity constitute not explanatory resources, but rather topics requiring data-grounded exploration. In other words, the following empirical questions arise: If and how the participants (a) organize their group as community, (b) co-constitute a shared repertoire of participatory resources, and (c) work up and manage identities as practitioners within that community. In the present study, I examine interactions at conversation analytic data sessions in Japan. The analyses focus on how the participants use terminology during their participation in doing data analysis, and how such terminology use is implicated in constituting their group as a community, and in working up and managing identities within that community. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 00:31, 18 May 2018
| Bushnell2012 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Bushnell2012 |
| Author(s) | Cade Bushnell |
| Title | Talking the talk: the interactional construction of community and identity at conversation analytic data sessions in Japan |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Community, Identity, Data session, Japanese, Conversation Analysis, Membership Categorization Analysis, Communities of practice, Terminology |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2012 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Human Studies |
| Volume | 35 |
| Number | 4 |
| Pages | 583–605 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1007/s10746-012-9248-7 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
A communities of practice framework views learning in terms of identity (trans)formation within and through participation, utilizing a set of shared resources, in a community organized around a joint endeavor, or practice. From an ethnomethodological perspective, however, the theoretical notions of community, shared resources, and identity constitute not explanatory resources, but rather topics requiring data-grounded exploration. In other words, the following empirical questions arise: If and how the participants (a) organize their group as community, (b) co-constitute a shared repertoire of participatory resources, and (c) work up and manage identities as practitioners within that community. In the present study, I examine interactions at conversation analytic data sessions in Japan. The analyses focus on how the participants use terminology during their participation in doing data analysis, and how such terminology use is implicated in constituting their group as a community, and in working up and managing identities within that community.
Notes
