Difference between revisions of "Emmison2013"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m
Line 3: Line 3:
 
|Author(s)=Michael Emmison;
 
|Author(s)=Michael Emmison;
 
|Title='Epistemic engine' versus 'role-play method': Divergent trajectories in contemporary conversation analysis
 
|Title='Epistemic engine' versus 'role-play method': Divergent trajectories in contemporary conversation analysis
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Epistemics;  
+
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Epistemics; Conversation Analysis;  
 
|Key=Emmison2013
 
|Key=Emmison2013
 
|Year=2013
 
|Year=2013
Line 10: Line 10:
 
|Number=2
 
|Number=2
 
|URL=http://austjourcomm.org/index.php/ajc/index
 
|URL=http://austjourcomm.org/index.php/ajc/index
 +
|Abstract=Leaving to one side the contentious relationship
 +
between the ‘juggernaut’ (Stokoe, 2012) of the
 +
sequencing branch of Conversation Analysis (CA)
 +
and the now marginalised minority speciality of
 +
Membership  Categorization  Analysis,  perhaps
 +
the  most  distinctive  feature  of  CA  for  most
 +
of  its  recent  history  has  been  the  remarkable
 +
uniformity  that  it has displayed  in  its approach
 +
to  the  study  of  talk-in-interaction.  Understood
 +
in  these  terms,  CA  is  a  project  of  discovery.
 +
Indeed  Clayman  has  likened  CA  practitioners
 +
to ‘explorers’ who set out to collect ‘specimens
 +
of  interaction’  that  they  then  systematically
 +
examine  and  analyse.  This  shared  style  of
 +
research  practice  has  endowed  CA  with  an
 +
almost Kuhnian degree of ‘normal science’, one
 +
which would be  the envy of most branches of
 +
the social sciences.
 
}}
 
}}

Revision as of 05:57, 2 June 2017

Emmison2013
BibType ARTICLE
Key Emmison2013
Author(s) Michael Emmison
Title 'Epistemic engine' versus 'role-play method': Divergent trajectories in contemporary conversation analysis
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, Epistemics, Conversation Analysis
Publisher
Year 2013
Language
City
Month
Journal Australian Journal of Communication
Volume 40
Number 2
Pages
URL Link
DOI
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

Leaving to one side the contentious relationship between the ‘juggernaut’ (Stokoe, 2012) of the sequencing branch of Conversation Analysis (CA) and the now marginalised minority speciality of Membership Categorization Analysis, perhaps the most distinctive feature of CA for most of its recent history has been the remarkable uniformity that it has displayed in its approach to the study of talk-in-interaction. Understood in these terms, CA is a project of discovery. Indeed Clayman has likened CA practitioners to ‘explorers’ who set out to collect ‘specimens of interaction’ that they then systematically examine and analyse. This shared style of research practice has endowed CA with an almost Kuhnian degree of ‘normal science’, one which would be the envy of most branches of the social sciences.

Notes