Difference between revisions of "Emmison2013"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) m |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| 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; Conversation Analysis; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Epistemics; Conversation Analysis; |
|Key=Emmison2013 | |Key=Emmison2013 | ||
|Year=2013 | |Year=2013 | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Volume=40 | |Volume=40 | ||
|Number=2 | |Number=2 | ||
| − | |URL= | + | |URL=https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=823076794937683;res=IELAPA |
| − | |Abstract=Leaving to one side the contentious relationship | + | |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. |
| − | between the | ||
| − | sequencing branch of Conversation Analysis (CA) | ||
| − | and the now marginalised minority speciality of | ||
| − | Membership | ||
| − | the | ||
| − | of | ||
| − | uniformity | ||
| − | to | ||
| − | in | ||
| − | Indeed | ||
| − | to | ||
| − | of | ||
| − | examine | ||
| − | research | ||
| − | almost Kuhnian degree of | ||
| − | which would be | ||
| − | the social sciences. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 05:59, 5 December 2019
| 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 | |
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
