Difference between revisions of "Ford2012"
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
|DOI=10.1177/1461445612450375 | |DOI=10.1177/1461445612450375 | ||
|Note=comment on Hansung et al, 2012 | |Note=comment on Hansung et al, 2012 | ||
| + | |Abstract=Acknowledging the perils of interdisciplinary and applied conversation analysis, this essay argues for clarity in articulating relationships between methods, addressing, in particular, the language used to formulate claims regarding how participants’ post hoc reflections relate to findings from CA analyses. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 04:03, 26 February 2016
| Ford2012 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Ford2012 |
| Author(s) | Cecilia E. Ford |
| Title | Clarity in applied and interdisciplinary conversation analysis |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Applied, Conversation Analysis |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2012 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Discourse Studies |
| Volume | 14 |
| Number | 4 |
| Pages | 507–513 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/1461445612450375 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Acknowledging the perils of interdisciplinary and applied conversation analysis, this essay argues for clarity in articulating relationships between methods, addressing, in particular, the language used to formulate claims regarding how participants’ post hoc reflections relate to findings from CA analyses.
Notes
comment on Hansung et al, 2012
