How to explain conversation analysis to quantitative researchers
Revision as of 05:27, 4 December 2014 by SaulAlbert (talk | contribs)
Mario Veen asked this question on the Languse mailing list. Here were some of the answers and recommendations, and a link to the original thread. There are some good replies there, which may be copied to the wiki at some point. In the meantime, here are some articles recommended in that thread:
Recommended Reading
- Peräkylä, A. (2004). Reliability and validity in research based on naturally occurring social interaction. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (2nd ed., pp. 283-304). London: Sage. (or the 3rd edition)
- Roberts, F., & Robinson, J. D. (2004). Interobserver agreement on first-stage conversation analytic transcription. Human Communication Research, 30(3), 376-410.
- Jack Bilmes, "Preference and the conversation analytic endeavor," (Journal of Pragmatics, 64, 2014: 52-71).
Related links / resources
- @Dirkvl, however, points to Stand Up and Be Counted: Why social science should stop using the qualitative/quantitative dichotomy
- Two blog posts: Conversation Analysis for Geeks - a 5 minute presentation of CA for computer science nerds, and a related post on 3 recurrent complaints about Conversation Analysis I have experienced in my quantitatively oriented cognitive science department --SaulAlbert (talk) 12:54, 4 December 2014 (CET)
