Whelan2012
Whelan2012 | |
---|---|
BibType | ARTICLE |
Key | Whelan2012 |
Author(s) | Pauline Whelan |
Title | Oxymoronic and sociologically monstrous? Feminist conversation analysis |
Editor(s) | |
Tag(s) | EMCA, Feminist CA, conversation analysis, discourse, feminism, feminist conversation analysis, gender |
Publisher | |
Year | 2012 |
Language | English |
City | |
Month | |
Journal | Qualitative Research In Psychology |
Volume | 9 |
Number | 4 |
Pages | 279-291 |
URL | Link |
DOI | 10.1080/14780887.2011.634360 |
ISBN | |
Organization | |
Institution | |
School | |
Type | |
Edition | |
Series | |
Howpublished | |
Book title | |
Chapter |
Abstract
The relatively recent surge of interest in feminist conversation analysis within the United Kingdom appears to have been met with a largely positive response. Proponents declare that they “know of no other approach which offers a more viable basis from which to drive social change” (Speer 2005, p. 192), and they envisage in conversa- tion analysis (CA) “exciting possibilities for lesbian and feminist research” (Kitzinger 2000, p. 164). While debates continue about the relative merits of CA over other dis- cursive approaches (e.g., critical discourse analysis; see Hammersley 2003), there has been relatively little published about this emergent, explicitly feminist variety of CA that does not portray the field in a favourable light (although see Wowk 2007 for a notable exception). This article adopts a more cautionary approach toward employing CA to further feminist aims and seeks instead to interrogate the theoretical underpinnings of CA and problematise its application in feminist praxis.
Notes