Watson2008
| Watson2008 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Watson2008 |
| Author(s) | Rodney D. Watson |
| Title | Comparative sociology, laic and analytic: some critical remarks on comparison in conversation analysis |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, comparison, equivalence, formal properties, single case analysis, gestalt contexture, transcription |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2008 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Cahiers de praxématique |
| Volume | |
| Number | 50 |
| Pages | 197–238 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
With reference to Conversation Analysis (CA), this paper will examine two ‘levels’ of comparison—ordinary and analytic. The importance of maintaining that distinction is emphasised, as is the importance of acknowledging certain fundamental connections between the two. Whilst it may not be possible to absolutely avoid comparison at the analytic level, it is argued that there are many pitfalls and that a minimalistic approach should be adopted t. Comparison should not be reified into “a” (let alone “the”) CA “method”, and the pitfalls of comparison are indicated. Instead, the emphasis should remain on the analysis of single cases, not so much in line with Schegloff’s conception of single case analysis as on Garfinkel’s (2002) ethnomethodology (EM)-based notion of gestalt contexture. All in all, EM will be brought to bear upon issues concerning CA, with the hoped-for outcome of initiating a reciprocal respecification and closer alignment of the two.
Notes
