As I was reading the beginning of chapter 4 in which the authors talk about the three steps in conducting analysis on conversations, I was sort of reminded of the similarities that exist across CA and dancing (I am a big fan of dancing :)). According to the authors, at first, you should find a possibly interesting phenomenon in the data. It relates to me like finding a good piece of music among a bunch of CDs. According to the authors, the second step involves being attentive to particular turns in the talks, and being able to describe particular occurrences in the data, which to me is like, listening to that piece of music and at the same time, allowing your body to move with the turns and highs and lows of that music (this free-lance body movements could end up to a nice dance). The third step according to the authors requires a return to the data to see if other occurrences in the data could be described with this account, which to me sounds like, trying to come up with some finely-figured body movements that are fit with the music and also sort of familiar to the dancer from his/her previous experience.
The insistence of the authors on coming up with a way of being able to integrate the "deviant cases" in the general descriptions of the data is sort of at odds with what critical thinkers believe. Based on my perception, critical thinkers, believe that trying to stuff deviant cases - like minors- in general and broad categories, tends to marginalize them which is happening in the example given from Schegloff in Chapter 4. My question is that why should we find a way to describe that one deviant phone call in the general category of the rest of the "typical" phone calls. Doing that might confound some interesting phenomenon that might be going on around that deviant phone call.
Another interesting point in chapter 4, was its emphasis on the importance of "culture" as a context in which the conversation is going on. This reminds me of last week's controversy news about the telephone talk that occurred between Obama and the Iranian president, Rouhani, after 30 years of no contacts between the two countries and also the negotiations that happened between the Iranian foreign minister and that of the other countries in NY. As the aftermath of these important political events, many media interpretations showed up here and there- thankfully, I have access to both English & Farsi news- each trying to interpret in their own ways the words spoken by each of these public figures, the sequence of their talks, the turns in their conversations and even their body gestures towards each others. In some instances, the interpretations of the Iranian media was dramatically different from that of the western countries which controlling for media biases- that always exist- demonstrates how these factors are differently seen and observed in different cultural contexts.
Apparently, what links chapter 4 and 5 is that those generalizeable patterns found in the large number of conversation collections, could be put into test in single-case analysis which is the topic covered in chapter 5. Also, I assume that the mini-data analysis project which we are supposed to do for this course, is an instance of the single-case CA, highlighted in chapter 5.
I think, the discussions presented in chapter 6 in terms of the role of context (formal vs. informal) in turn-taking patterns is very relevant but I am not still sure, what the authors mean by "bricolage" in this context.
We use this term in entrepreneurship research, pointing to activities undertaken by entrepreneurs relying on their resources at hand, in stead of seeking new resources. May be that's the reason, I am not still sure about the meaning of bricolage in CA.
"My question is that why should we find a way to describe that one deviant phone call in the general category of the rest of the "typical" phone calls. Doing that might confound some interesting phenomenon that might be going on around that deviant phone call." Wow - excellent point!! I am going to have to think on this one for awhile...
ReplyDelete"In some instances, the interpretations of the Iranian media was dramatically different from that of the western countries which controlling for media biases- that always exist- demonstrates how these factors are differently seen and observed in different cultural contexts." Especially when there are agendas at play in how they are being interpreted...each choice of language is DOING something important in how it is constructing meaning from the event, isn't it?
Yes, I think that for the CA approach to analysis you will be doing a single case analysis. After we read Gee there may be some additional analyses you'll want to try out, too.
From reading the blog posts it sounds like bricolage is a term used in a variety of fields but everyone is confused about what CA is "doing" with this word : )