Conversation analysis.

By J. Chatwin. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 2004

2,401 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ea48d6d041f3ef394794424e601de69b3e260dc3

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Language and Linguistics

Citations in the corpus

Reflecting on the development of interpretative phenomenological analysis and its contribution to qualitative research in psychology (2004, background): “(Drew, 2003) and much grounded theory research includes researcher notes from participant observation as a key source of data (Strauss, 1987).”
Everyday Cognition and Situated Learning: Philip H. Henning (2013, positive): “…models and focus of studies of work practice is the relationship between the (Suchman, notonlytoolsbutalsoarchitecturalfeatures,furnishings,video monitors,etc.Thisapproachtoworkpracticescanbeapplied toanyworksiteandmaybeveryproﬁtablyusedtoanalyze toanyworksiteandmaybeveryproﬁtablyusedtoanalyze…”
Voice Interfaces in Everyday Life (2018, background): “Turns, as well as adjacency pairs, however, are categorically different in that they are the building blocks that are simultaneously shaped by and renew the context of human-to-human interaction [10].”
Contingency and Action: A Comparison of Two Forms of Requesting (2008, methodology): “This study is informed by the methodology of CA (for an overview, see Drew, 2005), insofar as we are concerned with describing and analyzing the linguistic design and sequential placement of turns at talk.”
"Active Listening": Formulations and the Elicitation of Feelings-Talk in Child Counselling (2005, methodology): “Tapes were transcribed according to the conventions of conversation analysis (see Hutchby & Wooffitt, 1998), and all names and points of reference have been changed to protect participants’ anonymity.”
Epistemics in social interaction (2018, methodology): “I have previously analysed Nancy’s and Emma’s collusive complaining in this interaction, focusing principally on the formats of each of their turns as idiomatically or conventionally forms of complaining (Drew, 2005: 86).”
Toward a Learning Behavior Tracking Methodology for CA-for-SLA (2007, background): “…and to what an emic, CA-for-SLA theory of language learning will eventually look like—these collaboratively achieved behaviors are analyzable as micro-moments of socially distributed cognition (Kasper, in press; Markee 2000; Markee and Stansell 2007; Schegloff 1991; te Molder and Potter 2005).”
Qualitative methods overview (2011, neutral): “…of their communication with people using services From a practical perspective, the main advantage of conversation analysis lies in its ability to represent ‘real time’ interactions and to give insights into the working of institutions such as courts, hospitals and care settings (Peräkylä 2006).”
Problem presentation and responses on an online forum for young people who self-harm (2011, background): “For example, a dispreferred response to an invitation is a refusal (Hutchby and Wooffitt, 1997).”
Interactional Competence: Conceptualisations, Operationalisations, and Outstanding Questions (2018, background): “They include interactional microfeatures identified in Conversation Analysis research (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008) and in recent research on the role of conversation in language learning and the interaction generated in interactional speaking tests (Leaper, 2014).”
Making links in psychoanalytic interpretations: A conversation analytical perspective (2004, methodology): “However, the examination of the patients’ interactional responses to interpretations can be informative for the assessment of their adequacy; an analysis of these responses is reported elsewhere (Peräkylä, 2003a).”
Recognition and Interpretation: Responding to Emotional Experience in Psychotherapy (2010, methodology): “In the analysis of the data we use especially the applications of conversation analysis that are specialized in the study of institutional interaction (Arminen, 2005; Drew & Heritage, 1992; Peräkylä, 2004a).”
Stance taking in conversation: From subjectivity to intersubjectivity (2006, background): “They achieve intersubjective understandings of the ongoing conversation as they display their own understanding (their subjectivities, if you like) in their sequentially next turns, while correcting or confirming those of their coparticipants (Heritage 1984; Nofsinger 1991; Hutchby and Woo‰tt 1998).”
The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (2009, background): “Goodall’s introductory interpretive approach to the analysis of talk is just one of many extensive and systematic approaches to conversation and discourse analysis (see Agar, 1994; Drew, 2008; Gee, 2011; Gee et al., 1992; Jones, Gallois, Callan, & Barker, 1999; Lindlof & Taylor, 2011; Rapley, 2007; ”
Stance, Alignment, and Affiliation During Storytelling: When Nodding Is a Token of Affiliation (2008, methodology): “Conversation analysis is the method used for analysis of these data (for thorough reviews of the theoretical assumptions of CA and its use as a method, see C. Goodwin & Heritage, 1990; Heritage, 1984b; Levinson, 1983).”
Repair and Relevance of Differential Language Expertise in Second Language Conversations (2006, background): “…second language speaker conversation (e.g. Carroll 2000; Firth 1996; Firth and Wagner 1997; Gardner and Wagner 2004; Hauser 2003; Hosoda 2000; Kasper 2004; Kidwell 2000; Kurhila 2004; Markee 2000, 2004a, 2004b; Mori 2002, 2003; Seedhouse 2001, 2004; Wagner and Firth 1997; Wong 1994, 2000a, 2000b).”
Duration, Dominance and Depth in Telephone and Face-to-Face Interviews: A Comparative Exploration (2011, background): “For the purposes of the present paper, which reports on overall duration, speaker dominance and depth, specific details of the conversation analytic approach are not essential and are omitted in the interests of brevity (for an introduction to conversation analysis see Drew, 2005; Sidnell, 2010) 4.”