In this article, I explore the benefits and limits of conversation analysis for the analysis of a conversation that has been labelled (post-hoc) as an instance of `sexual harassment'. The data analysed is a phone call between a 15-year-old girl and a male Member of Parliament. I explore how `harassment-in-action' may be embedded in the mundane procedures of talk. Analysis of the MP's strategies to pursue the girl's acceptance of his invitation to `come for a ride' revealed a number of patterns: recurrent invitations, personal knowledge displays, an orientation to secrecy and confidentiality and implicit and explicit threats. The girl's strategies to resist the MP's suggestions were formulated according to the norms of preference organization, by doing dispreferred activities, using repair initiators and standard responses. I argue that although no single feature of the talk could directly index sexual harassment, the `formal analysis' of (recurrent) patterns of interaction, combined with the cultural knowledge about the identity of the interactants, forms a basis to construct also a feminist-informed explication of `sexual harassment'.
Antaki, C. and Widdicombe, S. (1998) Identities in Talk. London: Sage.
2.
Billig, M. (1999) `Whose Terms? Whose Ordinariness? Rhetoric and Ideology in Conversation Analysis', Discourse & Society10: 543-582.
3.
Button, G. (1987) `Moving Out of Closings', in G. Button and J.R.E. Lee (eds) Talk and Social Organisation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
4.
Channell, J. (1997) ` “I Just Called to Say I Love You”. Love and Desire on the Telephone', in K. Harvey and C. Shalom (eds) Language and Desire: Encoding Sex, Romance and Intimacy. London: Routledge.
5.
Davidson, J. (1984) `Subsequent Versions of Invitations, Offers, Requests, and Proposals Dealing with Potential or Actual Rejection', in J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6.
Drew, P. (1984) `Speakers' Reportings in Invitation Sequences', in J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7.
Drew, P. (1992) `Contested Evidence in Courtroom Cross-Examination: The Case of Trial for Rape', in P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds) Talk at Work. Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds) (1992) Talk at Work. Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9.
Frith, H. (1998) `Constructing the “Other” Through Talk', Feminism and Psychology8: 530-536.
10.
Honkatukia, P. (2000) ` “Lähentelijöitä riittää...” Tyttöjen kokemuksia sukupuolisesta ahdistelusta' [`There are lots of those men...' Girls' experiences of sexual harassment], in P. Honkatukia, J. Niemi-Kiesiläinen and S. Näre (eds) Lähentelyistä raiskauksiin: Tyttöjen kokemuksia häirinnästä ja seksuaalisesta väkivallasta [From taps to rapes: Girls' experiences of sexual harassment and sexual violence.]. Helsinki: Nuorisotutkimusverkosto.
Kitzinger, C. and Frith, H. (1999) `Just Say No? The Use of Conversation Analysis in Developing a Feminist Perspective on Sexual Refusal', Discourse & Society10: 293-316.
13.
Kitzinger, C. and Thomas, A. (1995) `Sexual Harassment: A Discursive Approach', in S. Wilkinson and C. Kitzinger (eds) Feminism and Discourse: Psychological Perspectives. London: Sage.
14.
McIlvenny, P. (ed.) (2002) Talking Gender & Sexuality. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
15.
Peräkylä, A. (1995) AIDS Counselling. Institutional Interaction and Clinical Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16.
Pomerantz, A. (1984a) `Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes', in J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17.
Pomerantz, A. (1984b) `Giving a Source of Basis: The Practice in Conversation of Telling “how I know” ', Journal of Pragmatics8: 607-625.
18.
Rodriguez, N. and Ryave, A.L. (1992) `The Structural Organisation and Micropolitics of Everyday Secret Telling Interactions', Qualitative Sociology13: 297-318.
19.
Sacks, H. (1987) `On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation', in G. Button and J.R.E. Lee (eds) Talk and Social Organisation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
20.
Schegloff, E.A. (1979) `Identification and Recognition in Telephone Conversation Openings', in G. Psathas (ed.) Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington.
21.
Schegloff, E.A. (1996) `Confirming Allusions: Toward an Empirical Account of Action', American Journal of Sociology102(1): 161-216.
Schegloff, E.A. (1998) `Reply to Wetherell', Discourse & Society9: 413-416.
24.
Schegloff, E.A. (1999) ` “Schegloff's Texts” as “Billig's Data”: A Critical Reply', Discourse & Society10: 558-572.
25.
Schegloff, E.A.Jefferson, G. and Sacks, H. (1977) `The Preference of Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation', Language53: 361-382.
26.
Sorjonen, M.-L. (1996) `Repeats and Responses in Finnish Conversation', in E. Ochs, E.A. Schegloff and S. Thompson (eds) Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27.
Speer, S.A. (1999) `Feminism and Conversation Analysis: An Oxymoron?', Feminism & Psychology9(4): 471-478.
28.
Stokoe, E.H. and Smithson, J. (2001) `Making Gender Relevant: Conversation Analysis and Gender Categories in Interaction', Discourse & Society12: 217-243.
29.
Tsui, A.B.M. (1991) `The Pragmatic Functions of I Don't Know', Text11: 607-622.
30.
Wetherall, A. (2000) `Gender Relevance in Talk-in-Interaction and Discourse', Discourse & Society11: 286-288.
31.
Wetherell, M. (1998) `Positioning and Interpretative Repertoires: Conversation Analysis and Post-Structuralism in Dialogue', Discourse & Society9: 387-412.
32.
Wise, S. and Stanley, L. (1987) Georgie Porgie. Sexual Harassment in Everyday Life. London: Pandora.
33.
Wowk, M.T. (1984) `Blame Allocation, Sex and Gender in a Murder Interrogation', Women's Studies International Forum7(1): 75-82.
