This article explores the notion of research trustworthiness for ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (EMCA) studies. Informed by radical reflexivity, we focus on trustworthiness practices, the sets of activities analysts use or describe to support the adequacy of their claims. Drawing upon interactional data involving children in health care settings, we interrogate five practices: (1) unique adequacy, (2) next-turn proof procedure, (3) case analysis, (4) data sessions, and (5) writing/presenting findings. Our engagement with these practices illustrates the promises and the tensions inherent in producing trustworthiness in EMCA studies, with implications for qualitative research more broadly.
AlbertS.de RuiterJ. P. (2018). Improving human interaction research through ecological grounding. Collabra: Psychology, 4(1), Article 24. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.132
BarbourR. (2001). Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog?British Medical Journal, 322, 1115–1117.
7.
BetzE. (2024). Data sessions. In RobinsonJ. D.CliftR.KendrickK. J.RaymondC. W. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of methods in conversation analysis (pp. 172–188). Cambridge University Press.
8.
ButtonG.LynchM.SharrockW. (2022). Ethnomethodology, conversation analysis and constructive analysis: On formal structures of practical action. Routledge.
9.
ChoJ.TrentA. (2006). Validity in qualitative research revisited. Qualitative Research, 6, 319–340.
10.
ClaymanS. E. (2024). Working with collections in conversation analysis. In RobinsonJ. D.CliftR.KendrickK. J.RaymondC. W. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of methods in conversation analysis (pp. 191–216). Cambridge University Press.
11.
DenzinN. K. (2008). The new paradigm dialogs and qualitative inquiry. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 21(4), 315–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390802136995
12.
De Sousa SantosB. (2014). Epistemologies of the South: Justice against epistemicide. Routledge.
13.
De Sousa SantosB. (2018). The end of the cognitive empire: The coming of age of epistemologies of the South. Duke University Press.
14.
DillardC. B. (2000). The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen: Examining an endarkened feminist epistemology in educational research and leadership. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 13(6), 661–681.
GarfinkelH. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Prentice Hall.
19.
GarfinkelH. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s program: Working out Durkheim’s aphorism. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
20.
GarfinkelH.SacksH. (1970). On formal structures of practical actions. In McKinneyJ. C.TiryakianE. A. (Eds.), Theoretical sociology perspectives and developments (pp. 337–366). Meredith Corporation.
21.
GarfinkelH.WiederD. L. (1992). Two incommensurable, asymmetrically alternate technologies of social action In WatsonG.SeilerR. M. (Eds.), Text in context: Contributions to ethnomethodology (pp. 175–207). Sage.
22.
GoffmanE. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Anchor Books.
23.
GonzaloJ. D.GraafD.WolpawD. R.LehmanE.ThompsonB. M. (2023). Non-physician and physician preceptors in Landscapes of Practice: A mixed-methods study exploring learning for 1st-year medical students in clinical experiences. Medical Education Online, 28(1), Article 2166386. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2023.2166386
24.
Hesse-BiberS. (2016). Doing interdisciplinary mixed methods health care research: Working the boundaries, tensions, and synergistic potential of team-based research. Qualitative Health Research, 26(5), 649–658. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316634304
JanuszB.PeräkyläA. (2021). Quality in conversation analysis and interpersonal process recall. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 426–449.
27.
KiyimbaN.LesterJ. N.O’ReillyM. (2019). Using naturally occurring data in qualitative health research: A practical guide. Springer.
28.
LatherP. (1993). Fertile obsession: Validity after poststructuralism. The Sociological Quarterly, 34(4), 673–693.
29.
LesterJ. N. (2024). Engaging with “crip horizons” in the study of Autistic identity: A discursive project. In AndersA. D.NoblitG. W. (Eds.), Evolutions in critical and postcritical ethnography (pp. 263–286). Oxford University Press.
30.
LesterJ. N.O’ReillyM. (2019). Applied conversation analysis: Social interaction in institutional settings. Sage.
31.
LesterJ. N.O’ReillyM. (2021). Introduction to special issue quality in qualitative approaches: Celebrating heterogeneity. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 295–304.
32.
LevittH.KannanD.IppolitoM. R. (2013). Teaching qualitative methods using a research team approach: Publishing grounded theory projects with your class. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 10(2), 119–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2011.586101
33.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
McKittrickK. (2021). Dear science and other stories. Duke University Press.
36.
MitchellC.MoletsaneR.De LangeN. (2017). Participatory visual methodologies: Social change, community and policy. Sage.
37.
NishizakaA. (2024). Single-case analysis. In RobinsonJ. D.CliftR.KendrickK. J.RaymondC. W. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of methods in conversation analysis (pp. 487–511). Cambridge University Press.
38.
NordstromS. N. (2015). Not so innocent anymore: Making recording devices matter in qualitative interviews. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(4), 388–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800414563804
39.
O’ReillyM.KiyimbaN.LesterJ. N.EdwardsD. (2021). Establishing quality in discursive psychology: Three domains to consider. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 406–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1810373
PeräkyläA. (2011). Validity in research on naturally occurring social interaction. In SilvermanD. (Ed.), Qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 365–382). Sage.
42.
PollnerM. (1987). Mundane reason. Cambridge University Press.
43.
PollnerM. (1991). Left of ethnomethodology: The rise and decline of radical reflexivity. American Sociological Review, 56(3), 370–380.
PotterJ. (2012). Discourse analysis and discursive psychology. In CooperH. (Ed.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (Vol. 2, pp. 111–130). American Psychological Association.
46.
PotterJ.HepburnA. (2008). Discursive constructionism. In HolsteinJ. A.GubriumJ. F. (Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 275–293). The Guilford Press.
47.
PotterJ.WetherellM. (1987). Discourse and social psychology. Sage.
48.
Priego-ValverdeB. (2021). Failed humor in conversation: Disalignment and (dis)affiliation as a type of interactional failure. Humor, 34(4), 613–636. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2021-0025
49.
RawlsA. W.LynchM. (2024). Ethnography in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis: Both, neither, or something else altogether?Qualitative Research, 24(1), 116–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941221138410
50.
RaymondC. W.AlbertS.HoeyE. M.AdamsS. M.GrothuesN.HenryJ.MarreseO. H.PielkeM.ReynoldsE.TomR. G. (2025). Language policy as interactional practice in everyday public space: The corpus of language discrimination in interaction. Language, 101(1), e1–e37. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/lan.2025.a954236
SacksH. (1984). Notes on methodology. In AtkinsonJ. M.HeritageJ. (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 2–27). Cambridge University Press.
53.
SacksH. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Blackwell.
54.
SacksH.SchegloffE.JeffersonG. (1974). A simplest systematic for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010
55.
SchegloffE. A. (1987). Analyzing single episodes of interaction: An exercise in conversation analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50(2), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786745
56.
SchegloffE. A. (1988). Description in the social sciences I: Talk-in-interaction. IPrA Papers in Pragmatics, 2(1–2), 1–24.
57.
SchegloffE. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis I (Vol. 1). Cambridge University Press.
58.
SchotterA. P.MudambiR.DozY. L.GaurA. (2017). Boundary spanning in global organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 54(4), 403–421.
59.
SheaM. V. (2025). Developing methodologies for co-production of knowledge: Data production and analysis in community-based research partnerships. Qualitative Inquiry, 31(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004241227268
60.
ShrikantN.WilliamsonF. A. (in press). Race talk in institutional settings: A language and social interaction perspective. Peter Lang.
61.
SmallM. L.CalarcoJ. M. (2022). Qualitative literacy. University of California Press.
StevanovicM.WeisteE. (2017). Conversation-analytic data session as a pedagogical institution. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 15, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.06.001
65.
StiversT. (2015). Coding social interaction: A heretical approach in conversation analysis?Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2015.993837
66.
StiversT.HeritageJ.BarnesR. K.McCabeR.ThompsonL.ToerienM. (2018). Treatment recommendations as actions. Health Communication, 33(11), 1335–1344. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2017.1350913
67.
TracyS. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851.
68.
WilliamsonF. A. (2024). Black methodologies as ethnomethods: On qualitative methods-making and analyzing the situated work of doing being hybridly human. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 21(4), 426–461. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2024.2347590
69.
WilliamsonF. A.LesterJ. N.MatteiJ. K.AsgharM.FerrellK.EstrellaG.DangleP. (2025). “Safer than driving”: Risk communication about surgery with racially diverse families in pediatric urology visits. Patient Education and Counseling, 140, Article 109286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2025.109286
70.
WilliamsonF. A.LesterJ. N.MatteiJ. K.MisseriR.KoehlingerJ.MeldrumK.KaeferM.RinkR.RothJ.SzymanskiK. M.WhittamB.DangleP. P. (2024). Urology HEIRS: A feasibility and acceptability study for video-based research on physician-family communication in pediatric urology visits. The Journal of Urology, 212(4), 600–609. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000004126
