In this response, I examine the ambiguity about the status of Membership Categorization Device Analysis (MCDA) in the work of Harvey Sacks. The ‘five guiding principles’ of MCDA that Stokoe enunciates serve as a crucial guide to future research. In what follows, I give some further examples of data analysis which, I believe, supports both her strong and weaker claims.
BrubakerR (2002) Ethnicity without groups. Archives of European SociologyXLIII(2): pp. 163–189.
2.
HesterSEglinP (eds) (1997) Culture in Action: Studies in Membership Categorization Analysis. Boston, MA: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and University Press of America.
3.
HookwayN (2008) ‘Entering the blogosphere’: Some strategies for using blogs in social research. Qualitative Research8(1): 91–113.
4.
PlunkettR (2009) Fashioning the feasible: Categorization and social change. Australian Journal of Communication36(3): 23–44.
5.
PotterJ (2011) Discursive psychology and the study of naturally occurring talk. In: SilvermanD (ed.) Qualitative Research, 3rd edn.London: SAGE, pp. 187–207.
6.
SacksH (1992) Lectures on Conversation, ed. JeffersonG, Introduction by Schegloff E, two vols. Oxford: Blackwell.
7.
SchegloffEA (1992) Introduction. In: SacksH, Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. ix-lxii.
8.
SilvermanD (1997) Discourses of Counselling: HIV Counselling as Social Interaction. London: SAGE.
