Acknowledging the perils of interdisciplinary and applied conversation analysis, this essay argues for clarity in articulating relationships between methods, addressing, in particular, the language used to formulate claims regarding how participants’ post hoc reflections relate to findings from CA analyses.
FordCE (2009) Women Speaking Up: Getting and Using Turns in Workplace Meetings. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
2.
FordCEFoxBA (2010) Multiple practices for constructing laughables. In: BarthDReberESeltingE (eds) Prosody in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 339–368.
3.
KitzingerC (2011) Working with childbirth helplines: The contributions and limitations of conversation analysis. In: AntakiC (ed.) Applied Conversation Analysis: Intervention and Change in Institutional Talk. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 98–118.
4.
MaynardDW (2003) Bad News, Good News: Conversational Order in Everyday Talk and Clinical Settings. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
5.
MillsCW (1940) Situated actions and vocabularies of motive. American Sociological Review5: 904–913.
6.
PeräkyläAVehviläinenS (2003) Conversation analysis and the professional stocks of interactional knowledge. Discourse & Society14: 727–750.
7.
PomerantzA (2005) Using participants’ video stimulated comments to complement analyses of interactional practices. In: te MolderHPotterJ (eds) Talk and Cognition: Discourse, Mind and Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 93–113.
8.
SchegloffEA (1993) Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction26: 99–128.
