Module 17 Conversation and Discourse Analaysis

This module is part of the Social Science Research Methods Course programme which is a shared platform for providing research students with a broad range of quantitative and qualitative research

Mphil Students from participating departments taking the Social Science Research Methods Course as part of their research degree

Students are expected to have read assigned texts and be prepared to discuss them.

Number of sessions: 4

• Session 1: The Roots of Conversation Analysis
• Session 2: Ordinary Talk
• Session 3: Institutional Talk
• Session 4: Conversation Analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis

• To introduce students to the study of langugage use as a distinctive type of social practice.
• To explore debates between CA and Critical Discourse Analysis as a means of addressing the relationship between the study of language use and other aspects of social life.
• To consider the roots of conversation analysis in research initiatives of ethnomethodology.
• To consider the analysis of ordinary and institutional talk

Presentations only

Session 1

• Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity.
• Garfinkel, H. & Sacks, H. 1970. On formal structures of practical actions. In J.C. McKinney & E. Tiryakian.(eds). Theoretical Sociology: Perspectives and Development. (pp. 338-66). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
• Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity
• Levinson, S. C. (1992). Activity types and language. In D.Weinberg Qualitative Research Methods. ( pp.193-220). Oxford:Blackwell.

Session 2

• Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity.
• Schegloff, E. (1991). Reflections on talk and social structure. In D. Boden & D. H. Zimmerman. (eds). Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press

Session 3

• Drew, P. & Heritage, J., (eds). (1992). Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings especially Chapter One, pp. 3-65]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Session 4

• Schegloff, E. (1997). Whose text? Whose context? Discourse & Society, 8,(2):165-187
• Billig, M. (1999). Whose terms? Whose ordinariness? Rhetoric and ideology in conversation analysis. Discourse & Society, 10(4): 543-558
• Schegloff, E. (1999). Schegloff's texts as Billig's Data: a critical reply. Discourse & Society, 10(4): 558-572
• Billig, M. (1999). Conversation analysis and the claims of naivety. Discourse & Society, 10(4): 572-576.
• Schegloff, E (1999). Naivete vs sophistication or discipline vs self-indulgence: a rejoinder to Billig. Discourse & Society, 10(4): 577-582

• To gain the maximum benefits from the course it is important that students do not see this course in isolation from the other MPhil courses or research training they are taking. Responsibility lies with each student to consider the potential for their own research using methods common in fields of the social sciences that may seem remote. Ideally this task will be facilitated by integration of the SSRMC with discipline-specific courses in their departments and through reading and discussion.

Four sessions of 1.5hours

Four times in Michaelmas term