1.

From its beginnings with Harvey SACKS' (in)famous lectures in the late 1960s (posthumously published as SACKS, 1992a, 1992b), conversation analysis (CA) has developed into a mature discipline, one of the major methods of analyzing day-to-day verbal interactions, used in a variety of disciplines such as communications, education, anthropology, and sociology. [1]

I have come to know conversation analysis through my interests in ethnomethodology, and the close association of Harold GARFINKEL and Harvey SACKS, particularly through their On formal structures of practical action (GARFINKEL & SACKS, 1986). I became particularly fond of conversation analysis as a way of understanding the everyday world surrounding me, particularly how the social structures that others use to explain human conduct are actually instantiated in situated (inter)action. I had particularly enjoyed Chuck GOODWIN's (e.g., 1996) analyses in which he shows how color classifications or seeing become enacted in a collective way. Other enjoyable, book-length pieces showed how organization was talked into being (BODEN, 1994) or how fact, truth, and memory during the Oliver North Iran Contra trials were collectively achieved (LYNCH & BOGEN, 1996). Beyond these and other publications that used conversation analysis to articulate interaction order, I had not read any introductory texts or received any other formal instruction. [2]

I consequently looked forward to reading this introduction to conversation analysis. Throughout my reading, I thoroughly enjoyed the book, thinking both in terms of improving my own work and in terms of the students in my qualitative inquiry courses and advanced doctoral seminars, who would thoroughly appreciate this volume. [3]

2.

Doing Conversation Analysis contains 10 chapters divided into four parts: considering conversation analysis, producing data, analyzing data, and sharing data, ideas, and findings. In the first three chapters, Paul ten HAVE makes a fundamental argument for the use of CA by introducing practical exemplification of CA, a brief history of CA, a review of three classical CA studies, and basic methodological features of CA. In the second tier of chapters, Paul ten HAVE introduces readers to some general aspects of the research design of CA studies. These include sampling issues, naturalness and the question of additional data. A description of the nitty-gritty stuff in transcribing talk-in-interaction is the topic of Chapter 5. Here, the author addresses deals with the core of CA work, the careful, repeated listening to (and sometimes viewing of) recorded interaction in order to make detailed transcriptions of it, which subsequently serve as "data" for analysis. In the chapters of the third section, Paul ten HAVE focuses on the basic task of doing conversation analysis. Using concrete examples, he outlines some basic analytic strategies, elaboration of an analysis when multiple data excerpts require integrative work. The first three sections of the book more or less deal with issues of "pure CA," a form of analysis typical for linguistics departments. In the final section, Paul ten HAVE then turns to the issue of applied conversation analysis, which involves the CA-like practices in disciplines such as sociology, anthropology, psychology, or sociolinguistics. He sketches some of the problems and possibilities of applied CA but does not provide extensive instructions, as doing so would expand the scope of his book project. In the final chapter, Paul ten HAVE presents a variety of formats that can be used to make CA public and the techniques that readers may find useful in settings such as oral presentations, papers, and books. [4]

3.

In working through the issues of CA work, Paul ten HAVE provides the newcomer with descriptions of a number of the basic and fundamental issues in qualitative research, the "what to do" that is often omitted in other textbooks used during the teaching of qualitative research (e.g., GUBA & LINCOLN, 1989). How to record, how to get consent, and how to gain access to a variety of existing data are but some of the topics the author broaches. [5]

Each chapter contains a suggested activity ("Exercise") and recommended readings. Both features allow newcomers to focus their engagement with the topic, and get them started on relevant activities. I thought that the type of activity I personally engaged in would further enhance learning opportunities. As I already have large data sets, consisting of videotapes from science classrooms, professional scientific laboratories, and a variety of other settings, I was interested in immediately beginning to analyze some transcript. In particular, reading the book and fiddling around with my most recent data set, which is still under construction, I began to elaborate an analysis for an upcoming conference paper, Understanding laboratory communication. (Initial notes for this analysis, analyzed in DA-type fashion, can be found by clicking here.) [6]

Throughout the book, the author provides "demonstrations," that is, examples of doing conversation analysis rather than talking about doing conversation analysis. "Demonstrations," in ethnomethodological sense, require the reader to engage in the very activity that an article has as its topic. That is, "demonstrations" are reflexive allowing readers to experience doing as they are reading a description of their doing. My most favorite examples of this pedagogical approach were provided by BJELIC (1992) and BJELIC and LYNCH (1992), who involved readers in authenticating GOETHE's morphological theorem and his theories of prismatic colors, respectively. The "demonstrations" in Doing Conversation Analysis are of similar nature—though less elaborated and therefore easier to appropriate. These demonstrations are exemplary materials that allow students to reproduce the readings by comparing the transcriptions provided with the analysis. [7]

I also was pleased to read that transcribing involved a lot of ad-hoc reasoning and that Gail JEFFERSON herself took years to refine her transcription practices. Further, Paul ten HAVE points out that there may be differences in hearing the recorded sounds/ voices leading to differences in the transcriptions and possibly the analysis. As I read the chapter on transcribing, I experienced flashbacks to my early attempts in transcribing for a CA-type analysis and in measuring pauses, hearing overlaps, etc. In these early phases of my work, transcribing in ways so that I could reproduce timing, overlap, hearings, etc. was a real challenge. These challenges associated with translation from recording to written text are not hidden away, as in the two books on discourse analysis reviewed here, but explicitly addressed. [8]

4.

There are a number of things that I thought could have been done "better," more to my liking that is. I do not appreciate all to much when authors ventriloquize ([excessively] quote), making others speak through their pen. I always ask my graduate students to find and speak with their own voice. In my reading, Paul ten HAVE makes excessive use of quotations, which deterred me from fully appreciating his attempts in bringing CA closer to me, a member of his audience. [9]

My second point of contention is TEN HAVE's position with respect to the type of recordings. I do agree that audiotapes are a sufficient and appropriate technology when the situated nature of communication is of decreased importance, such as for telephone conversations (e.g., the classic work on 911 calls, or more recent work on the interactive construction of survey responses [MAYNARD & SCHAEFFER, 2000].) On the other hand, talk in science laboratories, whether in high school or professional settings, involve a lot of gesturing and things that "go without saying." My own analyses show that salient aspects of the setting and gestures are crucial aspects of science communication (e.g., ROTH & LAWLESS, in press). Audiotaped recordings alone just won't do the job. Thus, videotaping and doing appropriate ethnographic work appear to me paramount for understanding how social structure arises from communication-in-interaction. Readers will note that I move from "talk" to "communication," which goes beyond the hegemonic role of the word in CA scholarship. [10]

5.

In lieu of a conclusion, this is a book that I will strongly recommend to my graduate students, those who come to my Interpretive Inquiry I and II courses and those who do their degree work under my supervision. Doing Conversation Analysis is a very insightful and useful book that is in the process of becoming a key reference in my own work. [11]

References

Bjelíc, Dusan I. (1992). The praxiological validity of natural scientific practices as a criterion for identifying their unique social-object character: The case of the 'authentication' of Goethe's morphological theorem. Qualitative Sociology, 15, 221-245.

Bjelíc, Dusan & Lynch, Michael (1992). The work of a (scientific) demonstration: Respecifying Newton's and Goethe's theories of prismatic color. In Graham Watson & Robert M. Seiler (Eds.), Text in context: Contributions to ethnomethodology (pp. 52-78). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Boden, Deirdre (1994). The business of talk: Organization in action. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Garfinkel, Harold & Sacks, Harvey (1986). On formal structures of practical action. In Harold Garfinkel (Ed.), Ethnomethodological studies of work (pp.160-193). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Goodwin, Charles (1996). Practices of color classification. Ninchi Kagaku (Cognitive Studies: Bulletin of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society), 3(2), 62-82.

Guba, Egon & Lincoln, Yvonna (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lynch, Michael & Bogen, David (1996). The spectacle of history: Speech, text, and memory at the Iran-contra hearings. Durham: Duke University Press.

Maynard, Douglas W., & Schaeffer, Nora C. (2000). Toward a sociology of social scientific knowledge: Survey research and ethnomethodology's asymmetric alternates. Social Studies of Science, 30, 323-370.

Roth, Wolff-Michael & Lawless, Daniel (in press). Signs, deixis, and the emergence of scientific explanations. Semiotica.

Sacks, Harvey (1992a). Lectures on conversation, vol. I. Edited by Gail Jefferson with an introduction by Emanuel A. Schegloff. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Sacks, Harvey (1992b). Lectures on conversation, vol. II. Edited by Gail Jefferson with an introduction by Emanuel A. Schegloff. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel & Jefferson, Gail (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50, 697-735.

Citation

Please cite this article as follows (and include paragraph numbers if necessary):

Roth, Wolff-Michael (2001, May). The Politics and Rhetoric of Conversation and Discourse Analysis. Review Essay, Supplement III: Paul ten Have (1999). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide [11 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal], 2(2). Available at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-01/roth/2-01review-roth-intro3.htm [Date of Access: Month Day, Year].