Difference between revisions of "Kitzinger2000"
(Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Celia Kitzinger; |Title=Doing feminist conversation analysis |Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation Analysis; Feminism |Key=Kitzinger2000 |Year=200...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Celia Kitzinger; | + | |Author(s)=Celia Kitzinger; |
|Title=Doing feminist conversation analysis | |Title=Doing feminist conversation analysis | ||
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation Analysis; Feminism | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation Analysis; Feminism | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
|Journal=Feminism & Psychology | |Journal=Feminism & Psychology | ||
|Volume=10 | |Volume=10 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Number=2 |
| + | |Pages=163–193 | ||
|URL=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959353500010002001 | |URL=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959353500010002001 | ||
| + | |DOI=10.1177/0959353500010002001 | ||
|Abstract=This article argues for, and offers empirical demonstration of, the value of conversation analysis (CA) for feminist research. It counters three key criticisms of CA as anti-feminist: the alleged incompatibility of CA’s social theory with feminism; the purported difficulty of reconciling analysts’ and participants’ concerns; and CA’s apparent obsession with the minutiae of talk rather than socio-political reality. It demonstrates the potential of CA for advances in lesbian/feminist research through two examples: developing a feminist approach to date rape and sexual refusal; and an ongoing CA study of talk in which people ‘come out’ as lesbian, gay, bisexual or as having (had) same-sex sexual experiences. These examples are used to illustrate that it is precisely the features of CA criticized as anti-feminist which can be used productively in doing feminist conversation analysis. | |Abstract=This article argues for, and offers empirical demonstration of, the value of conversation analysis (CA) for feminist research. It counters three key criticisms of CA as anti-feminist: the alleged incompatibility of CA’s social theory with feminism; the purported difficulty of reconciling analysts’ and participants’ concerns; and CA’s apparent obsession with the minutiae of talk rather than socio-political reality. It demonstrates the potential of CA for advances in lesbian/feminist research through two examples: developing a feminist approach to date rape and sexual refusal; and an ongoing CA study of talk in which people ‘come out’ as lesbian, gay, bisexual or as having (had) same-sex sexual experiences. These examples are used to illustrate that it is precisely the features of CA criticized as anti-feminist which can be used productively in doing feminist conversation analysis. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 04:31, 19 October 2019
| Kitzinger2000 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Kitzinger2000 |
| Author(s) | Celia Kitzinger |
| Title | Doing feminist conversation analysis |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Conversation Analysis, Feminism |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2000 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Feminism & Psychology |
| Volume | 10 |
| Number | 2 |
| Pages | 163–193 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/0959353500010002001 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This article argues for, and offers empirical demonstration of, the value of conversation analysis (CA) for feminist research. It counters three key criticisms of CA as anti-feminist: the alleged incompatibility of CA’s social theory with feminism; the purported difficulty of reconciling analysts’ and participants’ concerns; and CA’s apparent obsession with the minutiae of talk rather than socio-political reality. It demonstrates the potential of CA for advances in lesbian/feminist research through two examples: developing a feminist approach to date rape and sexual refusal; and an ongoing CA study of talk in which people ‘come out’ as lesbian, gay, bisexual or as having (had) same-sex sexual experiences. These examples are used to illustrate that it is precisely the features of CA criticized as anti-feminist which can be used productively in doing feminist conversation analysis.
Notes
