Difference between revisions of "Speer2007"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Susan A. Speer; |Title=On Recruiting Conversation Analysis for Critical Realist Purposes |Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation Analysis; Discourse...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Susan A. Speer; | + | |Author(s)=Susan A. Speer; |
| − | |Title=On | + | |Title=On recruiting conversation analysis for critical realist purposes |
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation Analysis; Discourse Analysis; Critical discourse analysis; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Conversation Analysis; Discourse Analysis; Critical discourse analysis; |
|Key=Speer2007 | |Key=Speer2007 | ||
|Year=2007 | |Year=2007 | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|Volume=17 | |Volume=17 | ||
|Number=1 | |Number=1 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=125–135 |
| − | | | + | |URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0959354307073155 |
| − | |Abstract= | + | |DOI=10.1177/0959354307073155 |
| + | |Abstract=In this paper I provide a summary and evaluation of some of the key features of Sims-Schouten, Riley and Willig's multi-level, `critical realist' approach to discourse analysis, as exemplified in their study of motherhood, childcare and female employment. I argue that (i) their analyses recruit and depend on arguments and techniques from the very perspectives they criticize, and (ii) those techniques are deployed in a somewhat ad hoc fashion. Consequently, I suggest that the authors fail to provide a distinctive or systematic operationalization of a critical realist discourse analysis. I end by arguing that if critical realists really want to understand what (purportedly extra-discursive) factors account for why participants say what they do, then they need to begin by adopting a more reflexive approach to their data, and pay serious attention to analysing the interview as an interview, and as an occasion for interaction in its own right. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 23:52, 17 November 2019
| Speer2007 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Speer2007 |
| Author(s) | Susan A. Speer |
| Title | On recruiting conversation analysis for critical realist purposes |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Conversation Analysis, Discourse Analysis, Critical discourse analysis |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2007 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Theory & Psychology |
| Volume | 17 |
| Number | 1 |
| Pages | 125–135 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/0959354307073155 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
In this paper I provide a summary and evaluation of some of the key features of Sims-Schouten, Riley and Willig's multi-level, `critical realist' approach to discourse analysis, as exemplified in their study of motherhood, childcare and female employment. I argue that (i) their analyses recruit and depend on arguments and techniques from the very perspectives they criticize, and (ii) those techniques are deployed in a somewhat ad hoc fashion. Consequently, I suggest that the authors fail to provide a distinctive or systematic operationalization of a critical realist discourse analysis. I end by arguing that if critical realists really want to understand what (purportedly extra-discursive) factors account for why participants say what they do, then they need to begin by adopting a more reflexive approach to their data, and pay serious attention to analysing the interview as an interview, and as an occasion for interaction in its own right.
Notes
