Whelan2012
| Whelan2012 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Whelan2012 |
| Author(s) | Pauline Whelan |
| Title | Oxymoronic and sociologically monstrous? Feminist conversation analysis |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Feminist CA, conversation analysis, discourse, feminism, feminist conversation analysis, gender |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2012 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Qualitative Research In Psychology |
| Volume | 9 |
| Number | 4 |
| Pages | 279-291 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1080/14780887.2011.634360 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
The relatively recent surge of interest in feminist conversation analysis within the United Kingdom appears to have been met with a largely positive response. Proponents declare that they “know of no other approach which offers a more viable basis from which to drive social change” (Speer 2005, p. 192), and they envisage in conversa- tion analysis (CA) “exciting possibilities for lesbian and feminist research” (Kitzinger 2000, p. 164). While debates continue about the relative merits of CA over other dis- cursive approaches (e.g., critical discourse analysis; see Hammersley 2003), there has been relatively little published about this emergent, explicitly feminist variety of CA that does not portray the field in a favourable light (although see Wowk 2007 for a notable exception). This article adopts a more cautionary approach toward employing CA to further feminist aims and seeks instead to interrogate the theoretical underpinnings of CA and problematise its application in feminist praxis.
Notes
