Qualitative methods conversation analysis

1
Qualitative methods - conversation analysis

• Week 4 More information on
• writing up a qualitative method study

2
Structure

• Abstract
• Introduction
• Method
• Analysis
• Discussion and/or Concluding comments
• References
• Appendix
• ? The body of the paper should be less than 3000
  words. Count everything but the references and
  the appendix.

3
Abstract

• This should be a 100-150 word summary of the aim
  of the study and the main results and analysis.
• In practice, the best time to write this is when
  everything else has been completed and you have a
  full picture of what has been accomplished.

4
Introduction

• 1. This section of the report (approx 500-700
  words) should do several things
• (a) set out the aim of the study in a clear and
  concise manner
• (b) show some understanding of relevant
  background material e.g., other studies which
  inform the question/s and focus of this study
• (c) Towards the end of the introduction indicate
  why the relevant literature informs your study
  and the questions it leads to
• E.g., The theory of power and discourse outlined
  by Foucault (1977) argues that power relations
  between people are reflected in the language or
  discourse they use. If this is the case then
  when we come to compare certain conversational
  structures in talk (e.g., adjacency pairs) across
  different contexts, specifically, contexts where
  power relations are important with contexts where
  there is no reason to believe they are important,
  then we should find that elements of these
  structures in the different contexts are
  different. In this study we aim to compareand
  so on.
• (d) The end of your introduction should consist
  with a list of questions you are asking it is
  not hypothesis testing however. It is a set of
  orienting questions which underpin the focus of
  the study and which are derived from the theory
  and relevant literature.

5
Method

• 2. Method
• 2.1. Design
• 2.2. Participants, material and context
• 2.3. Procedure
• 2.4. Reflexive account of selection criteria
• 2.5. Transcription

6
2.1. Design

• In this section of your report you would set out
  relevant information about the design of the
  study
• (a) You used a qualitative method and explain
  what is different about these methods compared to
  quantitative approaches
• (b) You employed a case study approach in the
  instance a comparative case study involving the
  analysis and comparison of naturalistic data
• (c) Along with using a case study approach you
  would point out that you employed conversation
  analysis and you would indicate that other forms
  of analysis could have been used (discourse
  analysis or content analysis). However given the
  focus on the structure of conversation, then
  conversation analysis was deemed the most
  appropriate.
• (see first lecture for an overview, remember
  that conversation analysis is designed to ask
  questions about structure and power
  relationships)

7
2.2. Participants, material and context

• In this section you would discuss and/or itemise
  
• (2.2.1) Information about the participants
  (although minimal in this case you must still
  include it e.g., the number of participants in
  the informal meeting). See similar details on
  the transcription information.doc in the
  supplementary material folder
• (2.2.2) Details on the material i.e., in this
  case noting the kind of sound file you used, how
  long each one was and whether it was supplemented
  with a video (as in the normal example). You
  should also describe (briefly) the software you
  used for your analysis.
• (2.2.3) Some indication of the context that the
  recordings were made. Again, here you have little
  information, but you should nevertheless include
  it.
• (2.2.4) Ethics You should also include some
  discussion about possible ethical issues.
  Although in all instances, to the best of our
  knowledge, participants gave permission for these
  extracts to be used for research and teaching
  purposes, you should nevertheless show some
  understanding of the potential ethical issues
  involved.

8
2.3. Procedure

• In this sub-section you should discuss exactly
  what you did e.g., how you went about the
  transcription, where it was carried out, how you
  might have shared out responsibility with your
  group for doing so, and how you overcame any
  disagreements (e.g., regarding whether a part of
  the talk was emphasised using raised pitch or
  with an increase in volume).

9
2.4. Reflexive account of selection criteria

• Here, you should return to the field-notes you
  were advised to take when you and your group were
  discussing which extracts you might choose for
  your analysis. As far as possible, you should
  indicate why you chose one over another this
  might be because of relevant background
  literature, or your focus on the question of
  power relations or whatever.

10
2.5. Transcription

• In this section you outline the orthography of
  conversation analysis. This is a nice word for
  describing the symbols you used to transcribe
  pauses, interruptions, etc. The table in the how
  to guide is a good example of this, but you also
  should indicate something of your knowledge of
  where this orthography came from (you will find
  references to this throughout the literature).
  You dont have to go through each element in
  detail, but if, for example, you used a slightly
  larger set than the one suggestion you should
  mention this here.

11
3. Analysis

• After the introduction this section of your
  report is likely to be the longest (e.g., 1,200
  words or thereabouts). Your analysis section
  should include
• A short introduction about the structure(s) you
  decided to compare. Examples of structures are
  pauses, interruptions, adjacency pairs,
  questions, intonations, etc.
• A careful and considered comparative analysis of
  that particular structure across the two contexts
  of transcription (e.g, the informal vs.
  whatever formal you chose). Certainly one would
  expect to find an analysis based on at least
  three examples (that is 3 within each context,
  six in all), but the norm would be more.
• Where appropriate, discussion of other relevant
  aspects of the transcription that may help to
  support your argument.
• In order to get a good idea of how conversation
  analysts present their analysis you should look
  carefully at relevant examples in the literature.
  See the folder with literature on
  V\courses\SP500\Practical 1\Some relevant papers
  references

12
4. Discussion and/or concluding comments

• In this short concluding section of your report
  you should discuss your findings more generally,
  and with reference to the original literature you
  introduced in your introduction. This is also
  the place to discuss limitation of the study and
  consider how it might be improved.

13
5. References

• You must include here a full list of references
  formatted according to the APA guidelines (as in
  all practical reports).

14
Appendix

• This final part of your report should contain the
  full transcription of at least one minute of one
  of extracts you compared, set out in the manner
  given in the earlier PowerPoint presentation (the
  child), and described in the how to do CA
  guide. Alternatively, you might include 30
  seconds of each extract.