Advertisement

Human Studies

, 30:131 | Cite as

Kitzinger’s Feminist Conversation Analysis: Critical Observations

  • Maria T. Wowk
Research paper

Abstract

This paper contributes to ongoing discussions on feminism and the analysis of discourse. In particular, I examine Celia Kitzinger’s [(2000), Doing feminist conversation analysis. Feminism and Psychology, 10, 163–193 and (2002) Doing feminist conversation analysis. In P. McIlvenny (Ed.), Talking gender and sexuality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.] claims to be engaged in “feminist conversation analysis.” This paper identifies susceptibilities in her arguments at both the theoretical level and the level of data analysis. My argument is that Kitzinger fails to appreciate the fact that her enterprise is basically a formal analytic one and that as such it is both radically different from, and incommensurate with, ethnomethodology (EM) and conversation analysis (CA). Indeed her attempts to supplement feminism with EM/CA are unnecessary and counterproductive from an EM/CA position insofar as they crucially undermine its integrity.

Keywords

Conversation analysis Ethnomethodology Feminism Incommensurability Supplementation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Rod Watson, Andrew Carlin, Roger Slack and Christian Greiffenhagen for their comments on an earlier version of this paper. Their support is not necessarily to be taken as evidence of their agreement with me. Of course the errors which remain are all my own. (I am also grateful to the journal’s anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments.)

References

  1. Anderson, R. J., & Sharrock, W. W. (1986). Methodological tokenism, or are good intentions enough? Semiotica, 58(1/2), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Billig, M. (1999). Whose terms? Whose ordinariness? Rhetoric and ideology in conversation analysis. Discourse and Society, 10(4), 543–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burke, K. (1961). The rhetoric of religion: Studies in logology. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  4. Coulter, J. (1989). Cognitive ‘penetrability’ and the emotions. In D. Franks & E. Doyle McCarthy (Ed.), The sociology of emotions. New York: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  5. Crews, F. (1986). Skeptical engagements. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Eglin, P. (2002). Members’ gendering work: “women”, “feminists” and membership categorization analysis. Discourse and Society, 13(6), 819–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eglin, P., & Hester, S. (1999a). Moral order and the Montreal massacre: A story of membership categorization analysis. In P. Jalbert (Ed.), Media studies: Ethnomethodological approaches. Lanham: University of America Press.Google Scholar
  8. Eglin, P., & Hester, S. (1999b). “You’re all a bunch of feminists:” categorization and the politics of terror in the Montreal massacre. Human Studies, 22(2–4), 253–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eglin, P., & Hester, S. (2003). The Montreal massacre: A story of membership categorization analysis. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Frohlich, D., Drew, P., & Monk, A. (1994). Management of repair in human-computer interaction. Human-Computer Interaction, 9, 385–425.Google Scholar
  11. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  12. Garfinkel, H. (1990). The curious seriousness of professional sociology. In: B. Conein, M. de Fornel, L. Quéré, Les Formes de la Conversation. Vol 1. CNET: 69–78.Google Scholar
  13. Garfinkel, H. (1996). Ethnomethodology’s program. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59(1), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s program: Working out Durkheim’s aphorism. Ed and Intro Anne Rawls. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  15. Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical action. In J. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical sociology: Perspectives and developments. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  16. Garfinkel, H., & Wieder, D. L. (1992). Two incommensurable, asymmetrically alternate technologies of social analysis. In G. Watson & R.M. Seiler (Eds.), Text in context: Contributions to ethnomethodology. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Garfinkel, H., & Wiley, N. (1980). Conversation (unpublished transcript). Los Angeles: University of California, Sociology Department.Google Scholar
  18. Heritage, J. C., & Watson, R. D. (1979). Formulations as conversational objects. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
  19. Hester, S., & Francis, D. (2000). Ethnomethodology, conversation analysis and institutional talk. Text, 20(3), 373–413.Google Scholar
  20. Jules-Rosette, B. (1985). Harold Garfinkel: La contribution de l’ethnomethodologie à la recherché sociologique. Sociétés: Revue des sciences humaines et sociales. No.5, Septembre 1985:358 (interview with Garfinkel).Google Scholar
  21. Kessler, S. J., & McKenna, W. (1978). Gender: an ethnomethodological approach. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  22. Kitzinger, C. (2000). Doing feminist conversation analysis. Feminism and psychology, 10, 163–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kitzinger, C. (2002). Doing feminist conversation analysis. In P. McIlvenny (Ed.), Talking gender and sexuality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  24. Kitzinger, C. (2005a). Heteronormativity in action: Reproducing normative heterosexuality in ‘after hours’ calls to the doctor. Social Problems, 52(4), 477–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kitzinger, C. (2005b). Speaking as a heterosexual: (How) does sexuality matter for talk-in-interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(3), 221–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Land, V., & Kitzinger, C. (2005) Speaking as a lesbian: Correcting the heterosexist presumption. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(4), 371–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lynch, M. (1993). Scientific practice and ordinary action: Ethnomethodology and social studies of science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lynch, M., & Bogen, D. (1994). Harvey Sacks’ primitive natural science. Theory, Culture & Society, 11, 65–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lynch M., & Sharrock W. W. (Eds.) (2003). Harold Garfinkel. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. McHoul, A. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in Society, 7, 183–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McIlvenny, P. (2002). Introduction. In P. McIlvenny (Ed.), Talking gender and sexuality Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  32. Mehan, H. (1978). Structuring School Structure. Harvard Educational Review, 48(1), 32–64.Google Scholar
  33. Psathas G. (Ed.) (1979). Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
  34. Rose, E. (1960). The english record of a natural sociology. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 193–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Robillard, A. B. (1999). Wild phenomena and disability jokes. Body and Society, 5(4), 61–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sacks, H. (1963). On sociological description. Berkeley Journal of Sociology 8. Reprinted. In J. Coulter (Ed.) (1990). Ethnomethodological sociology. Aldershot: Elgar.Google Scholar
  37. Sacks, H (1972). On the analysability of stories told by children. In J. J. Gumpertz, D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehard & Winston.Google Scholar
  38. Sacks, H. (1984). Notes on methodology. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.) Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.Google Scholar
  40. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schegloff, E. A. (1991). Reflections on talk and social structure. In D. Boden & D. H. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and social structure: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  42. Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Whose text? Whose context? Discourse and Society, 8, 165–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schegloff, E. A. (1998). Reply to Wetherell. Discourse and Society, 9, 413–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sharrock W., & Coulter, J. (2003). Dissolving the projection problem. Visual Studies, 18(1), 74–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sharrock, W, & Ikeya, N. (2000). Instructional matter. In S. Hester & D. Francis (Eds.), Local educational order. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  46. Sharrock, W. W., & Watson, D. R. (1988). Autonomy among social theories: The incarnation of social structures. In N. G. Fielding (Ed.), Actions and structure: Research methods and social theory. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  47. Speer, S. A. (1999). Feminism and conversation analysis: An oxymoron? Feminism and Psychology, 9(4), 471–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Speer, S. A. (2002). What can conversation analysis contribute to feminist methodology? Discourse and Society, 13(6), 783–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stokoe, E. H. (2000). Toward a conversation analytic approach to gender and discourse. Feminism and Psychology, 10(4), 552–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stokoe, E. H. (2003a). Mothers, single women and sluts: Gender, morality and membership categorization in neighbourhood disputes. Feminism and Psychology, 13(3), 317–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stokoe, E. H. (2003b). Doing gender, doing categorization: Recent developments in language and gender research. International Sociolinguistics 2(1).Google Scholar
  52. Stokoe, E. H., & Smithson, J. (2002). Gender and sexuality n talk-in-interaction: Considering conversation analytic perspectives. In P. McIlvenny (Ed.), Talking gender and sexuality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  53. Stokoe, E. H., & Weatherall, A. (2002). Gender, language, conversation analysis and feminism. Discourse and Society, 13(6), 707–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Turner R. (Ed.) (1974). Ethnomethodology: Selected readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  55. Watson, R. (1992). The understanding of language use in everyday life. Is there a common ground? In G. Watson & R. M. Seiler (Eds.), Text in context: Contributions to ethnomethodology. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  56. Watson, R. (1998). Ethnomethodology, consciousness and self. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 5, 202–223.Google Scholar
  57. Watson, R. (2000). The character of institutional talk: A response to Hester and Francis. Text, 20(3), 377–89.Google Scholar
  58. Watson, R. (2003). The anthropology of communication: Foundations, futures and the analysis of constructions of space. In T. Lask (Ed.), Construcions socials de l’espace. Liege: U. L. G. (Presses Universitaires de Liege).Google Scholar
  59. Weatherall, A. (2002). Towards understanding gender and talk-in-interaction. Discourse and Society, 13(6), 767–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wetherell, M. (1998). Positioning and interpretative repetoires; Conversation analysis and post-structuralism in dialogue. Discourse and Society, 9(3), 387–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wilkinson, S., & Kitzinger, C. (2003). Constructing identities:A feminist conversation analytic approach to positioning in action. In R. Harré & F. Moghaddam (Eds.), The self and others. Westport CT: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyManchester Metropolitan UniversityManchesterEngland

Personalised recommendations