Abstract
Busch and Danby engage in a rich and honest dialogue to capture the methodological challenges encountered by a PhD candidate while learning a new methodology. In using storytelling as a device to examine methodological challenges, the perspectives of both the student and the supervisor are communicated. Beginning with an overview of ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, the authors pay attention to challenges connected to data collection when using video recording to capture family in situ practices, transcription of data that captures the fine detail of the interaction, and data analysis. While challenges are examined, the authors also provide a number of strategies that support the methodological maneuvering. These include engaging in data sessions with supervisors and with other conversation analysts committing to join the ethnomethodology research community.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Arminen, I. (2004). Second stories: The salience of interpersonal communication for mutual help in Alcholics Anonymous. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 319–347.
Baker, C. (1997). Ethnomethodological studies of talk in educational settings. In B. Davies & D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Oral discourse and education (Vol. 3, pp. 43–52). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Baker, C. (1998). Transcription and representation in literacy research. In J. Flood, S. B. Heath, & D. Lapps (Eds.), A handbook for literacy educators: Research on teaching the communicative and visual arts (pp. 108–118). New York: Macmillan.
Bucholtz, M. (2000). The politics of transcription. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1439–1465.
Danby, S. (1998). Interaction and social order in a preschool classroom (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). St Lucia, QLD: The University of Queensland.
Danby, S. (2005). The supervisory experience: Culture in action. In J. Yamanashi & I. Milojevic (Eds.), Researching identity, diversity and education: Surpassing the norm (pp. 1–16). Teneriffe, QLD: Post Pressed.
Danby, S., & Baker, C. (1998a). How to be masculine in the block area. Childhood: A global journal of child research, 5(2), 151–175.
Danby, S., & Baker, C. (1998b). “What’s the problem?”—Restoring social order in the preschool classroom. In I. Hutchby & J. Moran-Ellis (Eds.), Children and social competence: Arenas of action (pp. 91–140). London: The Falmer Press.
Davidson, C. (2010). Transcription matters: Transcribing talk and interaction to facilitate conversation analysis of the taken-for-granted in young children’s interactions. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 8(2), 115–131.
Francis, D., & Hester, S. (2004). An invitation to ethnomethodology: Language, society, and social interaction. London: Sage.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Goodwin, M. (1995). Co-construction in girls’ hopscotch. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28(3), 261–281.
Harris, J., Theobald, M., Danby, S., Reynolds, E., & Rintel, S. (2012). “What’s going on here?” The pedagogy of a data analysis session. In A. Lee & S. Danby (Eds.), Reshaping doctoral education: International approaches and pedagogies (pp. 83–96). London: Routledge.
Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, P. (2010). Video in qualitative research: Analysing social interactions in everyday life. London: Sage.
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation analysis: Principles, practices and applications. Cambridge: Polity Press.
James, A., Jenks, C., & Prout, A. (1998). Theorizing childhood. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–23). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Lapadat, J. (2000). Problematizing transcription: Purpose, paradigm and quality. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 3(3), 203–219.
Lynch, M., & Peyrot, M. (1992). Introduction: A reader’s guide to ethnomethodology. Qualitative Sociology, 15(2), 113–122.
McHoul, A. (2008). Questions of context in studies of talk and interaction—Ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(5), 823–826.
McLarty, M. M., & Gibson, J. W. (2000). Using video technology in emancipatory research. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 15(2), 138–148.
Mondada, L. (2007). Commentary: Transcript variations and indexicality of transcribing practices. Discourse Studies, 9(6), 809–821.
Ochs, E. (1979). Transcription as theory. In E. Ochs & B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics (pp. 43–72). New York: Academic Press.
Payne, G. (1976). Making a lesson happen: An ethnomethodological analysis. In M. Hammersley & P. Woods (Eds.), The process of schooling: A sociological reader (pp. 33–40). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Pomerantz, A., & Fehr, B. J. (1997). Conversation analysis: An approach to the study of social action as sense making practices. In T. A. Van-Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction (pp. 64–91). London: Sage.
Psathas, G. (1990). Introduction: Methodological issues and recent developments in the study of naturally occurring interaction. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Interaction competence: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (pp. 1–24). Washington: International Institute of Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis.
Psathas, G. (1995a). Conversational analysis: The study of talk-in-interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Psathas, G. (1995b). The study of extended sequences: The case of the garden lesson. In G. Watson & R. Seiler (Eds.), Text in context: Contributions to ethnomethodology (pp. 99–122). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Psathas, G., & Anderson, T. (1990). The “practices” of transcription in conversation analysis. Semiotica, 78(1/2), 75–99.
Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures on conversation: Volumes 1 & 2. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 7, 289–327.
Sparrman, A. (2005). Video recording as interaction: Participant observation of children’s everyday life. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2(3), 241–255.
Speier, M. (1971). The everyday world of the child. In J. D. Douglas (Ed.), Understanding everyday life (pp. 188–217). London: Routledge.
Acknowledgments
I would like to acknowledge my PhD supervisors, each of whom supported my methodological manoeuvres (Professor Susan Danby, Professor Ann Farrell, Dr. Maryanne Theobald, Dr. Carly Butler).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Busch, G., Danby, S. (2016). From Fledgling Manoeuvres to Methodological Confidence: Conversations Between a Doctoral Student and Supervisor on Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis to Explore the Everyday Worlds of Children and Families. In: Harreveld, B., Danaher, M., Lawson, C., Knight, B., Busch, G. (eds) Constructing Methodology for Qualitative Research. Palgrave Studies in Education Research Methods. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59943-8_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59943-8_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-59942-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-59943-8
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)