Skip to main content

Conversation Analysis: An Introduction to Methodology, Data Collection, and Analysis

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences

Abstract

Conversation analysis is a qualitative research methodology with roots in sociology, and, in particular, ethnomethodology. Over the past 50 years, it has developed not only within sociology but across the fields of linguistics, anthropology, and psychology. In health care research, conversation analysis has been successfully applied in researching interactions in primary care, surgery, pediatrics, and psychotherapy, to name a few examples. Conversation analysis allows the researcher to analyze the structures of interaction at a micro level, focusing on how the participants make sense of each other in conversation through shared interactional norms. In this chapter, I begin by surveying the history and development of conversation analysis. I consider methods of data collection and explore aspects of analysis in everyday conversation and in institutional interaction. I review key conversation analytic research in health care and consider its application and use for health care researchers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 649.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 849.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Albert S. How to explain #EMCA collections to quants [Twitter moment]. 2017. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/i/moments/900684578066759680

  • Antaki C. Six kinds of applied conversation analysis. In: Antaki C, editor. Applied conversation analysis: intervention and change in institutional talk. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2011.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Barton J, Dew K, Dowell A, Sheridan N, Kenealy T, Macdonald L, Stubbe M. Patient resistance as a resource: candidate obstacles in diabetes consultations. Sociol Health Illn. 2016;38(7):1151–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clayman SE, Gill VT. Conversation analysis. In: Byman A, Hardy M, editors. Handbook of data analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage; 2004. p. 589–606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drew P, Heritage J, editors. Talk at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drew P, Chatwin J, Collins S. Conversation analysis: a method for research into interactions between patients and health-care professionals. Health Expect. 2001;4:58–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekberg K, Reuber M. Can conversation analytic findings help with differential diagnosis in routine seizure clinic interactions? Commun Med. 2016;12(1):13–24. https://doi.org/10.1558/cam.v12i1.26851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner R. When listeners talk: response tokens and listener stance. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company; 2001.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner R. Conversation analysis. In: Davies A, Elder C, editors. The handbook of applied linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell; 2004. p. 262–84.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gill VT, Roberts F. Conversation analysis in medicine. In: Stivers T, Sidnell J, editors. The handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester: Wiley; 2013. p. 575–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hepburn A, Bolden GB. The conversation analytic approach to transcription. In: Stivers T, Sidnell J, editors. The handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester: Wiley; 2013. p. 57–76.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Heritage J. Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press; 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heritage J. Conversation analysis and institutional talk: analyzing data. In: Silverman D, editor. Qualitative research: theory, method, and practice. 2nd ed. London: Sage; 2004. p. 222–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heritage J. The interaction order and clinical practice: some observations on dysfunctions and action steps. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;84(3):338–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2011.05.022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heritage J, Clayman S. Talk in action: interactions, identities, and institutions. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Heritage J, Maynard DW. Introduction. In: Heritage J, Maynard DW, editors. Communication in medical care: interaction between primary care physicians and patients. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006a. p. 1–21.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Heritage J, Maynard DW, editors. Communication in medical care: interaction between primary care physicians and patients. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006b.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heritage J, Robinson JD, Elliot MN, Beckett M, Wilkes M. Reducing patients’ unmet concerns in primary care: the difference one word can make. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22(10):1429–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudak P, Clark S, Raymond G. In the shadow of surgery: treatment recommendations and the institutionality of orthopaedic surgery. Paper presented at the 2nd international meeting on conversation analysis and clinical encounters, Plymouth. 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson G. Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In: Lerner GH, editor. Conversation analysis: studies from the first generation. Amsterdam: Benjamins; 2004. p. 13–31.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins L, Reuber M. A conversation analytic intervention to help neurologists identify diagnostically relevant linguistic features in seizure patients’; talk. Res Lang Soc Interact. 2014;47(3):266–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2014.925664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins L, Cosgrove J, Ekberg K, Kheder A, Sokhi D, Reuber M. A brief conversation analytic communication intervention can change history-taking in the seizure clinic. Epilepsy Behav. 2015;52(Part A):62–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yebeh.2015.08.022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jepson M, Salisbury C, Ridd MJ, Metcalfe C, Garside L, Barnes RK. The ‘One in a Million’ study: creating a database of UK primary care consultations. Br J Gen Pract. 2017;67(658):e345–51. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp17X690521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones A. Nurses talking to patients: exploring conversation analysis as a means of researching nurse–patient communication. Int J Nurs Stud. 2003;40(6):609–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7489(03)00037-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones D, Drew P, Elsey C, Blackburn D, Wakefield S, Harkness K, Reuber M. Conversational assessment in memory clinic encounters: interactional profiling for differentiating dementia from functional memory disorders. Aging Ment Health. 2016;20(5):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2015.1021753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jorm C, White SJ, Kaneen T. Clinical handover: critical communications. Med J Aust. 2009;190(11):S108–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly A. Articulating tacit knowledge through analyses of recordings: implications for competency assessment in the vocational education and training sector. In: Wyatt-Smith C, Cumming JJ, editors. Educational assessment in the 21st century: connecting theory and practice. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2009. p. 245–62.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Maynard DW. On clinicians co-implicating recipients’ perspective in the delivery of diagnostic news. In: Drew P, Atkinson J, editors. Talk at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1992. p. 331–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard DW. Everyone and no one to turn to: intellectual roots and contexts for conversation analysis. In: The handbook of conversation analysis: Wiley; 2012. p. 9–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirheidari B, Blackburn D, Harkness K, Walker T, Venneri A, Reuber M, Christensen H. Toward the automation of diagnostic conversation analysis in patients with memory complaints. J Alzheimers Dis. 2017;58(2):373–87. https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-160507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mondada L. The conversation analytic approach to data collection. In: Stivers T, Sidnell J, editors. The handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester: Wiley; 2013. p. 32–56.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mondada L. Operating together: the collective achievement of surgical action. In: White SJ, Cartmill JA, editors. Communication in surgical practice. Sheffield: Equinox; 2016. p. 206–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parry RH. The interactional management of patients’ physical incompetence: a conversation analytic study of physiotherapy interactions. Sociol Health Illn. 2004;26(7):976–1007. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0141-9889.2004.00425.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parry R, Pino M, Faull C, Feathers L. Acceptability and design of video-based research on healthcare communication: evidence and recommendations. Patient Educ Couns. 2016;99(8):1271–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2016.03.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peräkylä A. Conversation analysis and psychoanalysis: interpretation, affect and intersubjectivity. In: Peräkylä A, Antaki C, Vehviläinen S, Leudar I, editors. Conversation analysis and psychotherapy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008. p. 170–202.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Peräkylä A. Validity in research on naturally occurring social interaction. In: Silverman D, editor. Qualitative research. 3rd ed. London: Sage; 2011. p. 365–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pino M. Knowledge displays: soliciting clients to fill knowledge gaps and to reconcile knowledge discrepancies in therapeutic interaction. Patient Educ Couns. 2016;99(6):897–904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2015.10.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raymond CWC. Remember also that single case analyses bring findings from other *collections* to bear on the analysis of the single case. [Tweet]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/ChaseWRaymond/status/899656562242863104. 2017.

  • Reuber M, Monzoni C, Sharrack B, Plug L. Using interactional and linguistic analysis to distinguish between epileptic and psychogenic nonepileptic seizures: a prospective, blinded multirater study. Epilepsy Behav. 2009;16(1):139–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yebeh.2009.07.018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson JD. Soliciting patients’ presenting concerns. In: Heritage J, Maynard DW, editors. Communication in medical care: interaction between primary care physicians and patients. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006. p. 22–47.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson JD. The role of numbers and statistics within conversation analysis. Commun Methods Meas. 2007;1(1):65–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312450709336663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson JD. Overall structural organization. In: Stivers T, Sidnell J, editors. The handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester: Wiley; 2013. p. 257–80.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson JD, Heritage J. Intervening with conversation analysis: the case of medicine. Res Lang Soc Interact. 2014;47(3):201–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2014.925658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roger P, Dahm MR, Cartmill JA, Yates L. Inter-professional clinical handover in surgical practice. In: White SJ, Cartmill JA, editors. Communication in surgical practice. Sheffield: Equinox; 2016. p. 333–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roter D. Patient participation in the patient-provider interaction: the effects of patient question asking on the quality of interaction, satisfaction and compliance. Health Educ Behav. 1977;5(4):281–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacks H, Schegloff EA, Jefferson G. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language. 1974;50(4):696–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff EA. Between micro and macro: contexts and other connections. In: Alexander JC, Giesen B, Munch R, Smelser NJ, editors. The micro-macro link. Los Angeles: University of California Press; 1987. p. 207–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff EA. Goffman and the analysis of conversation. In: Drew P, Wootton A, editors. Erving Goffman: exploring the interaction order. Oxford: Polity Press; 1988. p. 9–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff EA. Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Res Lang Soc Interact. 1993;26(1):99–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff EA. Confirming allusions: toward an empirical account of action. Am J Sociol. 1996;102(1):161–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff EA. Sequence organization in interaction, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sidnell J. Basic conversation analytic methods. In: Stivers T, Sidnell J, editors. The handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester: Wiley; 2013. p. 77–99.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Silverman D. Harvey sacks: social science and conversation analysis. Cambridge/New York: Polity/Oxford University Press; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverman D. Interpreting qualitative data. 2nd ed. London: Sage; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverman J, Kurtz SM, Draper J. Skills for communicating with patients. 3rd ed. Oxford: Radcliffe Publishing; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stivers T, Sidnell J. Introduction. In: The handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester: Wiley; 2013. p. 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokoe E. Simulated interaction and communication skills training: the ‘Conversation-analytic role-play method’. In: Antaki C, editor. Applied conversation analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2011. p. 119–39.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • ten Have P. Doing conversation analysis. London: Sage; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • ten Have P. Doing conversation analysis. 2nd ed. London: Sage; 2007.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • White SJ. Closing clinical consultations. In: Busch A, Spranz-Fogasy T, editors. Sprache in der Medizin [Language in Medicine]. Berlin: De Gruyter; 2015. p. 170–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • White SJ, Casey M. Understanding differences between actual and simulated surgical consultations: a scoping study. Aust J Linguist. 2016; 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2015.1121534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White SJ, Stubbe MH, Dew KP, Macdonald LM, Dowell AC, Gardner R. Understanding communication between surgeon and patient in outpatient consultations. ANZ J Surg. 2013;83(5):307–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.12126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White SJ, Stubbe MH, Macdonald LM, Dowell AC, Dew KP, Gardner R. Framing the consultation: the role of the referral in surgeon-patient consultations. Health Communication. 2014;29(1):74–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2012.718252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yule S, Flin R, Paterson-Brown S, Maran N. Non-technical skills for surgeons in the operating room: a review of the literature. Surgery. 2006;139(2):140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah J. White .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix: Transcription Notation

Appendix: Transcription Notation

The transcription notations that are used in this research are taken from ten Have (1999, pp. 213–214) and Gardner (2001, pp. xi–xxi). These are based on the Jeffersonian transcription system.

Sequencing

[

A single left bracket indicates overlap onset.

]

A single right bracket indicates the point at which an overlap terminates in relation to another utterance.

=

Equal signs, one at the end of one line and one at the beginning of the next, indicate no gap between the two turns. This is called latching.

>

A carat bracket is used within a speaker to indicate no gap between a speaker’s turn constructional units.

Intervals

(0.0)

Numbers in parentheses indicate elapsed time in silence by tenth of seconds. This works within a turn, a turn constructional unit or between speakers. For example, (2.1) is a pause of 2 s and one tenth of a second.

(.)

A dot in parentheses indicates a tiny gap of less than 0.2 s within or between utterances.

Prosodic features of utterances

word

Underscoring a word or part thereof indicates some form of stress.

::

Colons indicate prolongation of the immediately prior sound. Multiple colons indicate a more prolonged sound.

-

A dash indicates a cutoff.

w-w-word

Stuttering is indicated by a repetition of the stuttered sound connected by hyphens.

*

An asterisk around an utterance or part thereof indicates creaky voice.

$

A dollar symbol around an utterance or part thereof indicates smiley voice.

.

A period indicates a stopping fall in intonation.

,

A comma indicates a slightly rising, continuing intonation.

?

A question mark indicates a rising intonation.

¿

A “Spanish question” mark indicates stronger rise than a comma but weaker than a question mark.

_

An underline symbol after the word indicates a level pitch contour.

x:x

An underlined colon within a syllable indicates that the intonation within the syllable falls then rises.

xx:

An underlined second letter within a syllable followed by a nonunderlined colon indicates that the intonation within the syllable rises then falls.

 

The absence of an utterance-final marker indicates some sort of “indeterminate” contour.

An upward arrow indicates a marked shift into higher pitch in the utterance-part immediately following the arrow.

A downward arrow indicates a marked shift into lower pitch in the utterance-part immediately following the arrow.

WORD

Upper case indicates especially loud sounds relative to the surrounding talk.

·word

Staccato talk is indicated by a bullet prior to the utterance-part.

°word°

°°word°°

Utterances or utterance-parts bracketed by degree signs are relatively quieter than the surrounding talk. Very quiet talk is indicated by two degrees signs on each side.

<word>

Left/right carats bracketing an utterance or part thereof indicate slowing down as compared to the surrounding talk.

>word<

Right/left carats bracketing an utterance or part thereof indicate speeding up as compared to the surrounding talk.

.hhh

A dot-prefixed row of “h’s indicates an in breath.

hhh

Without the dot, the “h”s indicate an out breath.

w(h)ord

A parenthesized h, or a row of hs within a word, indicates breathiness, such as can be heard in laughter and crying.

Transcriber’s doubts and comments

( )

The length of empty parentheses indicates the length of talk that the transcriber was unable to hear. Empty parentheses in the speaker designation column indicate inability to identify a speaker.

(word)

Especially dubious hearings or speaker identifications are indicated by parentheses around the utterance, utterance-part, or speaker designation.

(( ))

Transcriber descriptions are indicated by double parentheses.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

White, S.J. (2019). Conversation Analysis: An Introduction to Methodology, Data Collection, and Analysis. In: Liamputtong, P. (eds) Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_107

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics