DIGC 102 week 8:

Conversation Analysis and

Discourse Analysis
Online
Andrew Whelan
awhelan@uow.edu.au
 Overview:

•  Why the methodological interest in interactional data?

•  What discourse analysis / conversation analysis (CA) look like, and

the kinds of things they do.

•  Online applications:
•  CA and government policy, an example: pro-ana and the clean feed
•  CA and market research, an example: fan communities
•  CA and social identity online, an example: masculinity in talk

•  The structure and content of online interaction

 Why the methodological interest in interactional data?

“conversation is a (or maybe ‘the’) prime

site for examining the intersubjective
construction of meaning and social
order” (2000: 287).

Weatherall, Ann. 2000. “Gender relevance in talk-in-interaction and

discourse.” Discourse and Society vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 286-288.
Why the methodological interest in interactional data?

This interest is opposed to ‘theoretical imperialism’, to

“grand theorizing” and “abstracted

empiricism” (1984: 2).

Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity

Press.
Why the methodological interest in interactional data?

“[Reality] doesn’t exist in and of itself, ‘outside of’

or ‘beneath’ everyday events as a ‘social
structure’ or ‘social force’, as depicted in
traditional structural accounts. Instead we argue
that it is daily constructed by us in routine and
mundane ways, as we go about the ordinary and
everyday business of living” (1983: 112).

Stanley, Liz and Sue Wise. 1983. Breaking Out: Feminist

Consciousness and Feminist Research. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Why the methodological interest in interactional data?

Methodological “naturalism”:

“every effort is made to maintain a direct focus

on the specifics of interaction which is naturally
occurring and uncontaminated by interventions
from the researcher” (1987: 258).

Heritage, John. 1987. “Ethnomethodology.” Pp. 224-272 in Social Theory

Today, edited by Anthony Giddens and Jonathan Turner. Oxford: Polity
Press.
Why the methodological interest in interactional data?

The discipline of conversation analysis is an artefact of

recording technology:

“conversation is something that we can get the

actual happenings of on tape … at least what
was on the tape had happened” (1984: 25-26).

Sacks, Harvey. 1984. “Notes on methodology.” Pp. 21-27 in Structures of

Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, edited by J. Maxwell
Atkinson and John Heritage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Why the methodological interest in interactional data?

Similarly with online conversation analysis:

“CMC [computer-mediated communication] is

arguably the greatest boon to the study of
language use since the invention of the portable
tape recorder in the 1950s” (1996: 155).

Herring, Susan. 1996. “Linguistic and Critical Analysis of Computer-

Mediated Communication: Some Ethical and Scholarly
Considerations.” The Information Society vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 153-168.
Why the methodological interest in interactional data?

“The benefit of such a micro-analytic focus is that it

addresses the ‘how’ question, it binds the [interpretive
and analytic] claims to actual data, it reveals (rather than
conceals) how the analysis was conducted, it invites
reflexive re-interpretations, and it provides a concrete
model for analysing similar segments of data. Within a
discursive analytic paradigm, the goals of descriptive
rigor, context specificity, and particularization are key
evaluative criteria” (2005: 230).

Korobov, Neill. 2005. “Ironizing Masculinity: How adolescent boys negotiate hetero-
normative dilemmas in conversational interaction.” The Journal of Men’s Studies vol.
13, no. 2, pp. 225-246.
•  The concern for both conversation analysis and discourse analysis
is with the underlying meanings and structures of interaction, in how
interaction accomplishes social ‘work’.

(e.g. being a student, being African-American, disputing a ‘dirty’

joke, giving a lecture, giving a parking ticket, conducting a news
interview, demonstrating competent knowledge of WoW etc.)

•  It’s through this that culture is produced at the local and witnessable
level: interaction is culture-in-praxis.

•  There is a difference in emphasis:

CA focuses on the process and structure of interaction,
while discourse analysis emphasises the underlying
meanings of what was said.
•  Both are interested in the tacit aspects of communication.
•  From these perspectives, there is no non-political statement.
 A classic example:

1. Kid: ‘you know what “Children employ

Mum?’ ‘sequence organization’
precisely in order to deal
2. Mum: ‘What?’
with their problem of
3. Kid: ‘…’ having unequal rights to
talk” (2000: 174).
vs

1. Kid: ‘you know what Kitzinger, Celia. 2000. “Doing Feminist

Conversation Analysis.” Feminism and
Mum?’ Psychology vol. 10, no. 2: 163-193.
2. Mum: ‘Not now Susan’
 Some research areas where this kind of methodology has been
extremely successful and influential:

•  research on medical settings

•  research on legal settings
•  research on educational settings (esp. ESL education)

Some locations where this kind of methodology is being applied

online:

•  Forums
•  Chatrooms
•  Article comments
•  Gaming environments
•  Blogs
•  Social networking interaction
•  Text messaging
Why care? Empirical analysis of online data indicates how online
environments are actually used. E.g. ‘pro-ana’ and the ‘clean feed’:

“yesterday, i went out to a restaurant with my boyfriend and i ended up binging at the
restaurant. we split a large plate, and because i was eating so fast due to the binge I
ended up eating more than my boyfriend,

he looks at me and says," You Eat A lot." And it smacked me in the head that im a
fucking cow who cant control herself.

And then i told him we ate the same amount, and he said no, that i ate so much more
than him and pointed out every single thing i ate.

i got soo depresssed

6 months ago before i recovered, he used to say i was too skinny and i needed to eat
more and now when i recovered he says i eat too much.

im never good enough.

And im soo fucking happy that im relapsing so i can make him hurt by being
soo skinny so he knows its his fucking fault.”
Fan communities
 Market research: e.g. fan communities

How fans interact with the environment

How they interact with the product

How they interact with each other around

and through the product
 Gay/ghey: chatroom play with heteronormativity/masculine identity

1.  * timeheater is the only gay breakcore artist

2.  [Pi180] what about Duran Duran Duran
3.  [timeheater] no
4.  [timeheater] jeez i have to explain it every time
5.  [carn1fex] you and doormouse should have a naked tag team marathon
6.  [Pi180] he acts prety gay
7.  [BC240] so whats this ghey anyway
8.  [timeheater] ghey
9.  [diab0lik] is he gay?
10. [timeheater] and gay
11. [timeheater] isn’t the same
12. [BC240] well what is it,
13. [BC240] some metrocore shit?
14. [BC240] i am northcore
15. [timeheater] gay is ghey but ghey isn’t always gay... it’s like being christian.
catholics are christian but not all christians are catholic
 The structure and content of interaction

•  Problems with CA:

emphasis on structure
distinct structures of online interactions:

•  ‘Multi-modality’ of online interaction

•  Synchronous/Asynchronous distinction and temporal extension online

•  Hybrid methods for hybrid envrionments: methodological triangulation etc.

•  Context

•  Ethical considerations