Every scientific field has its major conferences, conferences that are only organized once every few years and that everyone who is anyone wants to attend. In conversation analysis that conference is ICCA, the International Conference for Conversation Analysis. It’s organized once every four years, and each time by another university. After the last conference, our research group – that is to say, Tom Koole – had made a proposal to organize the 2018 conference. But it was rejected in favour of a proposal by Loughborough. Since Tom does not like rejection – who does really? – he proposed a new conference. But unlike regular conferences, this one would focus on workshops, not on papers and presentations. The board of the International Society for Conversation Analysis which is responsible for ICCA thought this was a nice idea, and so ICCA was born: the International Academy for Conversation Analysis (we are not particularly creative when it comes to naming things).
Tom opens IACA16
Over the past few days 80 researchers came to Groningen to take part in one of four workshops given by some of the most prominent researchers in the field. In between there were also plenary talks by two well regarded and highly experienced researchers, both of them also aimed at discussing the methods of conversation analysis and interactional linguistics. And it was great.
Actions and Activities
For the second time during my PhD I got to participate in a workshop hosted by Paul Drew (the previous time was in Loughborough last year), but this time it was co-organized by Merran Toerian instead of John Heritage. While this of course meant a different set up of the workshop, it definitely did not mean a workshop that was less useful or less fun. The focus was on Actions and Activities, and specifically on how actions are made recognizable by participants in talk-in-interaction to be that action. In other words, we studied how complaints are done so as to be recognizable as a complaint, and not as say a compliment or a telling. This is somewhat different from the focus conversation analysts normally have, as we tend to look primarily at the response to an action, not the action itself: the so-called next-turn proof procedure (a term Merran was not a big fan of, since evidence is not the same as proof).
Studying complaints in this way made clear some notions that might seem obvious, and others that were more surprising. Of course, a complaint is recognizable because it addressed behavior of some other party, the complainee, who had somehow violated a social norm, and this violation was detrimental to the person complaining, the complainer. Interestingly, they are often produced to contrast with prior talk. For example, the person the complainer is talking with has just said something positive about the complainee and this is taken as an opportunity to do a complaint. Complaints are therefore frequently designed with a “yes, but…” format.
Actions and Activities
For the second time during my PhD I got to participate in a workshop hosted by Paul Drew (the previous time was in Loughborough last year), but this time it was co-organized by Merran Toerian instead of John Heritage. While this of course meant a different set up of the workshop, it definitely did not mean a workshop that was less useful or less fun. The focus was on Actions and Activities, and specifically on how actions are made recognizable by participants in talk-in-interaction to be that action. In other words, we studied how complaints are done so as to be recognizable as a complaint, and not as say a compliment or a telling. This is somewhat different from the focus conversation analysts normally have, as we tend to look primarily at the response to an action, not the action itself: the so-called next-turn proof procedure (a term Merran was not a big fan of, since evidence is not the same as proof).
Studying complaints in this way made clear some notions that might seem obvious, and others that were more surprising. Of course, a complaint is recognizable because it addressed behavior of some other party, the complainee, who had somehow violated a social norm, and this violation was detrimental to the person complaining, the complainer. Interestingly, they are often produced to contrast with prior talk. For example, the person the complainer is talking with has just said something positive about the complainee and this is taken as an opportunity to do a complaint. Complaints are therefore frequently designed with a “yes, but…” format.
Many young researchers at the workshop by Paul Drew (University of Loughborough) and Merran Toerien (University of York)
In the second part of the workshop we focused on recruitment, the way in which humans within and outside social interaction resolve troubles in the broadest possible sense of the word. It led to interesting discussions about what we study and how we should go about studying it: many actions are not implemented through language, if we can even say they are implemented at all. Language is just one tool people use to get help or offer help with troubles in everyday social life.
Methods and goals of Conversation Analysis
The keynotes had a less specific focus. Anita Pomerantz from the University of Albany focused on the goals of conversation analysis in general. Typically we focus on analyzing patterns in social interaction, for example recurrent practices with which participants implement certain actions, but the more interesting question is why the social world works the way it works? It is a question I also would like to focus more on, for example when dealing with declarative questions: why are participants no always clear about what they want? Or at least, not recognizable as wanting something particular.
Methods and goals of Conversation Analysis
The keynotes had a less specific focus. Anita Pomerantz from the University of Albany focused on the goals of conversation analysis in general. Typically we focus on analyzing patterns in social interaction, for example recurrent practices with which participants implement certain actions, but the more interesting question is why the social world works the way it works? It is a question I also would like to focus more on, for example when dealing with declarative questions: why are participants no always clear about what they want? Or at least, not recognizable as wanting something particular.
Anita Pomerantz (University at Albany, SUNY) gave an inspiring talk on the goals of Conversation Analysis
On the final day Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen gave an almost complete overview of how conversation analysis is applied in linguistics: Interaction Linguistics. Starting with the absolute basics of setting up an analysis – it never hurts to think about the basics – she closed with the major questions for further research: even in linguistics we should focus more on embodied interaction as it plays such a huge role in designing actions. She also posed the question of whether we should focus on action or practice, a question that I thought was particularly relevant as I’ve always heard that action should come first (something Paul Drew emphasized again in the workshop).
Four days of focusing on methods is not something researchers typically do, but working on one’s craft is obviously crucial for keeping up a high level of research. We always have to be critical about what we’re doing and how we’re doing it. Few things are more dangerous to research than the belief in a field that nothing will ever have to change: critical reflection is the heart of science. We should not just have a scientific attitude towards our field of study, but also towards science itself. Only then can we make new discoveries and increase or understanding of the universe: both the physical and the social.
Four days of focusing on methods is not something researchers typically do, but working on one’s craft is obviously crucial for keeping up a high level of research. We always have to be critical about what we’re doing and how we’re doing it. Few things are more dangerous to research than the belief in a field that nothing will ever have to change: critical reflection is the heart of science. We should not just have a scientific attitude towards our field of study, but also towards science itself. Only then can we make new discoveries and increase or understanding of the universe: both the physical and the social.
RSS Feed
