Feminist Conversation Analysis: Who Needs It?

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

1. I will not engage with Whelan's critique of CA's “normalising tendencies” (2012/this issue, p. 285), which is addressed exclusively to the work of Kitzinger, Wilkinson, and colleagues.

2. Presumably, Whelan also rejects the work of these non-CA positivist feminists and, by implication, is of the view that science de facto oppresses women.

3. In seeking to identify patterns in data, all analyses—even qualitative, social constructionist ones—involve quantification of some kind.

4. Cf. Stokoe's (2012) comments on the “inference-rich” and “designedly ambiguous” nature of category descriptions, and what this means for the question of “how far can one claim the relevance of categorical phenomena that are not formulated explicitly and unambiguously by speakers?” (p. 282).