![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
As they conduct the practical work of collaborating during meetings, nonprofit stakeholders construct, negotiate, and manage identities. In this article we use membership categorization analysis to explore how meeting participants avow and ascribe cultural identities during collaborative meetings in two nonprofit organizations. Examination of identification practices, including employing labels for ethnic categories and implicating cultural identities through category-relevant predicates—which are part of the practical work of collaborating in nonprofit organizations—can serve as an aid to understanding how stakeholders negotiate interorganizational collaboration in social interaction.
Notes
[1] Harvey Sacks originally titled his methods membership categorization device analysis (MCDA). Subsequent work, concerned about a wide range of categorization practices without giving priority to membership categorization devices, was dubbed MCA. For prominent work discussing these viewpoints, see Hester and Eglin (Citation1997), Schegloff (Citation2007) and Hester and Hester (Citation2012). The term “categorial analysis” (see Stokoe, Citation2012a, Citation2012b) is a more recent moniker for methods based on Sacks’ MCDA.
[2] “Bracketing” —laying aside assumptions and beliefs about aspects of social organization external to the moment in which members are participating, or employing an “oscillating indifference” to members’ positions outside of social interaction (Holstein & Gubrium, Citation2008, p. 390) —has origins in phenomenology and ethnomethodology.
[3] Names of principle organizations and all individuals in both case studies are pseudonyms.
[4] Data are presented using conventions to convey paralinguistic and interactional markers. Symbols are based on the model devised in early CA by Jefferson (Citation2004) and others. See Appendix A.