Introduction to Special Issue on Discursive Psychology

References

• Aguinaldo, J. P. 2012. Qualitative analysis in gay men’s health research: Comparing thematic, critical discourse, and conversation analysi. Journal of Homosexuality 59 (6):765–87. doi:10.1080/00918369.2012.694753.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albert, S., C. Albury, M. Alexander, M. T. Harris, E. Hofstetter, E. J. B. Holmes, and E. Stokoe. 2018. The conversational rollercoaster: Conversation analysis and the public science of talk. Discourse Studies 20 (3):397–424. doi:10.1177/1461445618754571.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antaki, C., Ed. 1988. Analysing everyday explanation. A caseook of methods. London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Antaki, C. 1994. Explaining and arguing. London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Antaki, C. 2006. Producing a “cognition”. Discourse Studies 8 (1):9–15. doi:10.1177/1461445606059545.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antaki, C., and I. Leudar. 1992. From attribution to argumentation: The case of disappearing discourse. Canadian Psychology 33 (3):594–99. doi:10.1037/h0078737.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antaki, C., and M. Rapley. 1996. Questions and answers to psychological assessment schedule: Hidden troubles in “quality of life” interviews. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 40 (5):421–37. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2788.1996.779779.x.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Barnes, R., and D. Moss. 2007. Communicating a feeling: The social organization of “private thoughts”. Discourse Studies 9 (2):123–48. doi:10.1177/1461445607075339.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Billig, M. 1987. Arguing and thinking. A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Billig, M. 1989. The argumentative nature of holding strong views: A case study. European Journal of Social Psychology 19 (3):203–23. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420190303.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Billig, M. 1999a. Conversation analysis and the claims of naivety. Discourse & Society 10 (4):572–76. doi:10.1177/0957926599010004007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Billig, M. 1999b. Whose terms? Whose ordinariness? Rhetoric and ideology in conversation analysis. Discourse & Society 10 (4):543–58. doi:10.1177/0957926599010004005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Billig, M. 2009. Discursive psychology, rhetoric and the issue of agency. Semen, 27. Accessed on January 01, 2020: http://semen.revues.org/8930.
   Google Scholar
• Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing grounded theory. London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Childs, C. 2012. “I’m not X, I just want Y”: Formulating “wants” in interaction. Discourse Studies 14 (2):181–96. doi:10.1177/1461445612439819.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coulter, J. 1999. Discourse and mind. Human Studies 22 (2–4):163–81. doi:10.1023/A:1005484316659.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coulter, J. 2004. What is “discursive psychology”? Human Studies 27:335–40. doi:10.1023/B:HUMA.0000042125.97271.a0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Stefani, E. 2018. Institutional invitations to a meeting: Cold calls to bank clients. Journal of Pragmatics 125:180–99. doi:10.1016/J.PRAGMA.2017.06.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demasi, M. A., and C. Tileaga. 2019. Rhetoric of derisive laughter in political debates on the EU. Qualitative Psychology. doi:10.1037/qup0000156.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dreber, A., and M. Johannesson. 2020. Statistical significance and the replication crisis in the social sciences. In Oxford research encyclopaedia. Economics and finance. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190625979.013.461.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, D. 1997. Discourse and cognition. London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, D. 1998. The relevant thing about her: Social identity and categories in use. In Identities in talk, ed. C. Antaki and S. Widdicombe, 15–33. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, D. 1999. Emotion discourse. Culture & Psychology 5 (3):271–91. doi:10.1177/1354067X9953001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, D. 2003. Analyzing racial discourse: The discursive psychology of mind-world relationships. In Analyzing race talk: Multidisciplinary perspectives on the research interview, ed. H. van den Berg, M. S. Wetherell, and H. Houtkoop-Steenstra, 31–48. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, D. 2004. Proof procedure. In The Sage encyclopedia of social science research methods, ed. M. S. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, and T. F. Liao, 875–976. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, D. 2005. Moaning, whinging and laughing: The subjective side of complaints. Discourse Studies 7 (1):5–29. doi:10.1177/1461445605048765.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, D. 2007. Managing subjectivity in talk. In Discursive research in practice: New approaches to psychology and interaction, ed. A. Hepburn and S. Wiggins, 31–49. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, D. 2008. Intentionality and mens rea in police interrogations: The production of actions as crime. Intercultural Pragmatics 5 (2):177–99. doi:10.1515/IP.2008.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, D., and N. Mercer. 1987. Common knowledge. The development of understanding in the classroom. London, UK: Methuen.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, D., and J. Potter. 1992. Discursive psychology. London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, D., and J. Potter. 1993. Language and causation: A discursive action model of description and attribution. Psychological Review 100 (1):23–41. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.1.23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, D., and J. Potter. 2005. Discursive Psychology, mental states and descriptions. In Conversation and cognition, ed. H. Te Molder and J. Potter, 241–59. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, D., and J. Potter. 2017. Some uses of subject-side assessments. Discourse Studies 19 (5):497–514. doi:10.1177/1461445617715171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garfinkel, H. 1988. Evidence for locally produced, naturally accountable phenomena of order, logic, reason, meaning, method, etc. in and as of the essential quiddity of immortal ordinary society, (I of IV): An announcement of studies. Sociological Theory 6 (1):103–09. doi:10.2307/201918.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, S. 2013. Milgram’s obedience experiments: A rhetorical analysis. British Journal of Social Psychology 52 (2):290–309. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02070.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, S. 2019. Arguing, obeying and defying: A rhetorical perspective on Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiments. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gill, R. 1996. Discourse analysis: Practical implementation. In Handbook of qualitative research methods for psychology and for the social sciences, ed. J. T. E. Richardson, 141–56. Leicester, UK: British Psychological Society.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. 1983. The interaction order: American Sociological Association, 1982, presidential address. American Sociological Review 48 (1):1–17. doi:10.2307/2095141.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C., and M. H. Goodwin. 1987. Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments. IPrA Papers in Pragmatics 1 (1):1–55. doi:10.1075/iprapip.
   Google Scholar
• Hammersley, M. 2003a. “Analytics” are no substitute for methodology: A response to Speer and Hutchby. Sociology 37 (2):339–51. doi:10.1177/0038038503037002007.
   Google Scholar
• Hammersley, M. 2003b. Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: Methods or paradigms? Discourse & Society 14 (6):751–81. doi:10.1177/09579265030146004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammersley, M. 2003c. Doing the fine thing: A rejoinder to Jonathan Potter. Discourse & Society 14 (6):795–98. doi:10.1177/09579265030146006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammersley, M. 2003d. The impracticality of scepticism: A further response to Potter. Discourse & Society 14 (6):803–04. doi:10.1177/09579265030146010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris, J., M. A. Theobald, S. J. Danby, E. Reynolds, and S. Rintel. 2012. “What’s going on here?” The pedagogy of a data analysis session. In Reshaping doctoral education: International approaches and pedagogies, ed. A. Lee and S. J. Danby, 83–96. London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hepburn, A. 2004. Crying: Notes on description, transcription, and interaction. Research on Language & Social Interaction 37 (3):251–90. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi3703_1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hepburn, A., and G. B. Bolden. 2013. The conversation analytic approach to transcription. In The handbook of conversation analysis, ed. J. Sidnell and T. Stivers, (pp. 57-76). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Hepburn, A., and J. Potter. 2011. Threats: Power, family mealtimes, and social influence. British Journal of Social Psychology 50 (1):99–120. doi:10.1348/014466610X500791.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horowitz, A. D., and L. Kilby. 2019. Thinking out loud: A discourse analysis of ‘thinking’ during talk radio interactions. Text & Talk 39:699–724. doi:10.1515/text-2019-0235.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humă, B. 2015. Enhancing the authenticity of assessments through grounding in first impressions. The British Journal of Social Psychology 54 (3):405–24. doi:10.1111/bjso.12089.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Information Commissioner’s Office. n.d.. Anonymisation: Managing data protection risk code of practice. Accessed on January 01, 2020: https://ico.org.uk/media/1061/anonymisation-code.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Iversen, C. 2016. Hitting the ontological rock bottom. Discursive psychology’s respecification of the realism/relativism debate. In Discursive psychology. Classic and contemporary issues, ed. C. Tileagă and E. Stokoe, 29–42. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. 2004. Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, ed. G. H. Lerner, 13–31. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Jol, G., and W. Stommel. 2016. Resisting the legitimacy of the question: Self-evident answers to questions about sources of knowledge in police interviews with child witnesses. International Journal of Legal Discourse 1 (2). doi: 10.1515/ijld-2016-0014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kevoe-Feldman, H. 2019. Inside the emergency service call-center: Reviewing thirty years of language and social interaction research. Research on Language and Social Interaction 52 (3):227–40. doi:10.1080/08351813.2019.1631038.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kitzinger, C., and J. Mandelbaum. 2013. Word selection and social identities in talk-in-interaction. Communication Monographs 80 (2):176–98. doi:10.1080/03637751.2013.776171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laurier, E. 2013. Youtube: Using third party video as research data. Accessed June 12, 2013. http://www.ericlaurier.co.uk/resources/Writings/Laurier_2013_Youtube_3rd_party.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Leudar, I., and C. Antaki. 1996. Discourse participation, reported speech and research practices in social psychology. Theory & Psychology 6 (1):5–29. doi:10.1177/0959354396061001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leudar, I., and C. Antaki. 1997. Participant status in social psychological research. In Critical social psychology, ed. T. Ibáñez and L. Iñiguez, 273–90. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Levitt, H. M., M. Bamberg, J. W. Creswell, D. M. Frost, R. Josselson, and C. Suárez-Orozco. 2018. Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. American Psychologist 73 (1):26–46. doi:10.1037/amp0000151.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mondada, L. 2018. Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction: Challenges for transcribing multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction 51 (1):85–106. doi:10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker, I. 2005. Qualitative psychology: Introducing radical research. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Peräkylä, A. 2011. Validity in research on naturally occurring social interaction. In Qualitative research. Theory, method and practice, ed. D. Silverman, 2nd ed, 283–304. London, UK: Sage. Retrieved from https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/29204.
   Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Structures of social action. Studies in conversation analysis, ed. M. J. Atkinson and J. Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Popoviciu, S., and C. Tileagă. 2019. Subtle forms of racism in strategy documents concerning Roma inclusion. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology. doi:10.1002/casp.2430.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potter, J. 1996a. Discourse analysis and constructionist approaches: Theoretical background. In Handbook of qualitative research methods for psychology and for the social sciences, ed. J. T. E. Richardson, 125–40. Leicester, UK: British Psychological Society.
   Google Scholar
• Potter, J. 1996b. Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Potter, J. 2002. Two kinds of natural. Discourse Studies 4 (4):539–42. doi:10.1177/14614456020040040901.
   Google Scholar
• Potter, J. 2003a. Discursive psychology: Between method and paradigm. Discourse & Society 14 (6):783–94. doi:10.1177/09579265030146005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potter, J. 2003b. Practical scepticism. Discourse & Society 14 (6):799–801. doi:10.1177/09579265030146007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potter, J., and D. Edwards. 2003. Rethinking cognition: On Coulter on discourse and mind. Human Studies 26 (2):165–81. doi:10.1023/A:102400810.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potter, J., and A. Hepburn. 2003. “I’m a bit concerned” - Early actions and psychological constructions in a child protection helpline. Research on Language & Social Interaction 36 (3):197–240. doi:10.1207/S15327973RLSI3603_01.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potter, J., and A. Hepburn. 2005a. Discursive psychology as a qualitative approach for analysing interaction in medical settings. Medical Education 39 (3):338–44. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02099.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potter, J., and A. Hepburn. 2005b. Qualitative interviews in psychology: Problems and possibilities. Qualitative Research in Psychology 2 (4):281–307. doi:10.1191/1478088705qp045oa.
   Google Scholar
• Potter, J., and A. Hepburn. 2012. Eight challenges for interview researchers. In Handbook of interview research: Context & method, ed. J. F. Gubrium and J. A. Holstein, 555–70. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Potter, J., and A. Hepburn. 2020. Shaming interrogatives: Admonishments, the social psychology of emotion, and discursive practices of behaviour modification in family mealtimes. British Journal of Social Psychology. doi:10.1111/bjso.12346.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potter, J., and M. Wetherell. 1987. Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Potter, J., and M. Wetherell. 1988. Accomplishing attitudes: Fact and evaluation in racist discourse. Text 8 (1–2):52–68. doi:10.1515/text.1.1988.8.1-2.51.
   Google Scholar
• Puchta, C., and J. Potter. 2004. Focus group practice. London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Roulston, K. 2001. Data analysis and ‘theorizing as ideology’. Qualitative Research 1 (3):279–302. doi:10.1177/146879410100100302.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. 1984. Notes on methodology. In Structures of social action. Studies in conversation analysis, ed. M. J. Atkinson and J. Heritage, 21–27. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. 1997. Whose text? Whose context? Discourse & Society 8 (2):165–87. doi:10.1177/0957926597008002002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. 1999a. Naivete vs. sophistication or discipline vs. self-indulgence: A rejoinder to Billig. Discourse & Society 10 (4):577–82. doi:10.1177/0957926599010004008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. 1999b. Schegloff’s texts as “Billig’s data”: A critical reply. Discourse & Society 10 (4):558–72. doi:10.1177/0957926599010004006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction, vol. 1. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Speer, S. A., and I. Hutchby. 2003. Methodology needs analytics: A rejoinder to Martyn Hammersley. Sociology 37 (2):353–59. doi:10.1177/0038038503037002008.
   Google Scholar
• Speer, S. A., and E. Stokoe. 2014. Ethics in action: Consent-gaining interactions and implications for research practice. British Journal of Social Psychology 53 (1):54–73. doi:10.1111/bjso.12009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stokoe, E. 2009. Doing actions with identity categories: Complaints and denials in neighbor disputes. Text & Talk 29 (1):75–97. doi:10.1515/TEXT.2009.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stokoe, E. 2010. ‘I’m not gonna hit a lady’: Conversation analysis, membership categorization and men’s denials of violence towards women. Discourse & Society 21 (1):59–82. doi:10.1177/0957926509345072.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stokoe, E. 2018. Talk: The science of conversation. London, UK: Little, Brown.
   Google Scholar
• Stokoe, E. 2020. Psychological matters in institutional interaction: Insights and interventions from discursive psychology and conversation analysis. Qualitative Psychology vol 7.
   Google Scholar
• Stokoe, E., A. Hepburn, and C. Antaki. 2012. Beware the “Loughborough School” of social psychology? Interaction and the politics of intervention. British Journal of Social Psychology 51 (3):486–96. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02088.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stokoe, E., R. O. Sikveland, and B. Humă. 2017. Entering the customer’s domestic domain: Categorial systematics and the identification of ‘parties to a sale’. Journal of Pragmatics 118:64–80. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2017.05.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tennent, E., and A. Weatherall. 2019. Disclosing violence in calls for help. Gender and Language 13 (2):270–88. doi:10.1558/genl.35106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tileagă, C., and E. Stokoe. 2016. Introduction. In Discursive psychology. Classic and contemporary issues, ed. C. Tileagă and E. Stokoe, (pp. 1–11). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• van Dijk, T. A. 1987. Communicating racism: Ethnic prejudice in thought and talk. London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Wetherell, M. 1998. Positioning and interpretative repertoires: Conversation analysis and post-structuralism in dialogue. Discourse & Society 9 (3):387–412. doi:10.1177/0957926598009003005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitehead, K. A., and G. H. Lerner. 2009. When are persons “white”?: On some practical asymmetries of racial reference in talk-in-interaction. Discourse & Society 20 (5):613–41. doi:10.1177/0957926509106413.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiggins, S. 2017. Discursive psychology. Theory, method and applications. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Wiggins, S., and A. Hepburn. 2007. Food abuse: Mealtimes, helplines and “troubled” eating. In Discursive research in practice: New approaches to psychology and interaction, ed. A. Hepburn and S. Wiggins, 263–80. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wiggins, S., and J. Potter. 2003. Attitudes and evaluative practices: Category vs. item and subjective vs. objective constructions in everyday food assessments. British Journal of Social Psychology 42 (4):513–31. doi:10.1348/014466603322595257.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wiggins, S., and J. Potter. 2007. Discursive psychology. In The Sage handbook of qualitative research in psychology, ed. C. Willig and W. Stainton Rogers, 73–90. London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Wooffitt, R. 1992. Telling tales of the unexpected: The organisation of a factual discourse. Hemel Hempstead, UK: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar