Table 1. A Comparison of Discourse Analysis (DA) and Conversation Analysis (CA).
|
|
DA |
CA |
Similarities |
1. Talk as a topic for analysis |
Examine discourse as a topic in its own right, not as a reflection of wider structural conditions. |
|
2. Attention to the properties of data |
Data-driven research questions, not theory driven |
||
3. The influence of Ethnomethodology |
Mainly by Harold Garfinkel and Erving Goffman |
||
4. Accusations of triviality |
Both are accused of dealing with the trivial and adding little to existing knowledge. |
||
Differences |
1. Influence |
From various disciplines: Ethnomethodology, sociolinguistics, structuralism, speech act theory |
Mainly from Harvey SacksÕs unique way of doing research |
2. Concern |
Action orientation (i.e., accounts in talk and texts) |
Actions (i.e., interaction) |
|
3. Terminology |
Few |
Many technical terms |
|
4. Demonstrate |
Rhetorical force |
Turn design |
|
5. Data kind |
Verbal and visual (text) |
Verbal interaction |
|
6. Data source |
Disputes or controversial events |
Mundane and routine |
|
7. Transcription |
Less detail |
Very detail |
|
8. Analysis |
Repeatable & consistent analysis |
Formal procedure (e.g., next turn proof procedure) |
|
Finding Examples |
á Critical thinking about psychological phenomena á Interpretative Repertoires á Footing á
Corroboration á Contrast á Vivid description á Extreme case formulation |
á IRE, ICR, IRCR á Preference Organization á Formulation á Adjacent pair á Sequential relevance (Embedded pair) á Repair á Turn-taking model (Who is the next turn speaker?) |
Roth, W.-M. (2005). Doing
qualitative research: Praxis of methods. Rotterdam: Sense.
Wooffitt,
R. (2005). Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: A comparative and
critical introduction. London: Sage.
Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. London: Sage.
Atkinson, J. M, & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1984). Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.