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.