Language in qualitative research

Interest in CA is often sparked by wondering why something is said in a particular way, or why something might seem to be expressed in the same way in particular circumstances. From this point on, the analysis of conversation rests on a number of assumptions, listed by Heritage (1984, cited on page 527). The three basic assumptions of CA are that talk is structured by implicit rules, that speech “acts” are shaped within their specific context and that analysis is grounded in data. The researcher is, therefore, interested in the talk itself and its context and allows conclusions to be drawn only from the data, rather than from correspondence with a preset theory. Since it is qualitative in nature, CA is not concerned with the measurement or predictability of forms of talk in a quantitative way.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 526-527

Potter (1997, cited on page 532) argues that discourse analysts prefer not to make reference to “ethnographic particulars” in their analysis: this means that they focus on the “here-and-now” aspects of a situated encounter rather than the wider social context in which it occurs. However, Bryman (p533) suggests that discourse analysts are more likely to take external factors into account than conversation analysts, perhaps partly because the conversation can be understood in- and of-itself, whereas discourses in general may need help in the form of location and time, for example.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 532-533

The term “interpretative repertoires” coined by Potter and Wetherell (1994, cited on page 535) refers to the general resources (bodies of knowledge, linguistic styles, patterns of speech and so on) that people can draw upon to present certain versions of events. Gilbert & Mulkay’s (1984) study of scientists (shown in “Research in focus 22.5) revealed that they used different discourses and interpretative repertoires depending on the situation they were in and the audience to which their accounts were directed. The ‘interpretation’ is made so that we can determine the form of our discourse most likely to be acceptable in a particular set of circumstances.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 535-537

Whereas other methods of qualitative research (such as in-depth interviewing and focus groups) treat language as simply the medium through which we access data, CA and DA focus on the way language is used as a topic worthy of study in its own right. Although there are close linkages between CA and DA, CA focuses on spoken language in conversations and DA examines all other forms of language presentation, including transcripts of spoken language.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 526

Ethnomethodology is a study of the methods people use to create social meaning. The position is one of asserting that there is no objective reality of social facts. Instead, these are constructed continuously in ways that are taken for granted by people. “Indexicality” means that we can only understand actions through a consideration of their contexts, so in CA it stands for the way in which spoken words are rendered meaningful by the context in which they are uttered and the shared background knowledge that the conversationalists have. “Reflexivity” means that we understand actions as building blocks of the social world and not just as predicates of it. In CA, this means that talk is not seen to be a direct representation of a pre-existing social world but rather as constitutive of that world.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 526

A variety of notational symbols are used in CA to represent particular sounds or manners of speaking. The symbol “(.)” indicates a very slight pause, whereas “(0.8)” would suggest a longer pause of 0.8 seconds. Emphasis is shown by an underline and an intake of breath by “.hh”. These symbols are an integral part of the transcript, since it is the talk itself that is in focus and talk consists of pauses between words as well as the actual words used.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 528, Tips and skills

Discourse analysts vary in the extent to which they bracket out the influence of external factors or “ethnographic particulars” upon individual action. Some practitioners take an anti-realist approach and deny that these structures exist beyond the level of discourse, while others who adhere to critical realism suggest that we can study the way power relationships and other structural forces operate through instances of talk and interaction. ‘Critical’ discourse analysis tries to discover why some meanings are ‘privileged’ while others are ‘marginalised’, indicating that social ‘reality’ is what it is declared to be by some and accepted by others.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 542

One of the basic tools of CA is the identification of “adjacency pairs” in patterns of speech. This term refers to linked phases of conversation that typically occur together, such as a question and answer, or an invitation and acceptance. The identification of an “adjacency pair” in analysis can indicate shared acceptance of a speech convention, so lack of the ‘appropriate’ response can also be the subject of analysis.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 529

Ethnomethodologists and conversation analysts are interested in studying the way in which people “account” for behaviour that was unexpected or potentially threatening to the interaction order. If one person invites another to a party, for example, clearly the “preferred response” is acceptance. However, when the invitation is declined, a “dispreferred response”, the person invited will often go on to provide a set of reasons to justify their decision, which reassures the ‘inviter’ that their relationship is not in jeopardy. These responses indicate nothing at all about the motivations of the people involved, just their conversation patterns.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 529

Discourse analysis (DA) has a somewhat wider focus than CA, in that it considers all forms of written and oral communication that convey certain sets of ideas or bodies of knowledge. In particular, discourse analysts tend to study the way language is used to present one version of the world as superior to another, which can be seen as an exercise of power. As in CA, the discourse is seen as constituting social reality rather than simply commenting on it. This means that these words you are now reading are creating meaning as much as they are explaining something and that your research report is an integral part of the meaning constituted for the social objects of your research.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 531