Kitzinger’s Feminist Conversation Analysis: Critical Observations

被引:0
作者
Maria T. Wowk
机构
[1] Manchester Metropolitan University,Department of Sociology
来源
Human Studies | 2007年 / 30卷
关键词
Conversation analysis; Ethnomethodology; Feminism; Incommensurability; Supplementation;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
This paper contributes to ongoing discussions on feminism and the analysis of discourse. In particular, I examine Celia Kitzinger’s [(2000), Doing feminist conversation analysis. Feminism and Psychology, 10, 163–193 and (2002) Doing feminist conversation analysis. In P. McIlvenny (Ed.), Talking gender and sexuality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.] claims to be engaged in “feminist conversation analysis.” This paper identifies susceptibilities in her arguments at both the theoretical level and the level of data analysis. My argument is that Kitzinger fails to appreciate the fact that her enterprise is basically a formal analytic one and that as such it is both radically different from, and incommensurate with, ethnomethodology (EM) and conversation analysis (CA). Indeed her attempts to supplement feminism with EM/CA are unnecessary and counterproductive from an EM/CA position insofar as they crucially undermine its integrity.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 40 条
[11]  
Hester S.(2005)Speaking as a lesbian: Correcting the heterosexist presumption Research on Language and Social Interaction 38 371-416
[12]  
Francis D.(1994)Harvey Sacks’ primitive natural science Theory, Culture & Society 11 65-104
[13]  
Kitzinger C.(1978)The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom Language in Society 7 183-213
[14]  
Kitzinger C.(1978)Structuring School Structure Harvard Educational Review 48 32-64
[15]  
Kitzinger C.(1960)The english record of a natural sociology American Sociological Review 25 193-208
[16]  
Land V.(1999)Wild phenomena and disability jokes Body and Society 5 61-65
[17]  
Kitzinger C.(1974)A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation Language 50 696-735
[18]  
Lynch M.(1997)Whose text? Whose context? Discourse and Society 8 165-187
[19]  
Bogen D.(1998)Reply to Wetherell Discourse and Society 9 413-416
[20]  
McHoul A.(2003)Dissolving the projection problem Visual Studies 18 74-82