Oxymoronic and Sociologically Monstrous?¹Feminist Conversation Analysis

Abstract

The relatively recent surge of interest in feminist conversation analysis within the United Kingdom appears to have been met with a largely positive response. Proponents declare that they "know of no other approach which offers a more viable basis from which to drive social change" (Speer 2005, p. 192), and they envisage in conversation analysis (CA) "exciting possibilities for lesbian and feminist research" (Kitzinger 2000, p. 164). While debates continue about the relative merits of CA over other discursive approaches (e.g., critical discourse analysis; see Hammersley 2003), there has been relatively little published about this emergent, explicitly feminist variety of CA that does not portray the field in a favourable light (although see Wowk 2007 for a notable exception). This article adopts a more cautionary approach toward employing CA to further feminist aims and seeks instead to interrogate the theoretical underpinnings of CA and problematise its application in feminist praxis.

Authority in therapeutic interaction: A conversation analytic study

“…It offers a means of elucidating how phenomena (e.g., identity, blame, diagnosis) are constituted interactionally. Therefore, there is a social constructionist (Gergen, 2015) undercurrent to CA, although this has been debated (e.g., Speer, 2012; Whelan, 2012). Most CA studies of authority and collaboration have focused on postmodern, collaborative therapies (e.g., Couture & Sutherland, 2006; Sutherland & Strong, 2011), necessitating the study of authority in other approaches.…”

Feminist conversation analysis

“…One critique is that examining participants' orientations cannot speak to the socio-political, cultural, and historical contexts of gender and power (Whelan 2012). However, Schegloff (1997) argued that analysts who treat their concerns as more important than participants' are engaged in 'theoretical imperialism ' (p. 167).…”

“…However, 'feminist conversation analysis' was only coined at the turn of the century by Kitzinger (2000), who promoted it for feminist research. For some critics, conversation analysis' objective empirical approach is ill-fitted for investigations with a political, feminist stance (Speer 1999;Whelan 2012). Yet using conversation analysis need not preclude political views.…”