Transitioning from conversation analysis to mixed methods

Abstract

This reflective piece tells the story of how I started out doing Conversation Analysis (CA) and have been transitioning into doing mixed methods for some years now. My basic argument is that language learning talk is too complex a phenomenon to analyse using a single methodology. Specifically, it is extremely difficult to isolate from the interaction concrete evidence of the learning of specific individual items in terms of change of cognitive state. This is owing to the singular complexity of language learning, which adds an extra level of complexity to language learning talk, hence supercomplexity. Of course, the counter-argument to this would be that CA as a methodology is designed to reveal the complexity and fluidity of spoken interaction. The complex organisation of ordinary conversation (Sacks et al., 1974) and of varieties of institutional interaction (Drew & Heritage, 1992) have been very well established for a very long time. CA has been extremely successful and popular as a methodology for the analysis of spoken interaction in a huge range of settings. There have been many CA studies of language learning talk over the last few decades, including my own. So why do I now feel that it cannot portray the full complexity of language learning talk on its own? There is an idiosyncratic problem with language learning talk, namely that it has an additional level of complexity superimposed on top of the regular problems of analysing spoken interaction. This is because language is the object as well as the vehicle of language learning talk.

Mapping Conversation Analysis Studies in the Arab World: Applications and Implications

“…Most studies have acknowledged the role of the CA methodology in understanding human interaction. Many studies employ CA as the only analysis method; however, Seedhouse [2022] encourages combining CA with other methodologies for in-depth analysis and novel implications.…”

“…Whatever the challenges, Arab researchers should pay attention to the fertile area of assessing language learning processes, EFL teaching practices, and social interaction via a CA lens. Researchers should remember the merits of combining CA with another methodology to achieve an in-depth understanding of the nature of human interaction [Seedhouse, 2022].…”

“…The details of natural interaction take into account the influence of context, culture, and other variables on human interaction. The field can be enriched if other analysis methods, such as quantitative methods, are implemented [Seedhouse, 2022]. The use of CA for understanding the two common strands of human interaction, namely socialization and language teaching and learning, has grown in popularity in the field of applied linguistics, particularly in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) contexts, and research has demonstrated encouraging outcomes [Richards & Seedhouse, 2005].…”