How scientific is Conversation Analysis (CA)?

[MonDie]

I though this subject would be more fitting for a social-sciences/sociology category, but there is none.

 

Conversation Analysis is the study of the structure of verbal and non-verbal dialogue. According to the Wikipedia article, researchers analyse video-recorded dialogue.

I read that Noam Chomsky thought conversation was too disorganized for in-depth analysis.

 

http://en.wikipedia....sation_analysis

The idea of people "enlist[ing] various mechanisms to obtain turns" sounds interesting.

As always, I would appreciate book recommendations, although I'm not willing to spend much.

Edited May 6, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[ccdan]

It's not scientific at all. Science uses the scientific method, verifiable evidence and some pretty clear and rigid rules in order to repeatedly test and confirm or reject various hypotheses. That kind of stuff has nothing to do with the scientific approach.

[MonDie]

What do you mean by "that kind of stuff?" Do you know anything about how the researchers usually conduct their experiments and what results they've gotten?

My suspicion is that you are dismissing it as unscientific only because you have never read about it in any science literature.

Edited May 12, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[Phi for All]

According to the Wikipedia article, researchers analyse video-recorded dialogue.

Also according to your article:

 

In contrast to the theory developed by John Gumperz, CA maintains it is possible to analyze talk-in-interaction by examining its recordings alone (audio for telephone, video for copresent interaction). CA researchers do not believe that the researcher needs to consult with the talk participants or members of their speech community.

I've seen some very experienced businesspeople on the phone and I can tell you it would be difficult to properly analyze their conversations from audio recordings alone. And how do you maintain the integrity of any analysis without consulting with those practicing within it? That's not a condemnation, it just seems counter-intuitive to me.

[MonDie]

I think I made a mistake. It's not considered an area of research as much as a method of research. Considering that it, itself, is a particular method of research, it probably has some scientific merit. Some pseudosciences hide their shortcomings by failing to set forth rules on research.

 

It appears to be part of academia within sociolinguistics. http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/isbn/item6650114/Conversation%20Analysis/?site_locale=en_GB

 

I was looking for an inexpensive book on the subject, but I couldn't find one. However, I was interested in this because I wanted to understand human interaction better, not because I wanted to do research.

Edited May 13, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die