This chapter provides an overview of methods for data collection in Conversation Analysis and practical advice on collecting interactional data. We touch on several recurrent issues that researchers encounter in the process. These issues include accessing data; the use of existing data (including user-uploaded, like YouTube); navigating gatekeepers in accessing a setting; building trust with members of a setting; building ethnographic understanding of activities under examination; obtaining ethical approvals; protecting privacy of participants; methods and materials for informed consent (including with populations with diminished capacities); devising a recording schedule; deciding when/how often to record; selecting the right quantity and type of recording equipment; considerations of spatial and audio environments; the use of alternative technologies for recording; recording mediated interactions; procedures and check-lists for before recording; positioning and framing the camera; when to press record and when to press stop; navigating the presence of the researcher-recorder on site; and gathering supplementary documentation from the setting.

This chapter discusses best practices for conducting a conversation-analytic (CA) investigation into (discourse) particles (or discourse markers). Particles are ubiquitous in talk-in-interaction, making them an attractive research target. CA research into particles aims to elucidate their interactional deployment in the language under study and, more generally, to develop a deeper understanding of the infrastructure of social interaction. The chapter discusses conceptual underpinnings of the CA approach to analyzing particles: first, its orientation to social action; second, its emphasis on positionality (including the particle’s position in a turn, a sequence, a repair segment, and a conversation as a unit); and, third, its use of particular evidentiary procedures (such as the ‘next-turn proof procedure,’ positional deployment, distributional evidence, and deviant cases). The application of these principles is illustrated with two case studies: a semasiological study of the Russian particle nu and an onomasiological study of how courses of action are launched via so and oh prefaced turns. The chapter shows that, while fraught with challenges, a study of particles can lead to important and unexpected findings about social interaction.

This chapter describes and empirically illustrates an approach to analyzing categorial phenomena in talk-in-interaction, grounded in the distinctive conversation analytic practice of building and analyzing collections. We begin by outlining a core set of observations made by Harvey Sacks in implementing a shift from conventional social scientific treatments of categories (e.g., gender, race, sexuality, age) as analysts’ resources, to instead examining them as members’ resources. That is, instead of using categories to study the social world, Sacks’ approach introduced resources for seeing how participants in social interactions use and self-administer categories. We then present an analysis of a collection of openings of interactions from ordinary conversational and institutional settings, considering some ways in which participants explicitly and tacitly use and manage categories in the initial moments of these interactions. Using this analysis as an exemplar, we address a set of challenges and critiques associated with conversation analytic research on categories. We thereby describe how CA can provide an empirically rigorous means of examining the ‘mutually constitutive’ relationship between categories and other ‘generic’ interactional structures and practices – and thus for analyzing the situated (re)production of categories, from the most mundane to those most strongly associated with distributions of power and privilege.

The growing interest in Conversation Analysis (CA) from the wider academic world, and the use of CA in contexts beyond academia, is largely due to the effective communication of CA findings. This chapter focuses on how to effectively communicate CA findings to non-CA professionals, such as healthcare professionals, academics, teachers, the police, politicians, and beyond. When training professionals in CA findings, careful considerations need to be made to make our findings welcome, whilst at the same time preserving the detail and nuances of human interaction. Decisions about the selection and length of representative extracts, together with decisions about the central messages being conveyed, require careful consideration. Challenges and tensions can arise when making these decisions including, managing the issue of (a) the professionals’ expertise, (b) avoiding negative self- and other evaluations, (c) how to present the data without getting lost in the detail; and (d) addressing concerns about generalizability and quantification. This chapter will address these possible tensions and offer guidance and practical solutions regarding the decisions that are made to effectively train non-CA professionals.

What happens to submissions to a journal such as Research on Language and Social Interaction which publishes close, technically sophisticated analysis of interaction? What do its editors look for? We begin by explaining why submission might be desk-rejected: it might be simply unsuitable in topic or methodology for the journal, or it might be that it is somehow not quite up to standard. Methodologically sound work on a topic of interest to the EM/CA community will pass the first hurdle and be sent out for review by knowledgeable peers. Reviewers will report on the strength of the argument, the relation of the work to what is already known, and the quality of the analysis. Most papers at this stage will receive an encouraging invitation to revise and resubmit according to the reviewers’ comments and the editors’ recommendations. The revision, to pass the next stage, should be accompanied by a closely written, collegially written commentary on what the authors have done with the reviewers’ comments. The editors will scrutinize the revision and the covering letter very carefully; if all is well, then, with one last round of very minor tidying up, all is set for publication.

Conversation analysts in a range of disciplines have pointed to a relationship between Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. However, full descriptions of key elements of this relationship, and illustrations of how it matters in practical terms, are scarce. We specify ways in which the concerns and sensibility of Ethnomethodology (EM) can translate into the practice of Conversation Analysis (CA). Employing an EM sensibility involves attending to five major features of social interaction: how members of society co-produce social order, achieve social organization in their everyday lives, deploy concrete practices or methods of talk and embodied conduct, use commonsense knowledge, and operate in real-time, actual social interaction with its temporal dimensions. In specifying these features, our aim is to be descriptive, rather than prescriptive. Our goal is to appreciate how EM’s view of social phenomena—as actual, lived in real time, and member-produced—is fundamental to CA, and how EM’s theoretical insights and studies of commonsense and practice-assembled social events profoundly paved the way for CA. While integrating this EM backdrop, CA advanced the systematic analysis of concerted, real-time conduct-in-interaction. A concluding section of the chapter provides an illustration drawn from an internal medicine clinic, and involves doctor-patient interaction.

Making collections of conversational/interactional phenomena is a cornerstone of CA’s methodology. Our aim in CA research is to identify the practices through which speakers of a natural language conduct action in inter-action, the practices that enable speakers to engage in conduct that is meaningful to one another (the accountability-as-intelligibility of social conduct). The practices for talk-in-interaction are recurrent phenomena; they are to be found in recurrent patterns of talk – in recurrent sequential positions or environments, in recurrent sequence patterns, and in recurrent features of turn design such as linguistic format including morphosyntactic constructions. Whilst recurrence may not by itself be a sufficient condition for determining that an object or pattern constitutes a practice, it is a necessary condition. It is necessary to show that an object, pattern etc. works in a particular way systematically – and ‘systematically’ requires recurrence. Thus, the identification, the discovery or uncovering of practices in talk-in-interaction rests on building collections of cases of a phenomenon in order to find whether it is systematically associated with some recurrent pattern. In this chapter I describe the history of one such collection assembled by Gail Jefferson, a collection of apologies that served as the basis for several analyses and publications.

The investigation of singular practices and actions is the bedrock of Conversation Analysis (CA), yet it is not the only approach that CA research can take. This chapter poses a series of analytic questions designed to guide the analyst’s attention towards a complementary mode of analysis, one which takes as its object of study not a singular practice but rather a system of practices, alternative solutions to a recurrent problem of social organization. While this approach has been employed to greatest effect in research on generic organizations of interaction, the analytic techniques are themselves generic and applicable across domains of action. Rather than select a practice or action and ask what forms it can take or what environments it can inhabit, conversation analysts can instead select a problem, an exigency of social interaction, and ask how participants solve it. Alternative practices and actions naturally cluster around the organizational problems to which they serve as possible solutions, and it is this endogenous organization that CA research aims to document. The chapter sketches out and illustrates a range of analytic techniques that conversation analysts have employed in past research and can employ again to discover and investigate organizations of practice.

The goal of this chapter is to guide the reader interested in grammar in interaction through the entire research process, beginning with how to find a researchable phenomenon and culminating in how to reveal the larger significance of research findings on grammar. We focus primarily on grammatical phenomena that are morphosyntactic in nature but include discussion of how prosodic-phonetic and embodied practices can impact the exploration of morphosyntactic phenomena. We begin by addressing some of the multiple sources of inspiration for a new research project on grammar, including starting with an observation in the data, or with an observation from the linguistic literature, or with an observation from the CA/IL literature on a different language. We then explore how to delimit the phenomenon chosen and how to build a collection of pertinent instances. Finally, we turn to issues of analyzing the collection and constructing an argument, with a final discussion of how to probe the theoretical significance of grammatical findings. In conclusion, we note that because of its orderliness, grammar in general as well as language-specific grammatical practices contribute to establishing and maintaining the social order.

Since its inception, Conversation Analysis (CA) has been concerned both with the institution of social interaction and with how the work of institutions gets done through social interaction. Institutions – like medicine, law, or education – are central to the business of being human, making them of special interest to social scientists. Working with recordings of real interactions from a given institution, conversation analysts address three broad questions: (1) What makes this institution distinctive? (2) How does the institution function to meet its goals?

(3) How might we use our understanding to try to enhance the institution’s functioning? This chapter works through some key ways in which CA addresses questions (1) and (2) (see Barnes, this volume, re: question 3). Using the metaphor of an archeological dig, I suggest that the analytic process involves ‘digging down’ through four increasingly granular levels: (i) the overall structural organization of the interactions; (ii) activity ‘packages’; (iii) action sequences; and (iv) practices. I illustrate each level with worked examples from a study of UK neurology consultations. The chapter thus offers a wealth of practical tips drawn not only from the principles of CA, but from extensive experience of doing this kind of research.

While interaction cannot provide direct evidence for claims about interactants’ expectations, understandings, and reasoning, conversation analysts offer indirect evidence to substantiate claims about interactants’ sense-making processes and activities. This chapter focuses on the kinds of evidence that may be used to substantiate such claims. The chapter discusses the evidence used to support four sense-making claims that Pomerantz made in published papers: (1) participants orient to disagreeing as problematic; (2) participants orient to self-praise as improper or wrong; (3) participants orient to experiencing a referent as a necessary condition for being able to offer one’s own assessment of the referent; and (4) recipients of a report of an inappropriate or unpleasant event may turn their attention to identifying the actions of a person thought to be responsible for the event. Pomerantz assesses whether the evidence she offered for each claim stands up to scrutiny. In addition to discussing the kinds of evidence that may be used to substantiate claims involving sense-making processes, Pomerantz demonstrates that sense-making work is an essential part of interactional practices, she advocates that sense-making processes be included in CA studies of interaction, and she discusses how to describe cognitive matters without making claims that cannot be substantiated.

This chapter discusses different types of evidence that conversation analysts use to ground their claims about social action. We begin by reviewing the epistemological perspective of CA, which demands that evidence reflect participants’ orientations; as a critical part of understanding the terms ‘participant orientation’ and ‘relevance,’ here we also discuss two ways in which CA’s position and emphasis on them are commonly misunderstood. The bulk of this chapter then reviews and illustrates a range of types of participant-orientation evidence. We organize our presentation of types of evidence roughly by sequential position vis-à-vis the focal action about which the analyst is making claims, including evidence to be found in: (i) next-turn, (ii) same-turn (e.g., same-TCU self-repair, accounts), (iii) prior turn or sequence, (iv) third turn/position (e.g., repair after next turn, courses of action/activity), (v) fourth turn/position, and (vi) more distal positions. We also discuss other forms of evidence that are not necessarily defined by sequential position, including: (i) third-party conduct, (ii) reported conduct, (iii) deviant cases, and (iv) distributional evidence. We conclude by offering some brief reflections on bringing different types and positions of evidence together toward the construction of an argument.

This chapter describes ways to approach the phonetic analysis of talk-in-interaction. It starts off with a brief overview of some of the general issues. These include how we go about observing and transcribing. These are practices common to Conversation Analysis and phonetics, and the discussion aims to bridge different disciplinary norms. The chapter also presents a phonetically informed approach to analysing speech in data sessions. The main part of the chapter works through a short fragment of data line by line, showing how conversational data can be approached from a phonetic perspective while adopting a CA approach to analysis, and connecting the reader to wider concerns that have been addressed in the literature. The topics covered include sequential organisation, including turn beginnings and ends; speech timing across turns, including an illustration of rhythmicity; discussion of intonation and its functions in conversation; the relationship between phonetic design and social action; ways of building a collection of examples for analysis.