Edward Reynolds
I study social interaction in its many forms.
I'm currently engaged in two research projects, one looking at consultations with Nurse Practitioners in Australia with Shannon Clark. I'm also engaged as an assistant on a review of the ACT's harm minimization program delivering Naloxone to injecting drug users.
My dissertation was looking at a form of 'enticing' trap questions that depart from the normal trajectory of argument talk using 'obvious' questions to maneuver an opponent into a position where they can be challenged based on inconsistent or incompatible categories.
My previous research was on lying, using conversation analysis to investigate data from unscripted television shows.
I also maintain the website for the Australian Institute of Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis http://aiemca.net/. As a part of this I have a youtube channel on which I host interviews with prominent academics in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. You can see the videos at www.youtube.com/aiemca/
Supervisors: Rod Gardner and Richard Fitzgerald
I'm currently engaged in two research projects, one looking at consultations with Nurse Practitioners in Australia with Shannon Clark. I'm also engaged as an assistant on a review of the ACT's harm minimization program delivering Naloxone to injecting drug users.
My dissertation was looking at a form of 'enticing' trap questions that depart from the normal trajectory of argument talk using 'obvious' questions to maneuver an opponent into a position where they can be challenged based on inconsistent or incompatible categories.
My previous research was on lying, using conversation analysis to investigate data from unscripted television shows.
I also maintain the website for the Australian Institute of Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis http://aiemca.net/. As a part of this I have a youtube channel on which I host interviews with prominent academics in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. You can see the videos at www.youtube.com/aiemca/
Supervisors: Rod Gardner and Richard Fitzgerald
less
InterestsView All (34)
Uploads
1992b). These three different relationships between category features and categories/membership devices are explored through an analysis of the operation of the practice of ‘enticing a challengeable’ (Reynolds, 2013). This term refers to an adversarial method of enacting a strategic manipulation of social knowledge (often using categories and category ties) as a basis for later challenging an opponent’s normativity (again,
using norms related to a membership device). This chapter uses the description of these three different forms of relationship between category features and categories/devices
to develop the argument that a new level of technical sophistication in the labelling of phenomena is now possible in MCA.
This chapter has been collaboratively written by members of a special interest research group, the Transcript Analysis Group (TAG), who meet regularly to examine transcripts representing audio- and video-recorded interactional data. Here, we investigate our own actual interactional practices and participation in this group where each member is both analyst and participant. We particularly focus on the pedagogic practices enacted in the group through investigating how members engage in the scholarly practice of data analysis. A key feature of talk within the data sessions is that members work collaboratively to identify and discuss ‘noticings’ from the audio-recorded and transcribed talk being examined, produce candidate analytic observations based on these discussions, and evaluate these observations. Our investigation of how talk constructs social practices in these sessions shows that participants move fluidly between actions that demonstrate pedagogic practices and expertise. Within any one session, members can display their expertise as analysts and, at the same time, display that they have gained an understanding that they did not have before.
We take an ethnomethodological position that asks, ‘what’s going on here?’ in the data analysis session. By observing the in situ practices in fine-grained detail, we show how members participate in the data analysis sessions and make sense of a transcript.
reveals how participants in conflict talk flexibly manage epistemic rights and the epistemic gradient as strategic resources for enacting social conflict.
1992b). These three different relationships between category features and categories/membership devices are explored through an analysis of the operation of the practice of ‘enticing a challengeable’ (Reynolds, 2013). This term refers to an adversarial method of enacting a strategic manipulation of social knowledge (often using categories and category ties) as a basis for later challenging an opponent’s normativity (again,
using norms related to a membership device). This chapter uses the description of these three different forms of relationship between category features and categories/devices
to develop the argument that a new level of technical sophistication in the labelling of phenomena is now possible in MCA.
This chapter has been collaboratively written by members of a special interest research group, the Transcript Analysis Group (TAG), who meet regularly to examine transcripts representing audio- and video-recorded interactional data. Here, we investigate our own actual interactional practices and participation in this group where each member is both analyst and participant. We particularly focus on the pedagogic practices enacted in the group through investigating how members engage in the scholarly practice of data analysis. A key feature of talk within the data sessions is that members work collaboratively to identify and discuss ‘noticings’ from the audio-recorded and transcribed talk being examined, produce candidate analytic observations based on these discussions, and evaluate these observations. Our investigation of how talk constructs social practices in these sessions shows that participants move fluidly between actions that demonstrate pedagogic practices and expertise. Within any one session, members can display their expertise as analysts and, at the same time, display that they have gained an understanding that they did not have before.
We take an ethnomethodological position that asks, ‘what’s going on here?’ in the data analysis session. By observing the in situ practices in fine-grained detail, we show how members participate in the data analysis sessions and make sense of a transcript.
reveals how participants in conflict talk flexibly manage epistemic rights and the epistemic gradient as strategic resources for enacting social conflict.