I've just joined this list, hoping to be introduced to qualitative data
analysis software. I' mlooking for some one in Italy that could train me on
this domain, because as Phd student (prof. bertolini, is the name of my head
professor) I still do my conversation analysis by paper and pencil!
BBut I share some problems with Georgina on transcription as a theory
oriented activity (see E. Ochs, "Transcription as a theory oriented
activity". In my own work (anlysis of interviews as a interactive phenomenon
of meaning joint construction), I choose to make a balance between
Conversationl Analysis conventions (that make the text unreadable and create
a rethorical illusion to grasp the orality!) and the hard work of editing of
sociological tradition (a readable text but too far from the original oral
one). I choose (and declared) to transcribe all that seems to make sense
from the participant point of view (reasearcher too, as interviewer) because
the analysist tried to adopt their same perspective: the one exhibeted in
and trough interaction. If I decide to show how participants make sense of
what they are talking about, I notice what they treat (discoursively) as
noticeable.. and so on..
On regard of hard facts, I just think that even this (a fact being hard or
brute) is something produced by discoursive strategies, participants show me
what they treat something as so by the way of: lessical choice,
contextualization cues, intonation contour, syntactical constructions.. it
depends..
Sometimes, transcribing all is a subtle way to decide a priori what counts
as relevant informations. for some interactants, rythm or pause are not
marked as significant. Why could they became relevant for the analyst?
LThese are just some remarks and doubts..
best wishes Letizia Caronia
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|