Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Conversation Analysis, Discursive Psychology and the Study of Ideology: A Response to Susan Speer

Conversation Analysis, Discursive Psychology and the Study of Ideology: A Response to Susan Speer 02_FAP11/1articles 4/1/01 2:48 pm Page 136 OBSERVATIONS & COMMENTARIES Conversation Analysis, Discursive Psychology and the Study of Ideology: A Response to Susan Speer Nigel EDLEY As many readers will no doubt anticipate, this short article and the paper to which it responds are just two turns in a much broader conversation between critical discourse analysts and conversation analysts about how to best study talk (cf. Schegloff, 1997, 1998, 1999a and b; Wetherell, 1998; Billig, 1999a and b – see also Kitzinger, 2000). It is perhaps inevitable that such a debate should emphasize the differences between these two analytic approaches, but it is also important to bear in mind that they share many things in common. Such a recog- nition is implicit in Susan Speer’s paper in that, compared with my and Margaret Wetherell’s discursive analysis of hegemonic masculinity (Wetherell and Edley, 1999), she offers ‘a more conversation analytic alternative’ (my emphasis). One of the main claims of the present paper is that there is even less of a difference between our approaches than Speer seems to imagine. More specifically, I will show that her work, like ours, reveals there to be some significant problems attending a fully conversation analytic http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Feminism & Psychology: An International Journal SAGE

Conversation Analysis, Discursive Psychology and the Study of Ideology: A Response to Susan Speer

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/conversation-analysis-discursive-psychology-and-the-study-of-ideology-pRT39Dm080

References (26)

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
Copyright © by SAGE Publications
ISSN
0959-3535
eISSN
1461-7161
DOI
10.1177/0959353501011001007
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

02_FAP11/1articles 4/1/01 2:48 pm Page 136 OBSERVATIONS & COMMENTARIES Conversation Analysis, Discursive Psychology and the Study of Ideology: A Response to Susan Speer Nigel EDLEY As many readers will no doubt anticipate, this short article and the paper to which it responds are just two turns in a much broader conversation between critical discourse analysts and conversation analysts about how to best study talk (cf. Schegloff, 1997, 1998, 1999a and b; Wetherell, 1998; Billig, 1999a and b – see also Kitzinger, 2000). It is perhaps inevitable that such a debate should emphasize the differences between these two analytic approaches, but it is also important to bear in mind that they share many things in common. Such a recog- nition is implicit in Susan Speer’s paper in that, compared with my and Margaret Wetherell’s discursive analysis of hegemonic masculinity (Wetherell and Edley, 1999), she offers ‘a more conversation analytic alternative’ (my emphasis). One of the main claims of the present paper is that there is even less of a difference between our approaches than Speer seems to imagine. More specifically, I will show that her work, like ours, reveals there to be some significant problems attending a fully conversation analytic

Journal

Feminism & Psychology: An International JournalSAGE

Published: Feb 1, 2001

There are no references for this article.