Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T23:44:39.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - Conversation Analysis and Ethnomethodology: Identity at Stake in a Kinship Carers’ Support Group

from Part III - Methodological Approaches

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2021

By
Julie Wilkes  and
Susan A. Speer
Edited by
Michael Bamberg ,
Carolin Demuth  and
Meike Watzlawik
Michael Bamberg
Affiliation:
Clark University, Massachusetts
Carolin Demuth
Affiliation:
Aalborg University, Denmark
Meike Watzlawik
Affiliation:
Sigmund Freud University, Berlin
Get access

Summary

Conversation analysis (CA) is an empirical approach to the study of social life that takes interaction in context as its primary focus. For CA, identity is something that people actively use, make reference to, and put to work, in order to bring about a social action or outcome. CA has been used in the study of gender identities, race, family roles, youth subgroups, and chatrooms, in mainstream media interaction, in studies of institutional exchanges such as in education, healthcare, advice and legal settings, and in sales environments, both online and face to face. To see what and how identities are achieved, CA explores sequences of embodied interaction, the primary source of data, carefully recorded and transcribed, so that we can identify patterns, including in how people bring off and attribute certain characteristics to their own and others’ membership of particular identity categories. In this chapter we provide a brief survey of the development of an ethnomethodological and conversation analytic approach to identity. We offer an example of a conversation-analytic procedure, looking at how kinship carers handle matters of family identity in a support group environment. We demonstrate how kinship carers interactively establish recognizable attributes and features of a common and valid identity in their complaints about the actions and dispositions of absent third parties. We end by considering how an ethnomethodological CA approach contributes to identity research, its limitations and its future directions.

Keywords

Conversation analysisethnomethodologyidentitykinship caresupport groups
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Identity , pp. 262 - 284
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adelswärd, V. & Nilholm, C. (2000). Who is Cindy? Aspects of identity work in a teacher–parent-pupil talk at a special school. Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 20(4), 545–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreouli, E. (2010). Identity, positioning and self–other relations. Papers on Social Representations, 19(1), 14.1–14.13.Google Scholar
Antaki, C. (1988). Analysing Everyday Explanation: A Casebook of Methods. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Antaki, C. (Ed.). (2011). Applied Conversation Analysis: Intervention and Change in Institutional Talk. London: Springer.Google Scholar
Antaki, C. & Widdicombe, S. (Eds.). (1998). Identities in Talk. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1984). Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Atkinson, P. (1988). Ethnomethodology: A critical review. Annual Review of Sociology, 14(1), 441–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Backhouse, J. & Graham, A. (2012). Grandparents raising grandchildren: Negotiating the complexities of role identity conflict. Child & Family Social Work, 17(3), 306–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benwell, B. & Stokoe, E. (2006). Discourse and Identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benwell, B. & Stokoe, E. (2016). Ethnomethodological and conversation analytic approaches to identity. In Preece, S. (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Language and Identity (pp. 92–108). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Billig, M. (2001). Discursive, rhetorical and ideological messages. In Wetherell, M., Taylor, S., & Yates, S. J. (Eds.), Discourse Theory and Practice: A Reader (pp. 201–221). London: Open University.Google Scholar
Burke, P. J. (1980). The self: Measurement requirements from an interactive perspective. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, 18–29.Google Scholar
Burke, P. J. (1991). Identity processes and social stress. American Psychological Review, 56, 836–849.Google Scholar
Burke, P. J. & Reitzes, D. C. (1981). The link between identity and role performance. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44(2), 83–92.Google Scholar
Butler, C. W., Danby, S., Emmison, M., & Thorpe, K. (2009). Managing medical advice seeking in calls to Child Health Line. Sociology of Health & Illness, 31(6), 817–834.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butler, C. W. & Fitzgerald, R. (2010). Membership-in-action: Operative identities in a family meal. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(9), 2462–2474.Google Scholar
Butler, C. W. & Wilkinson, R. (2013). Mobilising recipiency: Child participation and ‘rights to speak’ in multi-party family interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 50(1), 37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buttny, R. (1996). Clients’ and therapist’s joint construction of the clients’ problems. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29(2), 125–153.Google Scholar
Clayman, S. E. (2010). Address terms in the service of other actions: The case of news interview talk. Discourse & Communication, 4(2), 161–183.Google Scholar
Coupland, N., Coupland, J., & Giles, H. (1989). Telling age in later life: Identity and face implications. Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 9(2), 129–152.Google Scholar
Craven, A. & Potter, J. (2010). Directives: Entitlement and contingency in action. Discourse Studies, 12(4), 419–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curl, T. S. & Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(2), 129–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danby, S. J. & Emmison, M. (2014). Kids, counselors and troubles-telling: Morality-in-action in talk on an Australian children’s helpline. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 9(2), 263–285.Google Scholar
De Stefani, E. & Mondada, L. (2014). Reorganizing mobile formations: When “guided” participants initiate reorientations in guided tours. Space and Culture, 17(2), 157–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denby, R. W. (2012). Parental incarceration and kinship care: Caregiver experiences, child well-being, and permanency intentions. Social Work in Public Health, 27(1–2), 104–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Denby, R. W., Brinson, J. A., Cross, C. L., & Bowmer, A. (2015). Culture and coping: Kinship caregivers’ experiences with stress and strain and the relationship to child well-being. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 32(5), 465–479.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (1998). Complaints about transgressions and misconduct. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 31(3–4), 295–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, P. (2002). Out of context: An intersection between domestic life and the workplace, as contexts for (business) talk. Language & Communication, 22(4), 477–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (1992). Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Edwards, D. (1997). Discourse and Cognition. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Edwards, D. & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive Psychology, Vol. 8. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Edwards, D. & Potter, J. (2005). Discursive psychology, mental states and descriptions. In Te Molder, H. & Potter, J. (Eds.), Conversation and Cognition (pp. 241–259). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J. (2013). Reference in conversation. In Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 433–454). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. & Stivers, T. (Eds.). (2007). Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives, Vol. 7. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J., Stivers, T., Brown, P., Englert, C., Harjunpää, K., Hayashi, M., & Raymond, C. W. (2019). Polar answers. Journal of Linguistics, 55(2), 277–304.Google Scholar
Erikson, E. H. (l968). Identity: Youth and Crisis. New York, NY: Norton.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Fasulo, A., Loyd, H., & Padiglione, V. (2007). Children’s socialization into cleaning practices: A cross-cultural perspective. Discourse & Society, 18(1), 11–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzgerald, R. & Housley, W. (Eds.). (2015). Advances in Membership Categorisation Analysis. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Francis, D. & Hester, S. (2004). An Invitation to Ethnomethodology: Language, Society and Interaction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Gardner, R. (2013). Conversation analysis in the classroom. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T. (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 433–454). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, E. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1993). Sociology, 2nd Ed. London: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Giles, D. (2016). Observing real-world groups in the virtual field: The analysis of online discussion. British Journal of Social Psychology, 55(3), 484–498.Google Scholar
Giles, D., Stommel, W., Paulus, T., Lester, J., & Reed, D. (2015). Microanalysis of online data: The methodological development of “digital CA.” Discourse, Context & Media, 7, 45–51.Google Scholar
Gill, V. T. & Roberts, F. (2013). Conversation analysis in medicine. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T. (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 433–454). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Goodwin, M. H. & Cekaite, A. (2013). Calibration in directive/response sequences in family interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 122–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, M. H. & Cekaite, A. (2018). Embodied Family Choreography: Practices of Control, Care, and Mundane Creativity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hayano, K. (2013). Question design in conversation. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T. (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 395–414). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heath, C. (2011). Embodied action: Video and the analysis of social interaction. In Silverman, D. (Ed.), Qualitative Research (pp. 266–282). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1987). Ethnomethodology. In Giddens, A. (Ed.), Social Theory Today (pp. 224–272). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1988). Explanations as accounts: A conversation analytic perspective. In Antaki, C. (Ed.), Understanding Everyday Explanation: A Casebook of Methods (pp. 127–144). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2001). Goffman, Garfinkel and conversation analysis. In Wetherell, M., Taylor, S. & Yates, S. J. (Eds.), Discourse Theory and Practice: A Reader (pp. 47–56). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2015). Well-prefaced turns in English conversation: A conversation analytic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 88, 88–104.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2018). Turn-initial particles in English: The cases of oh and well. In Heritage, J. & Sorjonen, M. L. (Eds.), Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-Initial Particles across Languages (pp. 155–192). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hillman, J. L. & Anderson, C. M. (2019). It’s a battle and a blessing: The experience and needs of custodial grandparents of children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49(1), 260–269.Google Scholar
Hirshorn, B. A. (1998). Grandparents as caregivers. In Sinovac, T. (Ed.), Handbook on Grandparenthood (pp. 200–214). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Hollway, W. (1989). Subjectivity and Method in Psychology: Gender, Meaning and Science. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Hogg, M. A. (2018). Social Identity Theory. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Humă, B. (2015). Enhancing the authenticity of assessments through grounding in first impressions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54(3), 405–424.Google Scholar
Hunt, J. (2018). Grandparents as substitute parents in the UK. Contemporary Social Science, 13(2), 175–186.Google Scholar
Hutchby, I. (2013). Conversation and Technology: From the Telephone to the Internet. London: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Hutchby, I. & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation Analysis: Principles, Practices and Applications, 2nd Ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Jayyusi, L. (1984). Categorization and the Moral Order. Boston, MA: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. Pragmatics and Beyond New Series, 125, 13–34.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (2015). Talking about Troubles in Conversation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Keel, S. (2016). Socialization: Parent–Child Interaction in Everyday Life. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
King, A. (2016). Queer categories: Queer (y) ing the identification ‘older lesbian, gay and/or bisexual (LGB) adults’ and its implications for organizational research, policy and practice. Gender, Work & Organization, 23(1), 7–18.Google Scholar
Kitzinger, C. (2005). Heteronormativity in action: Reproducing the heterosexual nuclear family in after-hours medical calls. Social Problems, 52(4), 477–498.Google Scholar
Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on Moral Development: The Psychology of Moral Development, Vol. 2. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Komter, M. (2013). Conversation analysis in the courtroom. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T. (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 612–629). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lamerichs, J. & Stommel, W. (2018). Online talk about mental health. In Nussbaum, J. F. (Ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication, doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.273.Google Scholar
LeFebvre, L. E. & Rasner, R. D. (2017). Adaptations to traditional familial roles: Examining the challenges of grandmothers’ counterlife transitions. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 15(2), 104–124.Google Scholar
Lerner, G. H. & Kitzinger, C. (2007). Extraction and aggregation in the repair of individual and collective self-reference. Discourse Studies, 9(4), 526–557.Google Scholar
Llewellyn, N. (2015). “He probably thought we were students”: Age norms and the exercise of visual judgement in service work. Organization Studies, 36(2), 153–173.Google Scholar
Lynch, M. (1997). Scientific Practice and Ordinary Action: Ethnomethodology and Social Studies of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maynard, D. (2013). Everyone and no one to turn to: Intellectual roots and contexts for conversation analysis. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T. (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 11–31). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Maynard, D. & Clayman, S. (2003). Ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. In Albas, C., Adler, P., Albas, D., Altheide, D., & Clarke, E. (Eds.), Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism (pp. 173–202). Lanham, MD: Rowman.Google Scholar
McGhee, D., Moreh, C., & Vlachantoni, A. (2019). Stakeholder identities in Britain’s neoliberal ethical community: Polish narratives of earned citizenship in the context of the UK’s EU referendum. British Journal of Sociology, 70(4), 1104–1127.Google Scholar
McKinlay, A. & Dunnett, A. (1998). How gun-owners accomplish being deadly average. In Antaki, C. & Widdicombe, S. (Eds.), Identities in Talk (pp. 34–51). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Meredith, J. & Richardson, E. (2019). The use of the political categories of Brexiter and Remainer in online comments about the EU referendum. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 29, 43–55.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2013). The conversation analytic approach to data collection. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T. (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 32–56). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2016). Challenges of multimodality: Language and the body in social interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(3), 336–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (2018). Greetings as a device to find out and establish the language of service encounters in multilingual settings. Journal of Pragmatics, 126, 10–28.Google Scholar
Nixon, C., Elliott, L., & Henderson, M. (2019). Providing sex and relationships education for looked-after children: A qualitative exploration of how personal and institutional factors promote or limit the experience of role ambiguity, conflict and overload among caregivers. British Medical Journal Open, 9(4), e025075.Google Scholar
Nguyen, H. T. & Nguyen, M. T. T. (2017). “Am I a good boy?”: Explicit membership categorization in parent–child interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 121, 25–39.Google Scholar
Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & Turner, J. C. (1994). Stereotyping and Social Reality. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Parry, R. H. & Land, V. (2013). Systematically reviewing and synthesizing evidence from conversation analytic and related discursive research to inform healthcare communication practice and policy: An illustrated guide. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13(1), 69–82.Google Scholar
Parsons, T. (1937). The Structure of Social Action. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Peräkylä, A. (2011). Validity in research on naturally occurring social interaction. In: Silverman, D. (Ed.), Qualitative Research, 3rd Ed. (pp. 264–382). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Peräkylä, A. (2013). CA in psychotherapy. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T. (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 551–574). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pillet-Shore, D. (2015). Being a “good parent” in parent–teacher conferences. Journal of Communication, 65(2), 373–395.Google Scholar
Pillet-Shore, D. (2016). Criticizing another’s child: How teachers evaluate students during parent–teacher conferences. Language in Society, 45(1), 33–58.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1989). Introduction to the section (The Dan Rather/George Bush episode on CBS News). Research on Language and Social Interaction, 22(1), 213–326.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. & Fehr, B. J. (2011). Conversation analysis: An approach to the analysis of social interaction. In Van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.), Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction (pp. 165–190). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Potter, J. & Edwards, D. (2012). Conversation analysis and psychology. In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 701–725). London: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Potter, J. & Hepburn, A. (2020). Shaming interrogatives: Admonishments, the social psychology of emotion, and discursive practices of behaviour modification in family mealtimes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 59(2), 347–364.Google Scholar
Raymond, C. W. (2019). Category accounts: Identity and normativity in sequences of action. Language in Society, 48(4), 585–606.Google Scholar
Raymond, G. & Heritage, J. (2006). The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society, 35(5), 677–705.Google Scholar
Robles, J. S., DiDomenico, S., & Raclaw, J. (2018). Doing being an ordinary technology and social media user. Language & Communication, 60, 150–167.Google Scholar
Robles, J. S. & Parks, E. S. (2019). Complaints about technology as a resource for identity-work. Language in Society, 48(2), 209–231.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1972). On the analysability of stories by children. In Hymes, D. & Gumperz, J. J. (Eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication (pp. 35–39). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1979). Hotrodder: A revolutionary category. In Psathas, G. (Ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology (pp. 7–12). New York, NY: Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1984). Notes on methodology. In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 21–27). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation, 2 vols. (Fall 1964–Spring 1972). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In Psathas, G. (Ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology (pp. 15–21). New York, NY: Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar
Sametband, I. & Strong, T. (2018). Immigrant family members negotiating preferred cultural identities in family therapy conversations: A discursive analysis. Journal of Family Therapy, 40(2), 201–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, D. & Hertlein, K. (2015). The experience of grandparents raising grandchildren. Grandfamilies: The Contemporary Journal of Research, Practice and Policy, 2(1), article 4.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70(6), 1075–1095.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1988). From interview to confrontation: Observations of the Bush/Rather encounter. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 22(89), 215–240.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Introduction. In Jefferson, G. (Ed.), Harvey Sacks, Lectures on Conversation (Fall 1964–Spring 1968), Vol. 1 (pp. ix–xii). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: A partial sketch of a systematics. In Fox, B. (Ed.), Studies in Anaphora (pp. 437–485). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). A tutorial on membership categorization. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 462–482.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289–327.Google Scholar
Selwyn, J. & Nandy, S. (2014). Kinship care in the UK: Using census data to estimate the extent of formal and informal care by relatives. Child & Family Social Work, 19(1), 44–54.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2013). Basic conversation analytic methods. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T. (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 77–99). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T. (2013). Introduction. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T. (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 1–8). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Silverman, D. (1998). Harvey Sacks: Social Science and Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Speer, S. A. (2005). Gender Talk: Feminism, Discourse and Conversation Analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Speer, S. A. (2012). The interactional organization of self-praise: Epistemics, preference organization, and implications for identity research. Social Psychology Quarterly, 75(1), 52–79.Google Scholar
Speer, S. A. (2017). Flirting: A designedly ambiguous action? Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50(2), 128–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speer, S. A. (2019). Reconsidering self‐deprecation as a communication practice. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58(4), 806–828.Google Scholar
Speer, S. A. & Stokoe, E. (Eds.). (2011). Conversation and Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sterponi, L. A. (2003). Account episodes in family discourse: The making of morality in everyday interaction. Discourse Studies, 5(1), 79–100.Google Scholar
Stevanovic, M. (2013). Deontic rights in interaction: A conversation analytic study on authority and cooperation. Doctoral thesis, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Stevanovic, M. & Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45, 297–321.Google Scholar
Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41, 31–57.Google Scholar
Stokoe, E. (2018). Talk: The Science of Conversation. London: Robinson.Google Scholar
Stokoe, E. & Edwards, D. (2015). Mundane morality: Gender, categories and complaints in familial neighbour disputes. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 9(2), 165–192.Google Scholar
Stokoe, E., Hepburn, A., & Antaki, C. (2012). Beware the “Loughborough school” of social psychology? Interaction and the politics of intervention. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51(3), 486–496.Google Scholar
Stokoe, E., Sikveland, R. O., & Humă, B. (2017). Entering the customer’s domestic domain: Categorial systematics and the identification of “parties to a sale.” Journal of Pragmatics, 118, 64–80.Google Scholar
Stryker, S. (1968). Identity salience and role performance. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 30, 558–564.Google Scholar
ten Have, P. (2004). Understanding Qualitative Research and Ethnomethodology. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Tracy, K. (2002). Everyday Talk: Building and Reflecting Identities. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Tseliou, E. (2018). Conversation analysis, discourse analysis and psychotherapy research: Overview and methodological potential. In Smoliak, O. & Strong, T. (Eds.), Therapy as Discourse: Practice and Research (pp. 163–186). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vis, S. A., Handegård, B. H., Holtan, A., Fossum, S., & Thørnblad, R. (2016). Social functioning and mental health among children who have been living in kinship and non-kinship foster care: Results from an 8-year follow-up with a Norwegian sample. Child & Family Social Work, 21(4), 557–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weatherall, A. (2000). Gender relevance in talk-in-interaction and discourse. Discourse & Society, 11(2), 286–288.Google Scholar
Wetherell, M. (1998). Positioning and interpretative repertoires: Conversation analysis and post-structuralism in dialogue. Discourse & Society, 9(3), 387–412.Google Scholar
Whitehead, K. A. (2019). Using ethnomethodology and conversation analysis to study social categories: The case of racial categories in South African radio talk. In Laher, S., Fynn, A., & Kramer, S. (Eds.), Transforming Research Methods in the Social Sciences: Case Studies from South Africa (pp. 251–264). Johannesburg: Wits University Press.Google Scholar
Widdicombe, S. (1995). Identity, politics and talk: A case for the mundane and the everyday. In Wilkinson, S. & Kitzinger, C. (Eds.), Feminism and Discourse: Psychological Perspectives, Vol. 9 (pp. 106–127). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Widdicombe, S. (2015). “Just like the fact that I’m Syrian like you are Scottish”: Ascribing interviewer identities as a resource in cross-cultural interaction. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54(2), 255–272.Google Scholar
Widdicombe, S. (2017). The delicate business of identity. Discourse Studies, 19(4), 460–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widdicombe, S. & Wooffitt, R. (1995). The Language of Youth Subcultures: Social Identity in Action. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Williams, R. (2000). Making Identity Matter: Identity, Society and Social Interaction. Durham: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
Wilkes, J., & Speer, S. A. (2021a). Reporting Microaggressions: Kinship Carers’ Complaints about Identity Slights. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 40(3), 303–327.Google Scholar
Wilkes, J., & Speer, S. A. (2021b). ‘Child’s time’: Kinship carers’ use of time reference to construct parental identities. Journal of Pragmatics, 175, 14–26.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. B. & Chipungu, S. S. (1996). Introduction: Special issue on kinship care. Child Welfare, 75(5), 387–395.Google Scholar
Winokur, M. A., Holtan, A., & Batchelder, K. E. (2018). Systematic review of kinship care effects on safety, permanency, and well-being outcomes. Research on Social Work Practice, 28(1), 19–32.Google Scholar
Wooffitt, R. (1990). On the analysis of interaction: An introduction to conversation analysis. In Luff, P., Gilbert, N & Frohlich, D. (Eds.), Computers and Conversation (pp. 7–38). London: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, R. F. & Kahana, E. (1989). Specifying caregiver outcomes: Gender and relationship aspects of caregiving strain. The Gerontologist, 29(5), 660–666.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×