Guest Blog: A survey of CA craft skills

How do you handle your data? One big file? Hundreds of randomly-lableled files, in odd folders? Or a carefully curated, updated and catalogued easy-retrieval system? Sarah J White set out to find the answer from her fellow Twitter users….

Screen Shot 2018-06-14 at 09.58.29

Sarah J White, Macquarie University

A few weeks ago I started thinking about processes and tools in conversation analysis. This year I have embarked on my biggest CA project since my PhD, so I thought it was time for a refresh to ensure I am keeping up. There are many, many resources available on how to do CA (I even have a methods chapter coming out soon), but that actual processes used to document the analysis seem less well defined.

As conversation analysts on Twitter are quite active and have previously been super helpful, I decided to ask people who do CA a number of questions:

Screen Shot 2018-06-14 at 10.01.13

The responses were swift and demonstrated a range of practices. Here are just a couple of helpful replies, from Scott Barnes and Saul Albert:

Screen Shot 2018-06-14 at 10.09.31

The ROLSI editor, Charles Antaki,  saw what was going on and asked me to put the replies together for a guest blog for ROLSI. To augment that information, I put together a survey based on these responses and was surprised and delighted to receive 61 responses! In addition to asking about processes and about data storage, I also asked about length of CA career, for additional comments, and for recommendations for favourite methods texts. A copy of the survey data can be found in a Dropbox file here.

Screen Shot 2018-06-14 at 10.07.27

Tools for CA

Once people had got in touch,  I expanded the survey to ask these questions:

  • What do you use when creating initial notes?
  • What do you use when creating collections?
  • What do you use when managing collections?

Each of these included a selection of paper-based and digital processes, with both standard software and specialist software covered (and a free text other option). Respondents could choose more than one option.

Across the three questions, respondents selected a combination of processes or tools. The combinations varied and the survey instrument didn’t allow for a description of how the combinations are used.

  • For creating initial notes, the most common tools are: notes on transcripts (45/61), digital logbooks (39/61), and paper logbooks (21/61).
  • For creating collections, the most common tools are: text documents (38/61), digital folders (37/61), and spreadsheets (22/61). A concern was raised in the Twitter discussion about using spreadsheets and the potential for over-categorisation. This issue of “binning” was recently discussed at the Language and Interaction Reading Group at Macquarie University, particularly in relation to a recent Enfield and Sidnell paper, so it all felt quite connected for me!
  • For managing collections, the most common tools are: digital folders (37/61), text documents (30/61), and spreadsheets (23/61).

Check out the full survey data for more details, including tools identified by respondents such as shared documents for collaboration.

I was quite surprised that the most common tools used are fairly simple – software such as Word and Excel, digital folder systems, and paper notes. This is despite the availability of more specialist software. Are conversation analysts technophobes? Are we too cheap to buy software? Or are we focused on a simplified way of analysing and managing data, which is easily shareable between collaborators who use different systems, that doesn’t create unnecessary categories too early in the analytic process? I suspect the latter.

Data storage

In the Twitter thread, a few people started commenting on back-ups and the importance of storage, so I included a couple of questions relating to this:

  • Do you discard some of this information following publication? If so, what?
  • How do you back up data? (you can select more than one answer)

Very few respondents discarded information (6/61) and those that did only discarded initial notes or other information captured elsewhere, or if they were required to by the institution.

The most common back up methods was external hard drives (52/61), which leads me to remind people that these also have a limited lifespan, so make sure you have multiples and that you periodically replace them.

Favourite texts

There were a range of texts suggested, though ten Have’s Doing Conversation Analysis, and Stivers and Sidnell’s The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (especially Sidnell’s chapter on Basic Conversation Analytic Methods), received the most mentions. A number of other texts and course notes, particularly those from Manny Schegloff (to see Schegloff’s lectures, join ISCA and get access here), were also suggested a number of times.

Contributors’ final thoughts

Almost half of respondents also shared some other thoughts, mostly about the analytic process rather than the tools. These focused on the importance of the collaborative nature of CA, with the need for a community of practice and the ability to engage in data sessions.

There were also several comments about ensuring that collection building and technology doesn’t get in the way of good quality analysis, with which I wholeheartedly agree.  One particular correspondent seemed to sum up my own sentiments in engaging in this brief exploration:

The analytic process, whichever method you choose, has got to be organised. Whether using an online database, physical folders or spreadsheets and word documents, it has to be organised. There’s no pressure for everyone to be using the same standard method, and there may be good reason for different projects and different collections to use slightly different methods. […]. It’s worth putting in the work to set up a good way of managing your collection and analysis – it definitely pays off!

My final thoughts 

Finding a method that works for you is the most important thing. I’ve decided to go with a paper log book for my current project (for now). I have so much in digital format from other smaller projects as well as teaching that I can feel almost overwhelmed, so keeping all my initial notes in a paper book is somewhat comforting and I hope will help with my short term goals. I will, however digitise analytic notes as I go along to keep a more permanent record. I am also using Excel and NVivo to manage some of the data as I also have some surveys related to the project. And for now I am storing videos, transcripts, and clips in folders managed by interaction with notes on the spreadsheet to help me find clips so I can ensure all the data from one interaction is housed together. This is important for my data library as some participants agreed to allow their interactions to be used across multiple projects.

This Twitter discussion and survey has taught me how important it is to critique my own processes, to continue to upskill, and to embrace ideas from others in the way I approach analytic processes and documentation. It can be easy to get stuck in your ways. And for those wanting to ask questions, the Twitter #EMCA community is supportive, so don’t be scared to ask what you might consider a simple question.


Guest blog: When graduate students get together: EM/CA Doctoral Network, May 2018

Graduate students doing EM/CA work in places where there aren’t many others of like mind, can sometimes feel a little isolated. That’s where an association like the EM/CA doctoral network comes into its own. Paula Greenlees reports on the most recent event, held in the elegant rooms of Edinburgh University.


Paula Greenlees, Edinburgh University

On a beautiful spring morning, a group of researchers from across the country and beyond gathered in Edinburgh, the city where Erving Goffman published his first book ‘The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life’. Continue reading

Guest blog: a new journal on social interaction

It’s an exciting event when a new journal appears on the scene that immediately sounds appealing. I’m delighted that Brian Due and Kristian Mortensen will tell us about the background to the new Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, and explain how its online publication makes it exceptionally apt for publishing video and audio data.

Brian Due

Brian Lystgaard Due

Screen Shot 2018-05-10 at 13.35.27

Kristian Mortensen

Digital technology has over recent decades had a strong influence on the ways EMCA researchers go about doing their job. Over the years, video and audio data moved from magnetic tape to digital capture; transcriptions were no longer written on typewriters but produced as text files on a desktop; text files could link directly to video files so any segment could be immediately accessed; collections were no longer stored as pieces of papers in folders, but could be organized electronically across different corpora. Continue reading

Guest Blog: Saul Albert on how to draw graphics onto video clips (and why you should)

Occasionally one comes across a new bit of kit or a new technique which looks immediately enticing and exciting. This is certainly one: Saul Albert reports on his recent Drawing Interactions project that aims to create new graphical techniques and tools for the transcription, analysis and presentation of interaction research.


Saul Albert, Tufts University

Conversation analysts usually show their work using Jeffersonian transcripts with traced outlines or video stills in a ‘film strip’ style. These kinds of graphical transcripts present research for finished publications. But what about the exploratory phases of interaction research such as transcription and collaborative data sessions? Continue reading

Guest blog: doing a data-session ‘remotely’

Some researchers are lucky enough to work in a community of like-minded scholars, with whom they can easily chat, meet up and collaborate; when that’s not the case, the isolation can be damaging. That’s why it’s so heartening to see a group of UK postgraduates inaugurate a regular “remote” data session, bringing people together who would otherwise be apart. This lively blog by Marina Cantarutti, Jack Joyce and Tilly Flint gives the story.


Marina Cantarutti

Screen Shot 2017-06-01 at 10.45.17

Jack Joyce

Screen Shot 2018-04-20 at 16.12.01

Tilly Flint

Continue reading

Guest blog: Leelo Keevallik on making grammar real

As a featured debate article in ROLSI vol 51(1), I invited Leelo Keevallik to showcase her argument that traditional conceptions of grammar needed to change: to take the body, and its deployment in the unfolding of turns, seriously. I’m delighted that she also accepted an invitation to write a guest blog, reflecting on how she came to this challenging, and tantalising, new conception.

Leelo Keevallik

Leelo Keevallik, Linköping University

My training as a linguist started behind the Iron Curtain according to a very traditional philological curriculum and no course literature in English. But I was fascinated by the neat grammatical paradigms, the prudent morphology tables, and the precise categorizations of parts-of-speech. Continue reading

Guest blog: Talking with Alexa at home

I imagine that many interaction researchers will have been curious about how a voice-activated internet-connected device might be integrated (or not) into conversations at home.  Martin Porcheron along with Stuart Reeves,  Joel Fischer and Sarah Sharples (all at the University of Nottingham) went the next step, and did the research. Here Martin and Stuart explain how the research was done…

Screen Shot 2018-02-15 at 11.22.00

Martin Porcheron

Screen Shot 2018-02-15 at 11.23.24

Stuart Reeves

Voice-based ‘smartspeaker’ products, such as the Amazon Echo, Google Home, or Apple HomePod have become popular consumer items in the last year or two. These devices are designed for use in the home, and offer a kind of interaction where users may talk to an anthropomorphised ‘intelligent personal assistant’ which responds to things like questions and instructions. Continue reading