It won’t have escaped anyone’s notice that Conversation Analysis has been very successfully (and some would say belatedly) spreading its wings to encompass people’s interactions with things as well as other people. In this illuminating account of one of Finland’s most active research groups, Antti Kamunen tells us what CA can tell us about multi-tasking (and vice-versa).

iTask (1st September 2015 ‒ 31st August 2019) is a new international research project funded by Academy of Finland and led by Professor Pentti Haddington. Based at the unit of English Philology at University of Oulu, our project takes a fresh angle on both multitasking and social interaction by studying interactional multitasking. We started in December 2015, when we (Antti Kamunen, Sylvaine Tuncer, Pentti Haddington, Anna Vatanen) all got together for the first time in Loughborough to plan and discuss the project. Continue reading →

Among the articles in the current issue of the journal, Kristian Mortensen has a very lively account of a familiar bit of gestural communication – cupping the hand behind the ear. In this guest blog, he explains some of the work that went into the study, and into distilling it down into a journal article.

Kristian Mortensen, University of Southern Denmark

Since Seo & Koshik’s fascinating 2010 paper on ‘gestures that engender repair’, a handful studies or so have discussed how the human body serves as a resource for organizing repair – in part embedded in a discussion of how bodily conduct is sequentially organized. Continue reading →

The current issue of the journal has a very thoughtful debate about how we should conceptualise that family of actions that end up getting others to help us. Kobin Kendrick and Paul Drew make the bold claim that these all fall under the rubric of ‘recruitment”, and set out the terms in which they can all be analysed*. It is a fascinating argument, with commentaries by John Heritage, Jörg Zinken and Giovanni Rossi; here, Kobin gives an account of the paper and its genesis.

Kobin Kendrick, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics

One of the greatest mysteries in the social and biological sciences is the evolution of altruism. Given that natural selection favours the survival of the fittest, how did the tendency for humans to help one another evolve? Continue reading →

What’s it like to submit a paper to Research on Language and Social Interaction, and to review others’ submissions? In the first part of his blog, Søren Beck Nielsen reported on sending in a paper. Now he reports on his experiences as a reviewer – how a reviewer gets invited, why they might accept, what they have to put into their comments, and where the gratification lies. 

Søren Beck Nielsen, University of Copenhagen

Writing reviews for ROLSI

ROLSI has a very good reputation for its reviews. I’d first heard that when, like many other CA researchers, I went to the International Conference on Conversation Analysis at UCLA back in 2014. One of the evenings, I joined a conversation between two distinguished and highly experienced scholars who talked about doing reviews for ROLSI. They talked about how ROLSI managed the review process is very differently from what they knew of other journals – and for the better. Continue reading →

The process of having your paper reviewed by a journal, and indeed of reviewing for it, can seem mysterious. Certainly we don’t talk about it much; it feels like a private affair between author and editor, and reviewer and editor, respectively. So I’m particularly pleased that Søren Beck Nielsen, a friend of ROLSI and a wonderful researcher making a name for himself in the interaction studies community, has agreed to write this two-part guest blog. In this first part, be recounts his experience as a submitting author.

Søren Beck Nielsen,  University of Copenhagen

What’s it like to write and review papers for ROLSI? Some personal experiences

In these two blogs I shall try to get across my personal experiences of two very different, but related, engagements with ROLSI: sending in a paper for publication and, on the other side of the fence, acting as a reviewer on someone else’s submission.

Part 1: Writing papers for ROLSI: two concrete examples Continue reading →

To complement our earlier report on the 9th CA Day (see the previous blog for the organisers’ view), I’m delighted that Mika Ishino, on behalf of herself, Ritsuko Izutani and Aya Jodoji, all from the Applied Conversation Analysis Working Group at Osaka University, Japan (site in Japanese) has sent in this lively and comprehensive guest blog.

Continue reading →

In spite of their divergent research paths, ethnomethodologists  and conversation analysts have much in common, and it’s good to see established members of the community offer joint workshops to the up-and-coming generation. Here Veronica González and Maria Vanessa aus der Wieschen give a lively report on the latest EM/CA “bootcamp”. Continue reading →