From Fledgling Manoeuvres to Methodological Confidence: Conversations Between a Doctoral Student and Supervisor on Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis to Explore the Everyday Worlds of Children and Families

  • Gillian Busch
  • Susan Danby
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Education Research Methods book series (PSERM)


Busch and Danby engage in a rich and honest dialogue to capture the methodological challenges encountered by a PhD candidate while learning a new methodology. In using storytelling as a device to examine methodological challenges, the perspectives of both the student and the supervisor are communicated. Beginning with an overview of ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, the authors pay attention to challenges connected to data collection when using video recording to capture family in situ practices, transcription of data that captures the fine detail of the interaction, and data analysis. While challenges are examined, the authors also provide a number of strategies that support the methodological maneuvering. These include engaging in data sessions with supervisors and with other conversation analysts committing to join the ethnomethodology research community.


Video Recording Conversation Analysis Data Session Family Mealtime Postgraduate Student Research 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



I would like to acknowledge my PhD supervisors, each of whom supported my methodological manoeuvres (Professor Susan Danby, Professor Ann Farrell, Dr. Maryanne Theobald, Dr. Carly Butler).


  1. Arminen, I. (2004). Second stories: The salience of interpersonal communication for mutual help in Alcholics Anonymous. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 319–347.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, C. (1997). Ethnomethodological studies of talk in educational settings. In B. Davies & D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Oral discourse and education (Vol. 3, pp. 43–52). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, C. (1998). Transcription and representation in literacy research. In J. Flood, S. B. Heath, & D. Lapps (Eds.), A handbook for literacy educators: Research on teaching the communicative and visual arts (pp. 108–118). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Bucholtz, M. (2000). The politics of transcription. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1439–1465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Danby, S. (1998). Interaction and social order in a preschool classroom (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). St Lucia, QLD: The University of Queensland.Google Scholar
  6. Danby, S. (2005). The supervisory experience: Culture in action. In J. Yamanashi & I. Milojevic (Eds.), Researching identity, diversity and education: Surpassing the norm (pp. 1–16). Teneriffe, QLD: Post Pressed.Google Scholar
  7. Danby, S., & Baker, C. (1998a). How to be masculine in the block area. Childhood: A global journal of child research, 5(2), 151–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Danby, S., & Baker, C. (1998b). “What’s the problem?”—Restoring social order in the preschool classroom. In I. Hutchby & J. Moran-Ellis (Eds.), Children and social competence: Arenas of action (pp. 91–140). London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  9. Davidson, C. (2010). Transcription matters: Transcribing talk and interaction to facilitate conversation analysis of the taken-for-granted in young children’s interactions. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 8(2), 115–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Francis, D., & Hester, S. (2004). An invitation to ethnomethodology: Language, society, and social interaction. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  12. Goodwin, M. (1995). Co-construction in girls’ hopscotch. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28(3), 261–281.Google Scholar
  13. Harris, J., Theobald, M., Danby, S., Reynolds, E., & Rintel, S. (2012). “What’s going on here?” The pedagogy of a data analysis session. In A. Lee & S. Danby (Eds.), Reshaping doctoral education: International approaches and pedagogies (pp. 83–96). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, P. (2010). Video in qualitative research: Analysing social interactions in everyday life. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation analysis: Principles, practices and applications. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  17. James, A., Jenks, C., & Prout, A. (1998). Theorizing childhood. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  18. Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–23). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lapadat, J. (2000). Problematizing transcription: Purpose, paradigm and quality. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 3(3), 203–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lynch, M., & Peyrot, M. (1992). Introduction: A reader’s guide to ethnomethodology. Qualitative Sociology, 15(2), 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McHoul, A. (2008). Questions of context in studies of talk and interaction—Ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(5), 823–826.Google Scholar
  22. McLarty, M. M., & Gibson, J. W. (2000). Using video technology in emancipatory research. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 15(2), 138–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mondada, L. (2007). Commentary: Transcript variations and indexicality of transcribing practices. Discourse Studies, 9(6), 809–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ochs, E. (1979). Transcription as theory. In E. Ochs & B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics (pp. 43–72). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  25. Payne, G. (1976). Making a lesson happen: An ethnomethodological analysis. In M. Hammersley & P. Woods (Eds.), The process of schooling: A sociological reader (pp. 33–40). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  26. Pomerantz, A., & Fehr, B. J. (1997). Conversation analysis: An approach to the study of social action as sense making practices. In T. A. Van-Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction (pp. 64–91). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Psathas, G. (1990). Introduction: Methodological issues and recent developments in the study of naturally occurring interaction. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Interaction competence: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (pp. 1–24). Washington: International Institute of Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis.Google Scholar
  28. Psathas, G. (1995a). Conversational analysis: The study of talk-in-interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Psathas, G. (1995b). The study of extended sequences: The case of the garden lesson. In G. Watson & R. Seiler (Eds.), Text in context: Contributions to ethnomethodology (pp. 99–122). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Psathas, G., & Anderson, T. (1990). The “practices” of transcription in conversation analysis. Semiotica, 78(1/2), 75–99.Google Scholar
  31. Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures on conversation: Volumes 1 & 2. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 7, 289–327.Google Scholar
  33. Sparrman, A. (2005). Video recording as interaction: Participant observation of children’s everyday life. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2(3), 241–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Speier, M. (1971). The everyday world of the child. In J. D. Douglas (Ed.), Understanding everyday life (pp. 188–217). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gillian Busch
    • 1
  • Susan Danby
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Education and the ArtsCQUniversity AustraliaRockhamptonAustralia
  2. 2.School of Early Childhood, Faculty of EducationQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations