essential-guide-to-qualitative-in-organizational-research

224 –––––––––– QUALITATIVE METHODS IN ORGANIZATION STUDIES ––––––––––––––––––4 Zimmerman (1988: 413) noted that tapes of conversation are ‘not usually collected for specificpurposes’ enabling the means for ‘encountering otherwise unnoticed features of talk’.5 So signals ‘of result’ (Fraser, 1990) which Boden (1994: 96) notes is a standard topic transitionmarker.6 More recently, Psathas (1999) discusses how Sacks’ (1992) notion of membership categorizationdevices (MCDs) provide for a rigorous and systematic study of social structure or ‘talk ininstitutional settings’ whilst meeting Schegloff ’s insistence on the analyst demonstratingrelevance. One example from my own research would be references to MCDs such as‘accountant’ (Samra-Fredericks, 2003).7 Heritage (1997: 164) further assists those interested in close studies of the local instantiation ofinstitutional identity through outlining ‘six basic places to probe the “institutionality” ofinteraction’. They are: turn taking; overall structural organization; sequence organization; turndesign; lexical choice; epistemological and other forms of asymmetry.8 What Lynch (2000b: 542) feels is missing within CA today is a development of Sacks’ legacyin terms of the various topics which were ‘animated by a radical vision of social order andscientific methodology’. Topics such as the ‘narrative and sequential design of stories and jokes’,‘poetics and punning as organizational resources’, the ‘pragmatics of proverbial expressions’,‘categorizing’, ‘moral orders’, etc.APPENDIX ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––[ indicates overlapping/interrupted [speech[speech=[ indicates simultaneous speech(.) indicates a brief pause (not consistent with CA)= continuous speech where speakers's utterance latches onto==previous speaker's speech:: elon::gated pronunciation of that worditalicsindicate emphasis[word(s)] indicate transcriptionist doubt and will say [inaudible] or state that thespeech referred to either: the actual names of actors, or the organization,or the products, or to financial figures [to ensure confidentiality]FURTHER READING ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––For a concise introduction to CA/talk-in-interaction with examples from empirical researchset alongside the debates surrounding its phenomenological ‘roots’, see Boden (1994); Drewand Heritage (1992); Heritage (1984); Hutchby and Wooffitt (2001); Lynch (2000a, 2000b);Psathas (1995); Silverman (1998); ten Have (1999); van Dijk (1997). To appreciate the issues,concerns and points of contention between ‘pure’ CA scholars and ethnographers seeMoerman (1988, 1992) and Nelson (1994). Both Alvesson and Karreman (2000) and Miller(1997) also address this issue more broadly. They both highlight the overlaps and gains to bemade through a systematic study of naturally occuring talk while taking account of the