Locating the Adequacy of Claims in Interactional Research (Poster 2)

• In Event: Manufacturing Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research

Abstract

There are longstanding debates on validity criteria in qualitative research, with “little consensus about what constitutes an appropriate set of evaluation criteria for qualitative research” (Corbin & Strauss, 2015, p. 341). The heterogeneity of qualitative methodologies and methods has frequently been cited as explaining this lack of consensus, for, as Levitt et al. (2017) noted, the diversity of qualitative methodologies can make it particularly challenging for authors and reviewers to follow a “single established set of procedures” (p. 4). While some scholars have argued for universal criteria for establishing validity, others have suggested that unique methodologies bring unique validity criteria (Authors, 2021; O’Reilly & Kiyimba, 2015).

In this poster, we offer a perspective on validity criteria in qualitative research that pushes against claims of the adequacy of universal markers of validity. In doing so, we overview how within the methodological area of ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (EMCA), a unique set of validity practices are engaged that align with the core onto-epistemological assumptions of this approach. More particularly, Harvey Sacks (1984, 1992), the founder of conversation analysis, expressed an analytic commitment to providing audiences with as much information as he had to make claims so that others could affirm or disagree with his analysis. This commitment was grounded in understanding language use as performative, reflexive, and recognizable because of a shared competency in methods for using language to make sense of each other and our actions. The EMCA research community has thus had longstanding expectations to use records of naturally occurring conversations for repeated review and to include detailed transcripts in collaborative data analysis sessions, conference presentations, and manuscripts. Additionally, analysts employ multiple analytic practices that cohere with EMCA’s distinctive conception of language use and social interaction, in particular, the contingent production of social life.

In this poster, we first present a general overview of the theoretical, analytical, and methodological basis for EMCA claims. Then, we introduce three relevant validity practices uniquely linked to the underlying assumptions of EMCA: unique adequacy, a proof procedure, and single case and collection analyses. Each practice relies upon interactions between coparticipants’ treatment of their conduct and readers’ evaluation of analysts' claims. Importantly, these claims are available for scrutiny and alternative interpretations that further our understanding of the creative ways people use multiple forms of embodied conduct to do social life. To demonstrate these validity practices, we share analyses from a corpus of questioning practices involving children of color in a healthcare setting. Establishing the validity of our claims is critical to this work because they serve as a basis for educational training for health professionals. We describe both the promise and challenges of validity in this context, particularly in light of the limits of EMCA claims. Overall, we argue that the adequacy of analytic claims is a contingent product of interactional work rather than a fixed feature of published descriptions of research processes and findings.

Authors

• Francesca A. Williamson, University of Michigan

• Jessica Nina Lester, Indiana University