Really enjoyed this, thanks for posting. I also really enjoyed the argument but I think the central critique sometimes mistakes Heritage's analytic attitude for his epistemological commitments. Sure, as I've seen at some very enjoyable data sessions at UCLA, you can look at a spate of interaction and assume that participants bring a kind of Machiavellian intelligence to the situation and approach their achievements in a Holmes-like deductive way. Or, like other analysts, notably Goodwin & Goodwin, you can bring a different analytic attitude to the data and marvel at the participants' abilities to coordinate joint actions. Both these attitudes get the job of data analysis done without losing touch with member's orientations, and both inevitably seep into the presentation of the data in academic papers. In the latest debate in ROLSI on quantification and coding in CA, Stivers writes about how CA can play nicely with quantification oriented fields, most obviously medicine where much of Heritage's latest work is directed. That may be the kind of deal Lynch is talking about, but I don't think it necessarily compromises the strength of the EM work that goes on in the data session.
Thanks. You should write to Mike with these comments. It would be interesting to see what he had to say in response.Might you say a little more about the stuff on medicine you mention towards the end of your comment?
Add a comment...