What’s going on here? The pedagogy of a data analysis session

Data analysis sessions are a common feature of discourse-analytic communities, often involving participants with varying levels of expertise to those with significant expertise. Learning how to do data analysis and working with transcripts, however, are often new experiences for doctoral candidates within the social sciences. While many guides to doctoral education focus on procedures associated with data analysis (Heath et al., 2010; McHoul and Rapley, 2001; Silverman, 2011; Wetherall et al., 2001), the in situ practices of doing data analysis are relatively undocumented. This chapter has been collaboratively written by members of a special interest research group, the Transcript Analysis Group (TAG), who meet regularly to examine transcripts representing audio-and video-recorded interactional data. Here, we investigate our own actual interactional practices and participation in this group, where each member is both analyst and participant. We particularly focus on the pedagogic practices enacted in the group through investigating how members engage in the scholarly practice of data analysis. A key feature of talk within the data sessions is that members work collaboratively to identify and discuss ‘noticings’ from the audio-recorded and transcribed talk being examined, produce analytic observations based on these discussions, and evaluate these observations. Our investigation of how talk constructs social practices in these sessions shows that participants move fluidly between actions that demonstrate pedagogic practices and expertise. Within any one session, members can display their expertise as analysts and, at the same time, display that they have gained an understanding that they did not have before. We take an ethnomethodological position that asks ‘what’s going on here?’ in the data analysis session. By observing the in situ practices in fine-grained detail, we show how members participate in the data analysis sessions and make sense of a transcript.

Ethnomethodology focuses on methods and resources that people use to make sense of what is happening around them and the actions of others (Garfinkel, 1967). Used in conjunction with Ethnomethodology, Conversation Analysis (CA) pays close attention to the sequence of interactions, to see what members make of what each other says and does. The context, then, is one of co-construction, where members work together to make sense of data, which may include audio or video recordings of interaction. Interactional moments involving members sharing different views are important for understanding how members make visible their stances. Ethnomethodological and Conversation Analysis approaches have gained increasing recognition in the in situ study of educational practices from the perspective of the members engaged in the interactions. These approaches have been used, for example, in the examination of language and literacy practices in classroom settings, to study interactions between teachers and children (see, for example, Baker, 1997; Hester and Francis, 2000), and parent-teacher interactions (Baker and Keogh, 1995). There is little research exploring pedagogic practices within university settings, although Benwell and Stokoe (2002) investigated discussion groups in university tutorials, Gibson (2009) investigated postgraduate reading groups, Bills (2003) investigated focus group data of the supervisory relationship, and Danby (2005) examined email communication between a supervisor and her doctoral student. The strength of the ethnomethodological approach lies in showing how members achieve practice through the interactional work of its members. In so doing, the approach allows us to examine how pedagogy happens within data analysis sessions. The Transcript Analysis Group, originally founded by Carolyn D. Baker at the University of Queensland as a forum for her students and colleagues to participate in data sessions and discussions about the analysis of transcriptions, has retained a similar format since its inception in the early 1990s. The organising committee for the group now comprises members from three Brisbane universities, including the University of Queensland, Queensland University of Technology and Griffith University. Meetings are held fortnightly during the semester across the campuses of the three universities, and between 10 and 30 members are present. While data sessions regularly occur in discourse-oriented research within a range of perspectives (see, for example, Antaki et al., 2008), the Transcript Analysis Group has developed a strong analytic focus using the methodologies of ethnomethodology, Conversation Analysis and Membership Categorisation Analysis (MCA). This group consists of researchers using these data analysis approaches, and is one of the longest-standing and most active groups in Australia, with members from a range of disciplines, including education, communication, sociology, medicine and psychology. Members include research higher degree students and early career and experienced researchers. All members are able to share ideas, discuss new approaches, methods and technologies, and discuss and collaboratively analyse data extracts. In 2010, in acknowledgement of the diverse range of theoretical interests and skills in transcript analysis, the organisers of TAG initiated a second study group, which shares some members with the original TAG. The second group offers sessions on transcription and transcript analysis, led by experienced members of TAG and is open to interested parties. For example, one session focused on using transcription conventions, while another was a discussion of a selected reading on analysing video-recorded data.

The data analysis sessions offer a pedagogic arena for engaging in the practices of analysing talk and interaction; in other words, pedagogy-in-action. This chapter details actual occurrences of members going about their everyday business of looking at, and analysing, extracts of talk. The examination of our actual practices shows a shift away from traditional assumptions of experts and learners, to afford members the participation space to move fluidly between the roles of participant and analyst; novice and expert. The analytic process of writing this chapter itself deserves some comment. Members who participated in the two audio-recorded data analysis sessions in mid-2010 became analysts of their own talk and actions as well as those of their colleagues and students, and authors of this chapter. The sessions were carried out in the same way as other data analysis sessions. An underlying process of this chapter is the reflexive process (Gibson, 2009) of analysing members’ talk by the members themselves. In informal discussion with each other, we commented on the process of studying transcripts of our own talk in data sessions and our familiarity with what was being studied. There was a ‘rich and complex interplay’ (Woolgar, 1988: 16) as we went about the business of doing analysis in order to write about our own practices of ‘doing data analysis’. Our examination of members’ work was a study of our actions, as well as the actions of other members present during the audio-recorded sessions. The reflexivity of this exercise provided us with opportunities to observe our own behaviour and to ask ‘what’s going on here?’, as analytic practices were unfolding.