This has been my first full day in operating in the paradiagm of conversation analysis. Having read a number of articles and the Seedhouse book, I have a general idea of the purpose of CA, however I’m remain unsure about its applicability to my research. The first issue is related to context.
Whilst CA is explicitly free from context (unless expressed within the dialogue), my work is specifically associated with development and education and the notion (in a very general sense) of progress/learning/awareness of children within developing/marginalised communities. Unfortunately, this level of social/political consciousness will almost certainly not become prevalent within a few hours of SOLE exposure. In fact, the notion of marginalisation may not even be apparent to the young participants (age 9-12) within their own sphere of consciousness. At this stage in the research therefore, the CA paradigm would be limited to extracting the specific meaning of SOLE to Ghanaian children. In which case, the analysis would be effectively limited to Identity as opposed to any learning objectives (including that of SLA) i.e. what do the children do when faced with the computer, how do they organised themselves, how do they navigate the tool, how do they obtain intersubjectivity etc. The question is therefore, in such a constrained domain of research, will Ghanaian children demonstrate behaviour that is in any way different from children in the developing world. Would it be better to characterise SOLE behaviour at home before attempting to do it abroad.
In summary, a dedicated CA approach will provide a very detailed description of the mechanisms of interaction but it is debatable whether it should be used to reveal moments of learning/development or causal relationship expected from the SOLE. I would therefore presume that the CA techniques applied to SLA (with its clear emphasis on learning) could be used to clarify this apparent epistemological issue of method.
Furthermore, the SOLE has been defined for groups (with the potential for a number of computers). This raises basic ethnomethodogocal questions about how I capture (audiable and video) this extremely complicated environment in its entirity, how do I synchronise talk to computer interaction and how to I select data in order to extract a managable and meaningful quantity. Needlesstosay, analysis at the micro-level is detailed and complicated and of limited use (and this stage) in relation to development.
Alternatively, Adam referenced the research of Ben Rampton (Crossing and Language in Late Modernity) and the application of Interactional Socio-Linguistics (IS) in relation to childs play (very relavant to SOLE). Whilst not going into any great detail, this approach operates at the level of CA but employes aspects of ethnography as a means of including context within the research domain. Also related is the work of Goodwin and Goodwin (interaction with artifacts) and the range of different approaches identified withint the Handbook of Lnaguage and Social Interaction. More than enough to be getting on with!!