FORUM : QUALITATIVE Volume 1, No. 3, Art.

3
S O C IA L R ES EA RC H December 2000
S O ZIA LFO RS C HU N G

Innocence and Nostalgia in Conversation Analysis:

The Dynamic Relations of Tape and Transcript

Malcolm Ashmore & Darren Reed

Key words: Abstract: This paper attempts an analysis of some of the methodological practices of Conversation
conversation Analysis (CA); in particular, tape recording and transcription. The paper starts from the observation
analysis, tape that, in the CA literature, these practices, and the analytic objects they create (the tape and the
recording, transcript), are accorded different treatment: simply put, for CA the tape is a "realist" object, while
transcription, the transcript is a "constructivist" one. The significance of this difference is explored through an
rhetoric, analysis of the dynamics of CA practice. We argue that the "constructivist transcript" is premised on
epistemology, an understanding of CA as predominantly concerned with maximising its "analytic utility": a concern
phenomenology, of one distinct temporal stage of CA work: that of the "innocent" apprehension of objects in the "first
realism, time through". The "realist tape", in contrast, is based on a different aspect of the work of CA: its
constructivism quest for greater "evidential utility", achieved by the "nostalgic" revisiting of previously produced
objects for purposes of checking them against each other; work done in the "next time through". We
further argue that both the ontology and the epistemology of CA's objects are changed in any next
time encounter. We conclude with a cautionary speculation on the currently-projected, transcript-
free, digital future of CA.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. The Realist Tape and the Constructivist Transcript
2.1 Taping
2.2 The tape
2.3 Transcription
2.4 What counts as data: The mutual elaboration of tape and transcript
3. The General Epistemo-Phenomenological Schema
4. The General Schema Applied to CA
4.1 Nostalgia dynamics
4.2 Reverse checking: Doubting the tape
5. Innocence and Nostalgia: First Time, and Next Time, Through
5.1 First time through—Innocence
5.2 Next time through—Nostalgia
6. Concluding Discussion
References
Authors
Citation

© 2000 FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/

Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research (ISSN 1438-5627)
FQS 1(3), Art. 3, Malcolm Ashmore & Darren Reed: Innocence and Nostalgia in Conversation Analysis:
The Dynamic Relations of Tape and Transcript

1. Introduction

In this paper, we examine certain of the methodological practices of Conversation

Analysis (CA). Thus, this paper joins a number of recent discussions of CA which
are variously concerned with CA's foundational concepts (ten HAVE 1997,
LYNCH & BOGEN 1994), its relationship to ethnomethodology (CLAYMAN &
MAYNARD 1995, LYNCH 1993, p.203-264), the proper range of its empirical
materials (McHOUL 1987, MOERMAN 1988, NELSON 1994), and with analyses
of its empirical practices (ANDERSON & SHARROCK 1994, BOGEN 1992). All of
these texts are authored by people who can and do claim some sort of
membership in the ethnomethodological/conversation analytic community.
Though our membership is much less secure, we wish the following text to be
taken as similar in spirit to the above, i.e. as "insider critique" motivated by a deep
agreement with the broad aims and substantial achievements of this intellectual
movement. [1]

CA is a "unique" (ten HAVE 1990) form of qualitative social research, both in its
restricted topical orientation and its rigorous methodological procedures. CA is
exclusively concerned with the analysis of "talk-in-interaction"; usually, but not
always, of casual, or mundane, conversation. According to CA, this is the
primordial stuff of social interaction: at once the most mundane and the most
consequential of all social phenomena. As a practice, ordinary talk is not
considered by its practitioners to be particularly skilled (presumably because it is
so basic, so pervasive, so ordinary); yet CA shows it to be a precision instrument,
wielded by maestros. Subtle, nuanced and highly sensitive; yet structured,
normative and accountable; it displays "order at all points" (SACKS 1984, p.22),
yet is entirely improvised. Moreover, the doing of talk produces and reproduces
all the supposedly "external" phenomena of the socio-psychological sciences:
persons, interaction, groups, membership categories (class/gender/ethnicity), the
"sense of social structure" and ultimately society itself (BODEN & ZIMMERMAN
1991, SILVERMAN 1998, HUTCHBY & WOOFFITT 1998). [2]

CA is done in a very specific way: starting with audio, and sometimes video,
recordings of "naturally-occurring" verbal interactions; transcribing them in a
manner designed to show the "hows" of talk rather than just the "whats"; and
subsequently developing highly detailed analyses of the ethnomethods of talk.
We are interested in this paper in how conversation analysts work with, work on,
and work up the series of "analytic objects" produced in and as the course of their
research. Put schematically, these objects are the Event, the Tape, the
Transcript, the Analysis and the Article.1 How does the apparently fixed, temporal,
and linear relationships between these objects change at different points of the
research process? How does the "evidential utility" of these objects vary with
respect to their "analytic utility"? What is the difference between seeing (say) a

1 Our analysis is largely schematic and "conceptual", rather than "empirical". This may be taken
to be a fault by those who argue, as conversation analysts tend to do, that it is only "in the
presence of data" (ten HAVE 1997) that sensible and relevant analyses of such matters can be
had. While we have some sympathy for this view in general, it is problematic for a project which,
among other ambitions, wishes to address the question of what counts as data, when it so
counts, and for whom does it so count.

© 2000 FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/

FQS 1(3), Art. 3, Malcolm Ashmore & Darren Reed: Innocence and Nostalgia in Conversation Analysis:
The Dynamic Relations of Tape and Transcript

transcript, and reading it; between hearing a tape and listening to it? At what
points during the dynamic process of research are objects encountered by the
epistemic mode of seeing/hearing as opposed to that of reading/listening? [3]

In developing our understanding of these dynamic "epistemo-phenomenological"

processes, we focus on the Tape and the Transcript as mutually elaborative
analytic objects. We examine how the practices of tape recording and
transcribing are described in the CA literature, and how this literature variously
formulates the practical and epistemic relations between the analytic objects
these practices produce—the Tape and the Transcript. We then introduce an
abstract and highly general "epistemo-phenomenological schema" which, when
subsequently applied to CA, orientates our explication of the process we call the
"general and evidential nostalgic dynamic", including its epistemic functions, and
the varying and relative roles played within it by the set of analytic objects. [4]

Specifically we reveal the relative reification of analytic objects such that the
original phenomenon, the tape, the transcript (and the analysis) are actively
construed differently depending on whether the object is apprehended in a state
of "innocence" or "nostalgia". This is pursued through a "first time through" and
"next time through" trope. [5]

2. The Realist Tape and the Constructivist Transcript

The first thing to notice is that taping as an activity receives much less explicit
discussion than does transcribing. While transcription (in CA and other forms of
research on talk) has been the specific topic of at least one edited volume
(EDWARDS & LAMPERT 1993), several research articles (OCHS 1979,
JEFFERSON 1985, PACK 1986, COOK 1990, PSATHAS & ANDERSON 1990,
MISHLER 1991, O'CONNELL & KOWAL 1994, JEFFERSON 1996, GREEN,
GRANQUIZ & DIXON 1997), and is routinely and extensively discussed in recent
CA introductory textbooks (PSATHAS 1995, HUTCHBY & WOOFFITT 1998,
SILVERMAN 1998, ten HAVE 1999), recording has received less attention. This
is not, however, because the Tape is considered less important; indeed, in many
ways, as we shall detail, it appears to carry more weight than does the Transcript.
[6]

2.1 Taping

When the practice of recording is discussed, what is addressed tends to be its

technical aspects (GOODWIN 1994, ten HAVE 1999, Ch.4, MODAFF & MODAFF
2000).2 Moreover, most discussions concentrate on the relatively novel
technology of video recording. A plausible reason for this neglect, is that audio
recording (and its results) has become so culturally naturalised, that, like
photography, it is extremely difficult to problematise, to loosen the hold of its
2 An exception is LOMAX and CASEY's (1998) non-CA reflexive analysis of the constructive and
constitutive effects of video recording. They argue, and we agree, that "the activity of data
collection is constitutive of the very interaction which is then subsequently available for
investigation" (1998, abstract). This is not a view for which it is easy to find support in the CA
literature.

© 2000 FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/

FQS 1(3), Art. 3, Malcolm Ashmore & Darren Reed: Innocence and Nostalgia in Conversation Analysis:
The Dynamic Relations of Tape and Transcript

stubborn realism (cf. MISHLER 1991, pp.255-259). Though many, perhaps most,
(Western) children have had the vertiginous experience of hearing and not
recognising the sound of their own recorded voice, the "doubt" that this
experience potentially raises is quickly reframed as normal and explicable. [7]

2.2 The tape

A typical statement of the importance of the Tape in CA is from POMERANTZ

and FEHR (1997, p.70): "Conversation analysts strongly prefer to work from
recordings of conduct". The reason given for this preference is four-fold:

1. "certain features of the details of actions in interaction are not recoverable in any
other way"
2. "a recording makes it possible to play and replay the interaction, which is
important both for transcribing and for developing an analysis."
3. "a recording makes it possible to check a particular analysis against the
materials, in all their detail, that were used to produce the analysis."
4. "a recording makes it possible to return to an interaction with new analytic
interests." (1997, p.70) [8]

Notice first that these remarks address the tape as a "found object": they are
concerned with what can be done with a recording, not with the activity of
recording itself. The origin of the Tape—its relation to any particular Event—is not
of specific interest. This lack of interest in the process of recording (whether as a
technical or conceptual issue) is an important first step in the "naturalising" of the
Tape. In effect it provides for the "forgetting" of the Event, and its wholesale
replacement by the Tape. [9]

The first desideratum attends to the technical necessity for this replacement.
Neither the Event-in-itself nor any other procedure for its "reconstruction"—
ethnographic observation, memories, post hoc inquiries, intuitive invention—is
adequate. The second reason introduces the idea of "replayability": the Tape, as
opposed to the Event, can be encountered more than once; it can be re-heard,
can be subject to repeated listening. Reasons three and four specify uses for the
Tape's replayable character: the Tape can be used as the standard against which
the Analysis can be checked; and it can be revisited to produce a new Analysis,
i.e. the Tape can be the source of more than one series of analytic objects. [10]

2.3 Transcription

"[I]t is a truism to note that all transcription is in some sense interpretation ..."
(COOK 1990, p.12)
"A first observation is that there is not, and cannot be, a 'neutral' transcription
system." (PSATHAS & ANDERSON 1990, p.75)

© 2000 FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/

FQS 1(3), Art. 3, Malcolm Ashmore & Darren Reed: Innocence and Nostalgia in Conversation Analysis:
The Dynamic Relations of Tape and Transcript

"[A] transcript is a text that 're'-presents an event; it is not the event itself. Following
this logic, what is re-presented is data constructed by a researcher for a particular
purpose, not just talk written down." (GREEN et al. 1997, p.172)
"Transcription as theory" (OCHS 1979, Title)

These statements are typical of the "sophisticated" understanding of transcription

in CA and other work on discourse. It is routinely understood as a craft process,
as itself a part of the practice of analysis, as conventional and constructive.
Debates about "how much" to transcribe (O'CONNELL & KOWAL 1994), or about
the consequential features of particular systems and designs (HOPPER 1989,
EDWARDS & LAMPERT 1993) are commonplace. Students (and other
researchers; see GREEN et al. 1997) are regularly warned not to fetishize the
transcript, nor to treat it as the data, as we shall shortly see. [11]

Of course, we are very far from objecting to this approach to transcription. What
we are interested in is the contrast, in CA, between this "constructivist" approach
to transcription and the "realist" approach to recording and the tape. As we will
detail below, this contrast is itself consequential for the practices of CA, and
particularly for how the mutually elaborative relation between the transcript and
the tape is understood. [12]

2.4 What counts as data: The mutual elaboration of tape and transcript

There are various formulations of the roles of tape and transcript in CA, some of
which are set out in the following five quotations. They are ordered in an array
from the most to the least "transcript-friendly".

"Audio recordings, while faithfully recording what the machine's technology allows to
be recorded, are not immediately available, in a sense. The details that the machine
records have to be remarked by the listening analyst and later made available to the
analyst's audience. It is the activity of transcribing the tapes that provides for this, that
captures the data, so to speak." (HAVE 1999, p.6)
"The best way to develop analyses is to use both a tape and a transcript. It is harder
to isolate and study phenomena when working only with a tape, and much
information is lost when working only with a transcript. Also, without hearing/seeing
the tape from which a transcript was derived, one cannot know how much confidence
to have in a transcript." (POMERANTZ & FEHR 1997, p.70-71)
"The transcription of data is a procedure at the core of analysis ... It is important to
stress that, for CA, transcripts are not thought of as 'the data'. The data consist of
tape recordings of naturally occurring interactions ... Given this conception of the
data, the aim in CA is not simply to transcribe the talk and then discard the tape in
favour of the transcript ... Conversation analysts ... do not analyse transcripts alone:
rather, they aim to analyse the data (the recorded interaction) using the transcript as
a convenient tool of reference. The transcript is seen as a 'representation' of the data;
while the tape itself is viewed as a 'reproduction' of a determinate social event."
(HUTCHBY & WOOFFITT 1998, pp.73-74)

© 2000 FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/

FQS 1(3), Art. 3, Malcolm Ashmore & Darren Reed: Innocence and Nostalgia in Conversation Analysis:
The Dynamic Relations of Tape and Transcript

"... any claim made about the interaction is answerable, not to a transcript, but in the
final analysis to the recording" (WILSON 1999)
"... from bitter personal experience I have learned never to trust a mere transcript too
much. The time is soon approaching when transcripts (at least in the traditional
sense) will seem far too crude for our analytic purposes—a hopeless attempt to fix on
paper what is, in its deepest sense, dynamic." (CARROLL 2000) [13]

These five quotations encapsulate rather different understandings of the relative

place of tape and transcript in CA, which of the two should be given more weight,
and which should count as "the data". The first quote from ten HAVE expresses
some doubt about what we will be calling the "analytic utility" of the tape. It cannot
be used on its own: it is not "immediately available"; it has to be "remarked"
(transcribed); and it is this transcription process that "captures the data". Here,
then, it is the transcript which is the more valuable of the two objects.
POMERANTZ and FEHR put forward a "middle ground" position in which both
objects are equally valuable and should be used in conjunction with one another.
Like ten HAVE, they note the tape's relative lack of analytic utility, but they also
point to the transcript's inability to engender "confidence": in our terms, its relative
lack of "evidential utility". The third quote from HUTCHBY and WOOFFITT shifts
the objects' relative value in favour of the tape. While acknowledging the
importance of transcription as a "procedure at the core of analysis", the thrust of
their remarks is an insistence on the superiority of the tape. The tape has this
greater status because it embodies the data "(the recorded interaction)" whereas
the transcript is merely "a convenient tool of reference".3 These valuations are
neatly encapsulated in HUTCHBY and WOOFFITT's final ontological distinction
between the tape as "reproduction" and the transcript as "representation". The
fourth contribution from WILSON attends succinctly to what accounts for the
superiority of the tape. The tape is a better "spokesperson" for analytic claims
than the transcript: the evidential buck of "answerability" stops at the tape. Finally,
CARROLL projects a desired (digital) future when the "mere transcript" can be
abandoned entirely in favour of analyses that work directly on and from
recordings. For CARROLL the transcript is both too untrustworthy and too
"crude": it not only lacks evidential utility (as noticed by POMERANTZ & FEHR
and by WILSON), its analytic utility is also in doubt. [14]

What we want to argue here is that the disparity between these versions of the
mutual relations of tape and transcript can be accounted for by recognising a
corresponding distinction in the "phase" or "stage" of the CA research process
that these authors implicitly are addressing. A positive evaluation of the transcript
(as most clearly evidenced by ten HAVE) corresponds to a dominant concern with
what we will call the stage of First Time Through, while those accounts that find
the transcript wanting (especially WILSON & CARROLL) are more concerned
with the later stage of Next Time Through. Another way to put this is that the
value of the transcript makes itself felt most clearly in the business of building the
series of analytic objects that make up the "material" of any CA research project
3 PSATHAS and ANDERSON concur: "It should be noted ... that the status of the transcript
remains that of 'merely' being a representation of the actual interaction—i.e., it is not the
interaction and it is not the 'data'" (1990, p.77).

© 2000 FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/

FQS 1(3), Art. 3, Malcolm Ashmore & Darren Reed: Innocence and Nostalgia in Conversation Analysis:
The Dynamic Relations of Tape and Transcript

and thus in the search for analytic utility. On the other hand, when the tape
appears as the "better" object of the two, what is being alluded to is its value in
strengthening the evidential utility of the already-produced objects. [15]

Before we can fully explain these concepts we must first acquaint you with our
"General Epistemo-Phenomenological Schema" (see also Figure 1) which
provides the essential, if inelegantly-titled, framework for our discussion.

Figure 1: The General Epistemo-Phenomenological Schema [16]

3. The General Epistemo-Phenomenological Schema

We are describing here a kind of dynamic continuum, whose poles are mythic: on
the left, we have "reality", or the "natural attitude", and on the right, "fiction", or
the "mediated attitude".4 These are the pure, and impossible, states in which
there is no admixture of the other. On the left, a "state of nature", apprehended
instinctively by totally embedded "members" devoid of intentionality and sense-
making ability. On the right, a "state of mind", in which all actions are self-started
by radically self-conscious agents with no direct, nor even mediated, relation to
an external world. [17]

In between these poles is our world; and perhaps any conceivable world.5 Let us
map out some of the relations we see obtaining in this space. First, note that it is
divided diagonally into two phenomenological areas: "Life", which dominates the
left hand side, and "Work", which governs the right. "Life" labels a

4 SCHUTZ (1972) and GARFINKEL (1967) use the term "scientific attitude" here. We prefer
"mediated" as this term can account for all activities of formulation, understanding,
representation, performance, whether done in the course of scientific work or not.
5 Though a kind of left-hand world is sometimes said to have existed in the past and/or in simpler
societies; a nostalgia for this "world we have lost" can be seen to have animated certain
founding sociological contrasts such as TOENNIES' Gesellschaft and Gemeinschaft. Similarly,
we are sometimes said to be entering a form of the right-hand world, such as BAUDRILLARD's
postmodern dystopia of inauthentic simulacra.

© 2000 FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/

FQS 1(3), Art. 3, Malcolm Ashmore & Darren Reed: Innocence and Nostalgia in Conversation Analysis:
The Dynamic Relations of Tape and Transcript

phenomenology of Being; "Work", one of Becoming. Movement along the

horizontal plane (which is also a timeline; see below) reduces the influence of one
while correspondingly increasing that of the other. [18]

Second, there are two corresponding epistemologies, or modes of world-

encountering, that are, relatively, more leftward or rightward leaning.
Hearing/seeing is leftward leaning while listening/reading tends toward the right.
Hearing and seeing have in common a certain automatic quality: routine yet
spontaneous, as if called up by the apprehended object as a response to a
stimulus. They are the unreflective modes of the natural attitude, our
unremarkable ethnomethods for living our lives. The knowledge required to hear
and to see is atheoretic: a matter of "knowing how" rather than "knowing that".
The effect on the world of engaging in such activities is minimal: the world stays
much as it was. [19]

When encountered through the right hand side epistemic modes of listening and
reading, the world is interpreted rather than apprehended, and represented
instead of simply responded to. Rightward leaning epistemic activities, then, are
forms of productive work. Engaging in them results in the addition of new objects
to the world—objects that, as representations or interpretations, change what the
world is taken to be. Note, however, that we are not dealing directly here with the
products themselves (talk, texts, images, etc.) nor with their "modes of
production" (speaking, writing, imaging, ...). We are limiting ourselves to an
examination of what, in vocabularies we do not wish to buy into, might be called
"responses" or "receptive behaviours".6 [20]

There is a kind of exchange of qualities in play too. As we move rightwards or

leftwards we suffer losses yet achieve compensating gains. Moving right entails a
loss of "original detail": of the complexity and richness of "the world as it is" in all
its "blooming, buzzing confusion". In compensation, rightward-tending epistemic
activities add their own products, their own "novel detail"; which, the further to the
right one moves, themselves gain in richness and complexity. And as the reverse
movement is made, so the opposite exchange takes place. [21]

Finally, the left-to-right dimension marks a temporal ordering, on many

conceivable scales (species time; a lifetime; even, as we shall see in the next
section, the temporality of conversation analytic research). Movement from the
left to the right involves a change from a "pre" time to a "post" time. However, this
timeline is not a one way street. Shifts from the right to the left, from the "post" to
the "pre", can occur. Our name for what may occasion such shifts is the
"nostalgia dynamic". By this, we mean to indicate that desire, regularly felt (and
encountered in others), born, perhaps, of a SARTREan mauvais fois, for greater
simplicity, authenticity, and directness, after what (is deemed to be, at this
juncture) a surfeit of sophistication and irony, an overdose of ramified
interpretations; simply, just too much rightward-ness. On a larger and more
exalted scale, this kind of nostalgia motivates that ever-popular social scientific
6 We have sketched an account of the "machinic-productive processes" of CA elsewhere (REED
& ASHMORE 2000).

© 2000 FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/

FQS 1(3), Art. 3, Malcolm Ashmore & Darren Reed: Innocence and Nostalgia in Conversation Analysis:
The Dynamic Relations of Tape and Transcript

classic, "The Critique of (Post) Modernity". In Figure 1, we have marked the

operation of this dynamic as producing a single shift all the way back from the
Fiction mythline to the Reality mythline. However, smaller leftward movements
from any point along the timeline are possible; indeed, more common.

Figure 2: The General Schema Applied to CA [22]

4. The General Schema Applied to CA

We now move from the abstractions of the general schema to its concrete
application in the case of CA. Note, to begin with, that in Figure 2 we have
inserted the five analytic objects used/produced in CA—Event, Tape, Transcript,
Analysis, Article—ordered from left to right.7 Obviously, this is a temporal order of
production; but it is more than that as we shall see. Second, the
phenomenological division of the general schema, with "Life" at the left and
"Work" at the right, has been augmented with, respectively, "Evidential Utility"
and "Analytic Utility". A further change is a specification of (some of) the ways
that the "nostalgia dynamic" operates in CA, motivating, for example, a shift
"back" from Transcript to Tape. Finally, we have labelled the left-hand mythline
(which marks off the impossible "reality" pole of the continuum), as, additionally, a
"modal-line" marking the shift in modality from the Event to its recording as the
Tape; and added a second which marks the modal shift from the Tape to the
Transcript, Analysis and Article. The first of these shifts is the more radical:
crossing the modal-line from Event to Tape is permanent; there is no going back.
Indeed the Event is, in relation to the practices and objects of CA, effectively
mythic; as its position to the left of the mythline suggests. The second modal shift

7 We limit ourselves here to the objects in play in any single piece of CA research. Further
analytic objects (including text books, reviews, critiques, bibliographies, web sites, email lists,
courses, conferences, ...) constitute CA as a discipline, a culture and a literature.

© 2000 FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/

FQS 1(3), Art. 3, Malcolm Ashmore & Darren Reed: Innocence and Nostalgia in Conversation Analysis:
The Dynamic Relations of Tape and Transcript

—from the aural to the textual—is less irreversible, but it still has significant
consequences. [23]

When we say that the left-right ordering of the analytic objects is more than
simply a temporal one, we mean that as each object is produced, one after the
other, changes of a phenomenological and epistemic character occur too. For
example, while the Event is full of Life, it does not present itself successfully as
an object suitable for Work. It has, in its state of brute Being, minimal Analytic
Utility. On the other hand, the Event possesses a great deal of Evidential Utility.
That is, by pointing to the Event as the natural origin of its endeavours, CA can
claim an evidential grounding in the real. (CA is neither fiction nor "merely
interpretation" because it is "about" real interaction, done by real people in real
settings in real time, as evidenced by the Event.) Note, however, that this pointing
is both post hoc and other-directed: it can only occur after the production of other,
"later", analytic objects; and it is useful mainly as a rhetorical device to justify CA
to non-members.8 We have said that analytic work cannot be easily done on the
Event-as-such. In fact the only Work generated by the Event is that of its radical
transformation into something other than itself through the process of recording
and the production of the Tape. [24]

The reason the Event is so unsuitable for analytic purposes, is that it is

apprehendable only transiently, in the course of its flow, and only "from within".
As a part of the scene, and by a member of the setting (who may of course be a
researcher), an Event can be, in our terms, seen and heard. But it cannot be read
nor listened to. [25]

With each move to a new analytic object further to the right, the level of "original
detail" is reduced and replaced by a corresponding level of "novel detail". Though
in the move from Event to Tape, much of the lived complexity of the former is
erased, something new takes its place: the Tape introduces novelties that were
not there in the "original"; chief among these being "replayability". At the other
end of our scale, the shift from Analysis to Article involves a loss of some of the
complexity (and certainly a lot of the detail) of a specific analytic exercise, yet
compensates for this by the addition of new connections and the refinement of
the overall network of conversation analytic results. [26]

4.1 Nostalgia dynamics

The various backward shifts diagrammed in Figure 2 (from Article to Analysis,

from Analysis to Tape, etc.) can be understood to be doubly motivated. First,
there is the operation of the general nostalgia dynamic, prompting returns to
earlier, and thus more "actual", more "lifelike", stages of the analytical process.
What is sought for, in effect, is the recovery of some level of "original detail".
Closely connected is the desire to revisit the past for purposes of strengthening
the evidential adequacy of the analysis, by checking (say) the Analysis against

8 However, it may be used too for self-justification and encouragement: "If I didn't think that CA
was about understanding reality, there would be no point in doing it" (paraphrase of personal
communication: Charles ANTAKI to Malcolm ASHMORE, August 2000)

© 2000 FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/

FQS 1(3), Art. 3, Malcolm Ashmore & Darren Reed: Innocence and Nostalgia in Conversation Analysis:
The Dynamic Relations of Tape and Transcript

the Transcript, or the Transcript against the Tape. In each backwards shift
motivated in this way, the "earlier" object is treated as (relatively) fixed with
respect to the "later". Indeed, on such occasions, the former acts as an
unquestioned standard with which to assess the fidelity of its translation into the
latter. On these occasions, then, the leftward analytic object is reified. That it is
possible to treat objects in this way, however, is the result, we will argue, of how
they are treated (worked on and worked up) at the stage of the research process
we call First Time Through. [27]

4.2 Reverse checking: Doubting the tape

But before we advance this argument, we will deal briefly with an apparent
exception to our claim that it is the earlier, leftward, object that is reified in the
activities of evidential checking we have been describing. [28]

In one of the few articles we have found which address the activity of audio
recording (MODAFF & MODAFF 2000) we find an example of evidential checking
in which an object to the right is used to check one to its left. At one point in their
paper, MODAFF and MODAFF discuss the differential quality of recordings of
each party's contribution to telephone conversations depending on the location of
the recording device:

"As a rule, the interlocutor with the recording device attached to his or her phone will
be louder and more predominant on the tape. For example, we compared two tapes
of the same interactional moment made with two Marantz audio recorders set to the
same recording settings but at different locations. Fragments 1A and 1B show the
difference in what was hearable on the two tapes:

As these fragments are (of course) transcripts, the work MODAFF and
MODAFF's reader has to do in order to find "louder and more predominant"
recordings of Jay in fragment 1A and of Dee in fragment 1B, is one of seeing,
immediately and imaginatively translated into hearing. Thus, in 1A (Jay's), line
001, we see Jay doing "uh::m (.)", whereas in 1B (Dee's), line 001, we see Jay

© 2000 FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/

FQS 1(3), Art. 3, Malcolm Ashmore & Darren Reed: Innocence and Nostalgia in Conversation Analysis:
The Dynamic Relations of Tape and Transcript

doing "uh:: (0.2)". With our instructions to see/hear Jay as "clearer" in 1A than in
1B, we can duly do so by finding both additional detail (the "m") and greater
refinement (the micropause "(.)"). Similarly, we can find a superior Dee in 1B. The
weak and imprecise hearing of "(yeah)" in 1A, line 003, can be seen, in Dee's 1B
(line 002, "=Okay") to be seeably/hearably more accurate in three distinct ways.
First, the hearing is disambiguated, as visually evidenced by the absence of
parentheses; consequently, we know that "yeah" is an artefact, and therefore,
that "Okay" is not. Second, then, we know that Dee said "Okay". And finally, we
see that its correct sequential placing is at the beginning of line 002, as an
utterance latched to the end of Jay's turn on line 001; the addition of the latching
symbols ("=" "=") acting as our visual evidence for this third form of increased
accuracy.9 [30]

So what we have here is a rare example of the Transcript being used as the
standard with which to check the Tape. This "reverse checking" is explicable in
that the only object "to the left" of the Tape is the Event; and, being mythic, the
Event is unavailable for this kind of work. Moreover (however "merely technical" it
may be—MODAFF and MODAFF's treatment being entirely within the frame of
technical adequacy) the examination of recording as a practice disturbs the
unproblematic treatment of the Tape as immutable "data". Suddenly, the Tape is
as "insecure" and "untrustworthy" as all the other, more obviously crafted,
objects. And also, of course, the Transcript in such a procedure takes on the
qualities of immutability more frequently attributed, in CA, to the Tape. The
contingencies of its production have to be erased, just as the local histories of
particular recordings routinely are in CA's rhetoric of method, so as to enable the
Tape to act as the data: the object to which claims about the interaction are "in
the final analysis" (WILSON 1999) answerable. [31]

5. Innocence and Nostalgia: First Time, and Next Time, Through

We wish to argue that the mode of epistemic apprehension of CA's analytic

objects (whether aurally accessible objects are heard or listened to, and textual
ones, seen or read) varies systematically with reference to the temporal "stage"
of the research. We conceive of these stages in terms of "innocence" and
"nostalgia". When the objects are encountered for the first time ("First Time
Through"; cf. GARFINKEL, LYNCH & LIVINGSTON 1981) they are subjected to
activities done in the name of the rightward-leaning epistemic of listening/reading.
This frame of innocence is a one time process—it cannot be repeated—motivated
by the move to greater analytic utility. However, when they are apprehended
subsequently ("Next Time Through") they are treated according to the leftward
epistemic of hearing/seeing. Next Time encounterings, in our terms, are

9 Actually, though, there is a problem here. The technical aim of this comparative exercise is to
recommend the use of doubled recordings of telephone conversations (MODAFF & MODAFF
2000, p.111). But an even closer comparative analysis of the lines we have just been looking at
suggests that having two recordings may produce radical kinds of undecidability. Note that in
fragment 1A (better for Jay), line 002, Jay continues his line 001 turn with "and". However, as
we have seen, Dee's version (1B) has the first syllable of Dee's latched utterance "Ok[ay]" at
this precise point. So what is being done here? Jay's "and"? Dee's "Ok"? Or, perhaps, both,
overlapped? And how could this be decided?

© 2000 FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/

FQS 1(3), Art. 3, Malcolm Ashmore & Darren Reed: Innocence and Nostalgia in Conversation Analysis:
The Dynamic Relations of Tape and Transcript

accomplished through the workings of the nostalgia dynamic, as moves to gain

evidential utility.

Figure 3: Epistemic Modes: First Time Through and Next Time Through [32]

5.1 First time through—Innocence

Let us unpack and elaborate this rather opaque formulation, using the Tape as
our example (see Figure 3). A recording of a piece of talk has been made
(whether audio or video is immaterial to our analysis). A conversation analyst
coming to it for the first time will use the tape to make another analytic object: the
Transcript.10 This is accomplished through listening to the tape. Note that there is
no Transcript there already; in fact (of course) there are as yet no analytic objects
to the right of the Tape on our timeline: they are only projected. [33]

As we have noted, CA's rhetoric of method generally understands the relationship

of Transcript to Tape in terms of "representation" (HUTCHBY & WOOFFITT
1998, p.74) or translation from one modality (aural) to another (textual). In order
to achieve this translation as "faithfully" as possible, the Tape undergoes intense
and focussed listening. The interpretative and productive act of listening changes
the Tape's status from an unknown to a known, from an object that is radically
unstable to one which is relatively fixed. Listening polices the Tape. The "rules for
hearing" distilled from this process are articulated in and as the Transcript. Thus,
at this stage, the Transcript appears not so much as the Tape's translation, but
as its caption. In Bruno LATOUR's terms, the "coupled object" of Tape &

10 We are ignoring here the idea, increasingly mooted these digital days, of an Analysis being
made directly from the Tape. We do, however, address this possibility below.

© 2000 FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/

FQS 1(3), Art. 3, Malcolm Ashmore & Darren Reed: Innocence and Nostalgia in Conversation Analysis:
The Dynamic Relations of Tape and Transcript

Transcript, bound together as "image & caption", have begun to take on the
character and utility of an "immutable mobile" (LATOUR 1987). As we will see,
the immutable character of the Tape is strengthened in subsequent turns (Next
Times) which construe it as heard rather than listened to. [34]

Let us follow this First Time Through trajectory a little further to the right on our
timeline. The analyst now has two objects: the Tape and the Transcript. To make
the third in the sequence (the Analysis), the Transcript is subjected to intense and
focussed reading, with the objective of producing another set of "interpretation
rules"; this time, for "what there is to see" in the text of the Transcript. Again,
these rules are written in and as the next analytic object, the Analysis, which,
once more, acts as the caption to the Transcript's image. And to repeat, what is
produced in this process is not just a new analytic object: the "old" one, the one
being currently acted on interpretatively and productively (i.e. read), is thereby
strengthened, shored up, made more immutable.11 As this reiterated process
proceeds rightwards, the result is the production of a series of new, rightward,
objects in tandem with a set of worked-on, and thus stronger objects to the left of
the current work site. The rightward production of analytic objects in the move
towards greater analytic utility thus leaves in its wake a series of changed
objects. [35]

5.2 Next time through—Nostalgia

The work of Next Time Through typically occurs at moments of doubt or distrust.
For example it occurs when accounts are called into question, or when a
transcript is "checked", "refined" or "revised". In CA "re-listening" (to the Tape)
and "re-reading" (the Transcript) are two exemplary moments of the Next Time
Through. On these occasions what is re-experienced, according to CA's rhetoric
of method, is an unchanged analytic object: each return is construed as though it
were the first time the object had been encountered, as though it were through a
frame of innocence. This orientation ignores the reflexive effects of returning to
an object built through the search for greater analytic utility. [36]

We understand re-listening and re-reading differently. Motivated by the nostalgia

dynamic we have outlined above, the return to and re-working of analytic objects
on a second, or subsequent—any Next Time—occasion, is not, for us, strictly
speaking, a re- anything. Next Time work is done on a different character of
object. The objects worked on in the First Time Through are novel and thus fluid
and indeterminate. The actions of listening and reading make them less so, give
them a known quality, increase their (potential) evidential utility. As we have
argued, it is this relative strength of the "older", "left-from-here" objects that
prompts nostalgic moves "back". The operation of the nostalgia dynamic draws
upon this relative immutability, this relative reification of CA's analytic objects. [37]

11 The process can be likened to the building of an escape tunnel, as featured in Second World
War movies like The Great Escape and The Wooden Horse. As the tunneller (the Listener, the
Reader) digs the formless earth, behind him the tunnel is shaped, strengthened, shored up,
given a definitive form.

© 2000 FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/

FQS 1(3), Art. 3, Malcolm Ashmore & Darren Reed: Innocence and Nostalgia in Conversation Analysis:
The Dynamic Relations of Tape and Transcript

It is not only the character of the objects that is different in the Next Time
Through. The mode of epistemic apprehension changes too. For example,
returning to the Tape does not involve listening to it to find out what there is to be
heard in it. That work has already been done and its results have been enshrined
as and in the Transcript, as the caption to the Tape's image. But once the
nostalgia dynamic starts to operate, objects can come "under suspicion". Perhaps
there is "something wrong" with the Transcript. If so, we can find out by checking
the suspect item against an (older, stronger) item to its left. So whereas in the
First Time Through, the Transcript acted (briefly) as the warrant for the Tape, in
the Next Time Through it is the other way round. And, as we have mentioned
above, the activity of checking item A against item B involves holding B constant.
In order to hold the Tape firmly in place while the Transcript is checked against it,
it needs to be heard. Hearing, you will recall, is an epistemic action that leaves its
object as it found it. Hearing the Tape takes for granted the already-known reality
of "what there is to be heard". [38]

6. Concluding Discussion

This "insider critique" of CA has elaborated some of the epistemic ethnomethods

of the analytic practices found in the discipline, focussing on the mutual relations
of tape and transcript. Our realisation of the significance of the range of positions
on this relationship motivated our elaboration of an epistemo-phenomenological
schema of evidential and analytic utility. By formulating the two distinct temporal
processes we denote First Time and Next Time Through, we have been able to
understand how CA's analytic objects are experienced differently relative to these
"stages". First Time Through is engendered by the move to analytic utility, that is
the requirement to produce worked up and work-able analytic objects. The
second activity of Next Time Through is begot by the search for increased
evidential utility: the need to "prove" those objects' adequacy, reliability and
mutual fidelity. And it is our contention that the majority of activity in CA is best
characterised as Next Time Through. [39]

While CA's rhetoric of method includes, at times, hints of the recognition of the
Next Time Through dynamic, it is in large part focussed on an understanding
characterised by innocence. That is, it views its various objects "naïvely": as
though they were unchanged on each occasion of apprehension. The trajectory
of innocence holds only one object—the Event—genuinely immutable by
rendering it, through its recording, forever out of reach of the researcher and the
reader. However, as we have argued, this is not the case for CA's other analytic
objects. When returning to the (apparently unchanged) tape and "re-listening" to
it, this activity, being Next Time Through, reflexively formulates it, not as a
listenable object, but as a hearable one. Similarly when a transcript is "re-read", it
is formulated as seeable. [40]

Let us add two complications to this picture. Firstly, the hearing and seeing of a
relatively reified analytic object is itself transient; a brief moment of "proof". To
question what is heard or seen is to immediately render the object once more as

© 2000 FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/

FQS 1(3), Art. 3, Malcolm Ashmore & Darren Reed: Innocence and Nostalgia in Conversation Analysis:
The Dynamic Relations of Tape and Transcript

produced, crafted, worked-on-and-worked-up. The evidential adequacy of any

object is momentary, contingent and fragile. [41]

Secondly, on each occasion in the Next Time Through where an evidentially

"weaker" object is checked against a "stronger", the reification of the latter is
balanced by an equivalent "de-reification" of the former. Evidential weakness and
strength are characteristics mutually achieved for the particular practical purpose
at hand. Also, which object plays which role in the activity of checking one against
the other cannot always be "read off" from CA's self-understanding. For CA, the
Tape stands as its strongest object and, as we have shown, the studied lack of
interest in its production and unconcern with its origin is one of the things that
contributes to this standing. But, as we have seen in the case of MODAFF and
MODAFF's (2000) paper on the technicalities of audio-recording, when an
interest in the Tape's production is evidenced, it is the Transcript that is treated
as "stronger" than the Tape. [42]

The idea that objects are apprehended differently in First Time and Next Time
Through has implications for a significant plank of CA's claim to superior
scientificity. Harvey SACKS, the founder of CA, claimed that, in the sociology he
was trying to develop, "the reader has as much information as the author and can
reproduce the analysis ... I'm showing my materials and others can analyze them
as well ..." (SACKS 1995, vol.1, p.27). MAYNARD strengthens and "scientizes"
this claim by noting that: "In a sense, it is possible to obtain independent
verification of interactional patterns because those who hear or read a
researcher's report can themselves analyze the data" (MAYNARD 1989, pp.130-
131). [43]

These positions are framed by an innocent, First Time Through perspective. The
claim is that other researchers can also experience the data—whether
understood as Tape or Transcript—as naïve observers. They can return to the
starting point and simply repeat the process. But, in our understanding of this
projected task, the reader is confronted by a set of different objects than were
available to the innocent researcher in First Time Through. In an important sense,
the reader has much more information than the author had on the equivalent
occasion: they have the author's analysis which instructs the reader in what to
hear on the tape and what to see in the transcript. They are simply not in a
position to approach the task of reanalysis with the requisite innocence. [44]

Alternatively, the reader of a "researcher's report" always has much less

information than the author. When a written piece of analysis is presented to a
wider audience, it is fragments of transcript that evidence the author's analytic
claims. Should the reader wish to "go further" than these texts allow, s/he will
have to "go back", on our nostalgic trajectory, to a more complete set of materials
—the (whole) Transcript, the Tape—which is always somewhere else. It is this
problem which motivates analysts like CARROLL to advocate a digital solution: a
transcript-free hypertext linking the Analysis directly to the Tape. It is our
speculative view, however, that in this situation the Tape would cease
successfully to play the role of "data": the place where the buck of "answerability"

© 2000 FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/

FQS 1(3), Art. 3, Malcolm Ashmore & Darren Reed: Innocence and Nostalgia in Conversation Analysis:
The Dynamic Relations of Tape and Transcript

stops. At present the Tape's fulfilment of this role is dependent on its being
"unavailable for questioning". Making it available for routine inspection in and as
the course of reading CA would provoke the "invention" of a new, "stronger"
analytic object (to its left in our schema) to which the Tape would relate, as,
currently, does the Transcript to the Tape. In effect, the Tape would become a
new form of Transcript. [45]

References

Anderson, Robert J. & Sharrock, Wesley W. (1984). Analytic work: Aspects of the organization of
conversational data. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 14(1), 103-124.
Boden, Deirdre & Zimmerman, Don H. (Eds.) (1991). Talk and Social Structure: Studies in
Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Bogen, David (1992). The organization of talk. Qualitative Sociology, 15, 273-296.
Carroll, Donald (2000). Re: [languse] transcribing digitized recordings. Private e-mail message sent
to Malcolm Ashmore on Sat, 27 May 2000 21:36:09 +0900.
Cook, Guy (1990). Transcribing infinity: Problems of context presentation. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 1-
24.
Edwards, J.A. & Lampert, M.D. (Eds.) (1993). Talking Data: Transcription and Coding in Discourse
Research. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Garfinkel, Harold (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Garfinkel, Harold; Lynch, Michael & Livingston, Eric (1981). The work of a discovering science
construed with materials from the optically discovered pulsar. Philosophy of the Social Sciences,
11(2), 131-158.
Goodwin, Charles (1994). Recording human interaction in natural settings. Pragmatics, 3, 181-209.
Green, Judith; Franquiz, Maria & Dixon, Carol (1997). The myth of the objective transcript:
Transcribing as a situated act. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 172-176.
Have, Paul ten (1990). Methodological issues in conversation analysis. Bulletin de Méthodologie
Sociologique, 27 (June), 23-51 (original publication). Updated version available on the World Wide
Web at www.pscw.uva.nl/emca/mica.htm (Broken link, FQS, June 2003).
Have, Paul ten (1997). In the presence of data: Conversation-analysis as "empirical philosophy".
Paper read at the conference on "Ethnomethodology, an improbable sociology?", Cerisy-la-Salles,
France, June 1997. Available on the World Wide Web at www.pscw.uva.nl/emca/presence.htm
(Broken link, FQS, June 2003).
Have, Paul ten (1999). Doing Conversation Analysis: A Practical Guide. London: Sage.
Hopper, Robert (1989). Conversation analysis and social psychology as descriptions of
interpersonal communication. In D. Roger & P. Bull (Eds.), Conversation (pp.48-65). Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Hutchby, Ian & Wooffitt, Robin (1998). Conversation Analysis: Principles, Practices and
Applications. Oxford: Polity Press (UK and Europe), Blackwell (USA).
Jefferson, Gail (1985). An exercise in the transcription and analysis of laughter. In T. Van Dijk (Ed.),
Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol. 3: Discourse and Dialogue (pp.25-34). London, UK:
Academic Press.
Jefferson, Gail (1996). A case of transcriptional stereotyping. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 159-170.
Latour, Bruno (1987). Science in Action. Milton Keynes: Open University Press (UK), Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press (USA).
Lomax, Helen & Casey, Neil (1998). Recording Social Life: Reflexivity and Video Methodology.
Sociological Research Online, 3(2). http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/3/2/1.html
Lynch, Michael (1993). Scientific Practice and Ordinary Action: Ethnomethodology and Social
Studies of Science. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lynch, Michael & Bogen, David (1994). Harvey Sacks' primitive natural science. Theory, Culture &
Society, 11, 65-104.

© 2000 FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/

FQS 1(3), Art. 3, Malcolm Ashmore & Darren Reed: Innocence and Nostalgia in Conversation Analysis:
The Dynamic Relations of Tape and Transcript

Maynard, Douglas W. (1989). On the ethnography and analysis of discourse in institutional settings.
In J.A. Holstein & G. Miller (Eds), Perspectives on Social Problems, Vol. 1 (pp.127-146).
Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press.
McHoul, Alec W. (1987). An initial investigation of the usability of fictional conversation for doing
conversational analysis. Semiotica, 67, 83-104.
Mishler, Elliot G. (1991). Representing discourse: The rhetoric of transcription. Journal of Narrative
and Life History, 1(4), 255-280.
Modaff, John V. & Modaff, Daniel P. (2000). Technical notes on audio recording. Research on
Language and Social Interaction, 33(1), 101-118.
Moerman, Michael (1988). Talking Culture: Ethnography and Conversation Analysis. Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Nelson, Christian K. (1994). Ethnomethodological positions on the use of ethnographic data in
conversation analytic research. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 23, 307-329.
Ochs, Elinor (1979). Transcription as theory. In E. Ochs & B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Developmental
Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.
O'Connell, D.C. & Kowal, S. (1994). Some current transcription systems for spoken discourse: A
critical analysis. Pragmatics, 4, 81-107.
Pack, Christopher (1986). Features of signs encountered in designing a notational system for
transcribing lectures. In Harold Garfinkel (Ed.), Ethnomethodological Studies of Work (pp.92-122).
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Pomerantz, Anita & Fehr, B.J. (1997). Conversation analysis: An approach to the study of social
action as sense making practices. In T.A. Van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction. London:
Sage.
Psathas, George (1995). Conversation Analysis: The Study of Talk-in-Interaction. Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage (Qualitative Research Methods 35).
Reed, Darren & Ashmore, Malcolm (2000). The naturally-occurring chat machine. M/C: A Journal of
Media and Culture 3(4). http://www.media-culture.org.au/0008/machine.html [Broken link, FQS,
December 2004].
Sacks, Harvey (1984). Notes on methodology. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (Eds.),
Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp.21-27). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Sacks, Harvey (1995). Lectures on Conversation. 2 Vols. Edited by Gail Jefferson with introductions
by Emanuel A. Schegloff. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Schegloff, Emmanuel A. (1979). Identification and recognition in telephone conversation openings.
In George Psathas (Ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology (pp.23-78). New York:
Irvington Publishers.
Schutz, Alfred (1972). The Phenomenology of the Social World. London: Heinemann.
Silverman, David (1998). Harvey Sacks: Social Science and Conversation Analysis. Oxford: Polity
Press.
Wilson, Thomas P. (1999). Re: [languse] transcribing digitised recordings. Posted to the "LANG-
USE" (Language Use Discussion) e-mail list <[email protected]> on Wed, 9 Jun 1999
16:50:41.

Authors

Malcolm ASHMORE is the author of The Reflexive Contact:

Thesis (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,
1989) and, with Michael MULKAY and Trevor Malcolm Ashmore
PINCH, Health and Efficiency (Buckingham: Open Department of Social Sciences
University Press, 1989. His main research interest Loughborough University
is in the social analysis of science and expertise. Loughborough LE11 3TU
He is currently researching the recovered UK
memory/false memory controversy.
E-mail: [email protected]

© 2000 FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/

FQS 1(3), Art. 3, Malcolm Ashmore & Darren Reed: Innocence and Nostalgia in Conversation Analysis:
The Dynamic Relations of Tape and Transcript

Darren REED is a postgraduate student in the Contact:

Department of Social Sciences. His research is an
investigation of sequential practices in Internet Darren Reed
newsgroup messages. Department of Social Sciences
Loughborough University
Loughborough LE11 3TU
UK
E-mail: [email protected]

Citation

Ashmore, Malcolm & Reed, Darren (2000). Innocence and Nostalgia in Conversation Analysis: The
Dynamic Relations of Tape and Transcript [45 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung /
Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(3), Art. 3, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-
fqs000335.
Revised 8/2008

© 2000 FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/