Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository

Table 4.3 Data: Omissions from Analysis
1. Non-audible (e. g. low volume; additional background noise)
2. Non-transcribable (e. g. highly 'schismed')
3. Incoherent conversation (in terms of joint focus)
4. Instances of mainly task-centred talk (e. g. serving food)
5. Highly personal talk (e. g. sensitive topics; divulging personal information)
Before I move on to begin my analysis - beginning with an ethnographic
informed account of facework in sociable gatherings in general -I want to
briefly touch on some of the contingencies of gathering such conversational
data within, and whilst a bona fide participant in, sociable gatherings s in each
milieu, what I have referred to elsewhere (Philburn 2003) as 'socia(b)l(e)
science'
4.4 Ethical issues: Consent; Explanation, and Role
Ambivalence
Alongside ensuring for example the anonymity of participants and
accurately representing the conversational data, there were other ethical
concerns which arose during the course of my research activities. These
included for example gaining informed consent, providing an explanation for my
activities to participants, conducting my studies as unobtrusively as possible,
and maintaining a professional standpoint vis-A-vis my role as researcher, and a
sociable standpoint vis-6-vis my role as guest.
Consent was an issue that was not wholly unproblematic during the data
collection. At the beginning of recordings, I asked all the participants if it was
alright for me to record the talk. I generally did not ask one individual but,
attempting to be democratic, the whole group. My line was commonly along the
lines of 'Would anybody mind if I made a recording? ', or'Macht es jemandem
ill