Announcing 'Stammering Research' - Stammering Research - UCL
Announcing 'Stammering Research' - Stammering Research - UCL
Announcing 'Stammering Research' - Stammering Research - UCL
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>Stammering</strong> <strong>Research</strong>. Vol. 1.<br />
distinctive research paradigm and one which, I will attempt to show, is ideally suited to the<br />
examination of certain aspects of the phenomenon of stammering.<br />
It is important to stress at the outset that this paper is not intended as a critique of quantitative<br />
methods per se or even the application of such approaches to the study of stammering. Indeed, while it<br />
may be a useful means of classifying various research methods, some regard the distinction between<br />
quantitative and qualitative ambiguous and somewhat unhelpful (see Bryman 2004:19; Oakley,<br />
2000:303). This ambiguity is evident in the fact that conversation analysts often employ various types<br />
of quantification when reporting their findings. However, these generally take the form of informal<br />
quantifying expressions such as ‘regularly’, ‘frequently’, ‘commonly’, ‘routinely’, ‘massively’ and so<br />
on, rather than percentages and significance levels 1 . While some conversation analysts do stray into<br />
more formal counting, quantification is not regarded as the ultimate aim, or even a preliminary stage, of<br />
analysis (Hutchby & Woffitt 1998:115). This reluctance to engage in formal quantification derives<br />
from conversation analysis’s unique approach to social interaction and this is explored in some detail<br />
below. When conversation analysts gather collections of some particualar phenomenon, they do so in<br />
an attempt to reveal systematic patterns in talk-in-interaction. However, this does not entail treating<br />
these phenomena as statistical variables and there is a recognition that each case is unique. Hutchby<br />
and Woffitt (1998: 116-19) provide a good illustration of some of the key distinctions between<br />
conversation analysis and an experimental approach to talk, and conclude that ‘the focus on<br />
quantification tends to lead the analyst away from considering, closely on a case-by-case basis, how<br />
participants themselves are orienting to one another’s actions’.<br />
It is also necessary to say a few words here about the primary focus of conversation analytic<br />
research, naturally-occuring talk-in-interaction. While data may be obtained from almost any source<br />
there is a requirement that it is ‘naturally-occurring’, rather than produced for the purposes of study, as<br />
it might be in laboratory experiments or controlled observations (Psatahas 1995). Much of the data<br />
employed by conversation analysts, then, consists of conversations that take place as people go about<br />
their everyday lives, free from the intervention of a researcher. However, the term talk-in-interaction<br />
indicates that this research is not just confined to ordinary mundane conversation, but may also include<br />
other ‘speech exchange systems’ (Schegloff 1978), such as news interviews, classroom interaction,<br />
courtroom discourse and doctor-patient interaction (e.g Clayman 1988; Heritage & Greatbatch 1991;<br />
Mehan 1985; Atkinson & Drew 1979; Frankel, 1990). This focus on talk-in-interaction may offer a<br />
particular way in to some of the difficulties experienced by people who stammer. As many claim to be<br />
fluent while alone 2 and the nature of the listener 3 has an impact on the severity of stammering, there<br />
appear to be strong grounds for focusing on the kinds of data advocated by conversation analysis,<br />
rather than various forms of monologue.<br />
The main aim of this paper, then, is to highlight the distinctive methodological features of<br />
conversation analysis and to draw attention to the potential of this approach for developing our<br />
understanding of the interactional implications of stammering. More specifically, it will examine some<br />
of the basic foundational concepts of conversation analysis and attempt to demonstrate their relevance<br />
for the study of speech dysfluencies. To put these issues in context, this discussion will be preceded by<br />
a brief summary of examples of previous work on communication ‘disorders’ which have employed<br />
this approach. To begin, however, I will provide some background information on the conversation<br />
analytic perspective. This overview is, of course, necessarily selective and draws only on those issues<br />
which I consider to be directly relevant to the current enterprise.<br />
2. The Conversation Analytic Perspective<br />
Conversation analysis first emerged in the early 1960s as result of a fusion of the perspectives of Erving<br />
Goffman and Harold Garfinkel regarding the organisation of everyday interaction 4 (Goodwin & Heritage<br />
1 Schegloff (1993) has dealt at length with the issue of quantification in the study of conversation and<br />
draws attention to the fact that ‘one is also a number, the single case is also a quantity, and statistical<br />
significance is but one form of significance’ (Schegloff 1993:101).<br />
2 Indeed, it could be argued that stammering is a problem of interaction as Bloodstein (1995:303)<br />
suggests that any stammering that does occur when PWS are alone may be partly due to the fact that<br />
they serve as their own critical listeners<br />
3 Severity of stammering seems to be significantly affected by the nature of the listener. For example,<br />
speaking to a close friend is likely to be less problematic than speaking to a stranger who may exhibit<br />
negative reactions (see Bloodstein 1995:300). Similarly, speaking to someone who is perceived to be<br />
in a position of authority may also exacerbate speech difficulties (e.g Sheehan, Hadley and Gould<br />
1967).<br />
4 A detailed examination of the intellectual origins and fundamental philosophical assumptions which<br />
underpin conversation analysis is beyond the scope of this paper but these issues are well documented<br />
250