Announcing 'Stammering Research' - Stammering Research - UCL

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