Abstract
This response to Corcoran (2010) and Abell and Walton (2010) is organized around four key issues. (1) Disciplinarity: against a focus on the standard disciplinary boundaries of social psychology, and the conventional qualitative/quantitative division, it highlights metatheoretical, theoretical, and empirical disagreement over the object of analysis. (2) Social cognition: doubts about a suggested overlap between the concerns and methods of social cognition and discursive psychology are outlined. (3) Naturalistic data: the virtues of working with records of people living their lives outside of the narrow situations got up by social researchers are reiterated. (4) Application: the applied success of discursive psychological research is illustrated.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
