Two traditions of interaction research

Abstract

The paper compares Bales' Interaction Process Analysis (IPA) with Sacks' Conversation Analysis (CA), arguing that CA has answered several questions that originally motivated the development of IPA, and while doing so, it has re-specified the phenomena of interaction research. These two research traditions are in many ways diametrically opposed: the former is quantitative, theory-oriented and aims at global characterizations of interactional situations, while the latter is qualitative, inductive and aims at characterizing specific layers of organization (such as turn taking or sequence organization) that give structure to interactional situations. Their primary objects of study are different. For the Balesian tradition, it is the functioning and the structure of a small group, whereas in the Sacksian tradition, it is the structures and practices of human social interaction per se. It is argued, however, that CA has radically expanded understanding of the questions IPA was originally developed to address. These questions include allocation of resources, control and solidarity. Bales' research deals with them in terms of the differentiation of participants of a group, whereas CA has re-specified them as emergent aspects of the very rules and structures that constitute and regulate interaction sequences. The uniqueness of the CA perspective on social interaction is demonstrated by exploring the display of emotion as an interactional phenomenon. It is argued that the display of emotion is intrinsically embedded in the sequential organization of action. Sensitive 'coding and counting' approaches can detect emotion displays, but the contribution of CA is to show the specific ways in which they are part of the business of interaction.