Conversation-analytic data session as a pedagogical institution

We draw on interaction oriented focus group research and conversation analysis to study the conversation analytic data session as a pedagogical institution. Drawing on focus group interviews among conversation analytic experts and novices, we considered (1) the degree of sharedness of different normative orientations among the conversation analysts regarding the data session and (2) possible differences in how novice and expert conversation analysts orient, perceive and evaluate data session normativity. We found both the experts and novices to engage in adelicate act of balancing between two normative ideals — that everyone should contribute to the joint analysis and that everyone who contributes to the joint analysis should be constructive. The experts displayed a strong consensus that all data session participants' contributions should be treated equally — given that all of them are competent language users. Th enovices, thenagain, emphasized the different levels of experience between the data session participants and sought for recognition of their own lower competence in relation to that of the experts. It thus seems that the collaborative, democratic practices, which are seen as empowering by the experts, invoke anxiety in the novices. Making this tension visible can enable the development of conversation analytic datasessions from the pedagogical perspective.We draw on interaction-oriented focus group research and conversation analysis to study the conversation-analytic data session as a pedagogical institution. Drawing on focus group interviews among conversation-analytic experts and novices, we considered (1) the degree of sharedness of different normative orientations among the conversation analysts regarding the data session and (2) possible differences in how novice and expert conversation analysts orient, perceive and evaluate data-session normativity. We found both the experts and novices to engage in a delicate act of balancing between two normative ideals—that everyone should contribute to the joint analysis and that everyone who contributes to the joint analysis should be constructive. The experts displayed a strong consensus that all data-session participants' contributions should be treated equally—given that all of them are competent language users. The novices, then again, emphasized the different levels of experience between the data-session participants and sought for recognition of their own lower competence in relation to that of the experts. It thus seems that the collaborative, democratic practices, which are seen as empowering by the experts, invoke anxiety in the novices. Making this tension visible can enable the development of conversation-analytic data sessions from the pedagogical perspective.Peer reviewe