{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023156089193825044, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.784883720930233, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Close encounters of the ‘CA’ kind: a review of literature analysing talk in research interviews

Findings from ethnonmethodological (EM) and conversation analytic (CA) studies have contributed significantly to an understanding of how social order is produced on a moment-by-moment basis. Recently, researchers have examined a wide variety of talk drawn from research interviews using EM and CA methods, including standardized survey interviews, focus groups, and open-ended conversational interviews. The purpose of these kinds of analyses has been to explicate how descriptions and accounts are produced and co-constructed by researchers and participants of research projects. This article reviews studies that have used ethnomethodological methods, including membership categorization analysis (MCA) and CA, to investigate interview data. The diversity of work conducted and approaches taken by EM, MCA, and CA researchers in their analyses of data generated in research interviews is outlined, and the implications of findings for qualitative researchers with respect to the teaching of qualitative research methodology and qualitative data analysis are provided.