The report's claim comes with caveats. Its critics say it does more to reveal issues around collecting and analyzing domestic terrorism data than it does to clarify the current state of the problem.

This olde exchange concerning the place of ‘social-structural’ considerations in descriptions of the organizations of talk-in-interaction was recently brought to mind. (Perhaps the ‘obscurity’ involved was there to shield the suggestion from promiscuous application!) #EMCA

Over the years, I’ve sometimes given grad students the list of reading - as I then recalled it - that Sacks gave me when we first met. Yesterday, I came across my original list, while rummaging through a file folder of my earliest lecture notes from grad school. Here is the actual list. Enjoy!

I just came across another (apparent) handout:

“Some Ways Conversation Analysts Interrogate Talk-in-Interaction”

but cannot remember the venue at which it was circulated. Nonetheless, some might find it or bits of it useful…

www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/poylj...

Because CA findings are necessarily tied to and grounded in and configured by reference to participants’ situated participation, I was wondering just how broad or general purpose CA findings could be (without becoming untethered).

www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/k4f6n...

I’ve come across a clipping of Note 1 from “Everyone has to lie” which I haven’t thought about for a long time. So, I thought I’d pass it along.

www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/kl82h...

There were reasons for this shift. Here’s one: We didn’t know that these small sequences just kept ‘bipping along’.

Here’s an old note from a beginning grad student (requesting some help with a first assignment) and then my reply.

Here is an old course assignment I created, but I find it can be a useful way to proceed with the work.

www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/v78l1...

I just stumbled across an old course handout. I thought I might share it here.