My reaction focuses on the examples and observations about conversation analysis as one of the approaches. Conversation analysis (CA) is an approach within the social sciences that aims to describe, analyze and understand talk as a basic and constitutive feature of human social life. CA is a well-developed tradition with a distinctive set of methods and analytic procedures as well as a large body of established findings.
At its core, conversation analysis is a set of methods for working with audio and video recordings of talk and social interaction. These methods were worked out in some of the earliest conversation-analytic studies and have remained remarkably consistent over the last 40 years. Their continued use has resulted in a large body of strongly interlocking and mutually supportive findings. The aim of conversation analysis (CA) is the study of recorded, naturally occurring talk-in-interaction. But what is the aim of studying these interactions? Principally, it is to discover how participants understand and respond to one another in their turns at talk, with a central focus on how sequences of action are generated. To put it another way, the objective of CA is to uncover the often tacit reasoning procedures and sociolinguistic competencies underlying the production and interpretation of talk in organized sequences of interaction."
The simple responses to criticism of conversational analysis will awakened the students and the responses are critically presented through some points. Many people who take a look at CA 'from the outside' are amazed by a number of superficial features of CA's practice. It seems to them that CA refuses to use available 'theories' of human conduct to ground or organize its arguments, or even to construct a 'theory' of its own. Furthermore, it seems unwilling to explain the phenomena it studies by invoking 'obvious' factors like basic properties of the participants or the institutional context of the interaction. And finally, it seems to be 'obsessed' with the details of its materials. These impressions are not too far off the mark, but the issue is why CA refuses to use or construct 'theories,' why it refuses interaction-external explanations, and why it is obsessed with details. The short answer is that these refusals and this obsession are necessary in order to get a clear picture of CA's core phenomenon, the in situ organization of conduct, and especially talk-in-interaction. So CA is not 'a-theoretical' but it has a different conception of how to theorize about social life.
In conclusion, the discourse suited for conversational analysis is the communication as joint activity and the attention to the sequential organization of talk, turn-taking and topic management. Conversational analysis is particularly interested in the sequencing of utterances, in other words, not in what people say but in how they say it. The intention of its actions focus on accomplishing interactional life in real time and the suitable typical data as a subject of analysis are audio and video recording.