Conversation Analysis, Feminist CELIA KITZINGER University of York, UK Feminist conversation analysis uses the standard methods of conversation analysis to explore issues of interest to feminist scholars—for example, refusal of unwanted sex, prosecution of violence against women, empowering of women in childbirth, and understanding of how gender afects the way people engage with each other. It is an approach to the study of human interaction that brings together the political and ethical concerns of feminism and the rigorous technical methods of conversation analysis (CA). As a movement concerned with the social, political, and economic rights of women, feminism seeks to understand (and to challenge) gender inequalities in a wide variety of ways, both within and beyond the academy. Feminists harness a range of methodologies—both “micro-” and “macro-,” both qualitative and quantitative—depending on the research question asked and on the theoretical and methodological proclivities of the researcher. CA is one of many approaches in the femi- nist methodological toolkit. It is not always necessarily the best, or the most appropriate, method for feminists interested in language and social interaction, since (as is the case with any research methodology) the research question may mandate other approaches. CA originated through the work of Harvey Sacks in collaboration with Emanuel Scheglof and Gail Jeferson. It developed out of the sociological tradition of eth- nomethodology, that is, out of an interest in understanding social members’ methods in order to make sense of the everyday social world. For ethnomethodologists, social facts such as power and oppression are accomplishments, continually created, sus- tained, and resisted through the practices of members in interaction. CA is concerned with how people do social order rather than with how they are animated by it: It is an approach that explores how everyday reality is produced by those engaging in it. here are many varieties of feminism: Some feminists reject this theoretical perspective, others (including feminist ethnomethodologists, social constructionists, and postmodernists) ind it valuable. here is a large body of research on gender and language that addresses research questions for which CA is not well suited. hese are, in particular, questions about (1) diferences and similarities between men’s and women’s talk and about (2) people’s beliefs or attitudes to gender as (purportedly) displayed through their talk about gen- der or through their use of gendered terms. With reference to the irst set of questions, it is not legitimate, from the point of view of CA, to treat speakers as “women” or as “men” unless they display an orientation to gender in their talk (Scheglof, 1997). his means that comparing (for example) the number of tag questions or interruptions in he International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction, First Edition. Karen Tracy (General Editor), Cornelia Ilie and Todd Sandel (Associate Editors). © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/9781118611463/wbielsi152