ABSTRACT
This chapter discusses what ethno methodology (EM) and conversation analysis (CA) can contribute to studies of the military, specifically understandings of action-in-interaction' in military settings. It explores how work in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis provides an alternative way of approaching the problems posed in studying the different forms of practice that constitute soldierly work'. The chapter provides demonstrations using three empirical examples. Demonstration 1 looks at different transcription conventions and how presentational issues impact the reading and understanding of the materials documented in transcripts of action-in-interaction during combat. Demonstration 2 looks at the coupling of different data sources to explore how questions of evidence' and first-hand experience are resolved in military settings. Finally, demonstration 3 looks at how military practice is opened up and explained in practical terms via materials gathered under questioning. The military boards' reports, like the coroner's verdict and media coverage, were not neutral descriptions but accounts offered to particular audiences for particular ends.
