Source
Wilhoit (2016), LIT-1923, pp. 45–49; read in NOTE-1487.
What was actually shown
An argument. Wilhoit reads the Montréal School’s ontology (organizing is interaction) as yielding an epistemology (knowledge of organizing comes from studying interactions) and so a method (conversation analysis, p. 46). Taking Craig’s (1999) criterion that a metamodel must have no built-in restrictions, she concludes that ventriloquism, carrying these commitments, cannot host traditions whose methods differ (pp. 47–48). The evidence that CA is CCO’s method is three citations; the evidence of policing is the author’s own experience of review. Nothing in it could have come out otherwise: it is a reading, not a test.
What this does not say
- It does not say that ventriloquial or conversation-analytic studies entify agents, or treat interlocutors as already constituted. Those are Bencherki, Brummans & Vézy’s claims (LIT-1902, pp. 1351, 1359, 1363–1364), which they attribute to this paper.
- It does not assess any of Cooren’s analyses, of MSF or anything else.
- It does not say ventriloquism is wrong, only that, as Cooren deploys it, it unifies where it should open dialogue.