Keith Richards ~ University of Warwick 
Love, hate and indifference: The impact of talk about relationships on the interpretation of talk in relationships
Using examples from two different research sites, this paper explores the relationship between the analysis of recorded interaction and insights derived from other data sources, showing how retrospectively reconfigured relationships influence interpretive positioning.
While issues of trust, researcher identity and field relationships receive considerable attention in the literature (for recent examples, see Russell 2005, Gubrium and Koro-Ljungberg 2005), far less attention has been paid to issues of deliberate or unintentional deception, except where interviews are concerned (see, for example, Gardner 2001, Sikes 2000). This paper examines the effects of two cases where undisclosed relationships were discovered towards the end of the data collection process and explores the implications of this for different data collection methods. In particular, it engages with the ongoing debate on the use of contextual information when interpreting talk in interaction, a methodological issue central to linguistic ethnography.
The first of the two core cases in the paper shows how relevant contextual information derived from fieldnotes led to a reinterpretation of a previously discrepant exchange involving teachers in a staffroom and the subsequent bracketing out of one participant’s perspective on an important topic of staffroom talk. A second case reveals how interview data revealed a hitherto unsuspected antipathy that did not, as in the first case, manifest itself in professional interaction but prompted a re-interpretation of hitherto neglected personal interaction.
The paper concludes with a discussion of methodological implications for linguistic ethnographers, specifically with regard to researcher identity and the relationship between textual and contextual analysis.

References
Gardner, G. 2001. Unreliable memories and other contingencies: Problems with biographical knowledge. Qualitative Research, 1(2): 185-204.
Sikes, P. 2000. ‘Truth’ and ‘Lies’ revisited. British Educational Research Journal, 26(2): 257-70.
Gubrium, E. and Koro-Ljungberg, M. 2005. Contending with border making in the social constructionist interview. Qualitative Inquiry, 11(5): 689-715.
Russell, L. 2005. It’s a question of trust: balancing the relationship between students and teachers in ethnographic fieldwork. Qualitative Research, 5(2): 181-99