A study using conversation analysis of how topic ambiguity can play out in a qualitative research interview. The ambiguity arose during research into the impact of esoteric knowledge (productivity in the health and social care sector) on actors engaged in actual work practices.
As the researcher's subjectivity developed, it became clear that the ambiguity of topic was caused by the researcher interpreting an interviewee, Yv's, talk in terms of his own agenda. The study lays bare the dynamics of this 'mis-take'.
( A second edition with minor corrections is also available. )