Introduction: Conversation analysis (CA) has been defined by Hutchby and Wooffitt (2008) as “the systematic analysis of conversation produced in situations daily human interaction: conversation -in interaction” (p. 11). This suggests that only what is observed during an interaction, the conversation produced, will be taken into account in the data analysis carried out by conversation analysts. This view has been echoed by many conversation analysts, including Ten Have (2006), who pointed out that CA focuses on "emic categories [that] are 'discovered' during an investigation" (p. 36), without preconception or prediction. before analysis. This is a strong position for CA, where according to Stubbe, Lane, Hilder, Vine, Vine, Marra, Holmes and Weatherall (2003), contexts will only be included in analyzes when they are made relevant in the interaction. Otherwise, we won't even talk about it. One of the criticisms leveled at CA, reported by Hutchby et al. (2008) is that CA “lacks an adequate sense of contextualization of utterances within a broader set of social relations and practices” (p. 208). Contextualization or the inclusion of an external context in this sense would include information such as gender, age, occupation, ideology, and other information that defines an individual in a particular society. It is true that interactions take place in a social context and many studies use contextualization in their analyses. However, as this article progresses, it will become clear that the context is defined by the participants themselves and that this is adequate for the analyzes (Stubbe et al., 2003). The second criticism also noted by Hutchby et al. (2008) stated that "conversation analysts in general are seen as reluctant to make connections between the 'micro' details of...... middle of article...... conversation analysis: comparative perspectives (pp. 357-406). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seedhouse, P. (2005). Conversation analysis as a research methodology. In: Richards, K. and Seedhouse, P. (Eds.) Application of conversation analysis (pp. 251-266). New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Segerdahl, P. (2003). Conversation analysis as a rigorous science. In: Previgiano, CL and Thibault, PJ (eds.). Discussing conversation analysis (pp. 91-108). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Silverman, D. (1998). Social sciences and conversation analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press. Stubbe, M., Lane, C., Hilder, J., Vine, E., Vine, B., Marra, M., Holmes, J. and Weatherall, A. (2003). Multiple discourse analyzes of workplace interaction. Discourse studies. 5(1), 351-388. Ten Have, P. (2006). Doing a conversation analysis: a practical guide. London: Sage Publications Ltd.