People communicate through language as well as visual embodied actions like gestures, yet audio remains the default recording technology in interview-based writing research. Given that texts and writing processes are understood to involve semiotic resources beyond language, interview talk should receive similar treatment. In this article, I synthesize research that examines how visual embodied actions reveal and construct embodied knowledge and stance, and I apply these lenses to my own study, showing how visual embodied actions are essential to understanding three writers’ experiences with particular writing styles. I conclude by discussing the benefits of videorecording for writing research, offering guidance on how video can help researchers explore the interview as a social practice, and suggesting ways to design the consent process with transparency and democratic practice in mind. Ultimately, this article serves as a guide for writing researchers who wish to challenge the audio default when conducting interviews.
BabcockR. D.ThonusT. (2012). Researching the writing center: Towards an evidence-based practice. Peter Lang.
5.
BerryP. W.HawisherG. E.SelfeC. L. (2012). Transnational literate lives in digital times. Computers and Composition Digital Press/Utah State University Press. https://ccdigitalpress.org/book/transnational/
6.
BezemerJ.MaversD. (2011). Multimodal transcription as academic practice: A social semiotic perspective. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(3), 191–206.
7.
BilmesJ. (1988). The concept of preference in conversation analysis. Language in Society, 17(2), 161–181.
8.
BlakesleeA. M.FleischerC. (2007). Becoming a writing researcher. LEA.
9.
BoxallK.RalphS. (2009). Research ethics and the use of visual images in research with people with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 34(1), 45–54.
10.
BrandtD. (2001). Literacy in American lives. Cambridge University Press.
11.
BucholtzM. (2000). The politics of transcription. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1439–1465.
12.
BucholtzM. (2007). Variation in transcription. Discourse Studies, 9(6), 784–808.
13.
BucholtzM.HallK. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 585–614.
14.
BurfordJ. (2017). Not writing, and giving “zero-f**ks” about it: Queer(y)ing doctoral “failure.”Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 38(4), 473–484.
15.
BurgessA.IvaničR. (2010). Writing and being written: Issues of identity across timescales. Written Communication, 27(2), 228–255.
16.
ButlerJ. (2017). Bodies in composition: Teaching writing through kinesthetic performance. Composition Studies, 45(2), 73–90.
17.
CastrodaleM. A. (2018). Mobilizing dis/ability research: A critical discussion of qualitative go-along interviews in practice. Qualitative Inquiry, 24(1), 45–55.
18.
ClaysonA. (2018). Distributed cognition and embodiment in text planning: A situated study of collaborative writing in the workplace. Written Communication, 35(2), 155–181.
DerryS. J.PeaR. D.BarronB.EngleR. A.EricksonF.GoldmanR.HallR.KoschmannT.LemkeJ. L.SherinM. G.SherinB. L. (2010). Conducting video research in the learning sciences: Guidance on selection, analysis, technology, and ethics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 3–53.
22.
Doheny-FarinaS.OdellL. (1985). Ethnographic research on writing: Assumptions and methodology. In OdellL.GoswamiD. (Eds.), Writing in nonacademic settings (pp. 503–535). Guilford.
23.
Du BoisJ. W. (2007). The stance triangle. In EnglebretsonR. (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 139–182). John Benjamins.
24.
DurstS. (2019). Disciplinarity and literate activity in civil and environmental engineering: A lifeworld perspective. Written Communication, 36(4), 471–502.
25.
EricksonF. (2006). Definition and analysis of data from videotape: Some research procedures and their rationales. In GreenJ. L.CamilliG.ElmoreP. B.SkukauskaitiA.GraceE. (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 177–191). AERA/LEA.
26.
EubanksP. (2011). Metaphor and writing: Figurative thought in the discourse of written communication. Cambridge University Press.
27.
FlewittR. (2006). Using video to investigate preschool classroom interaction: Education research assumptions and methodological practices. Visual Communication, 5(1), 25–50.
28.
GardnerR. (2001). When listeners talk: Response tokens and listener stance. John Benjamins.
GoodwinM. H.AlimH. S. (2010). “Whatever (neck roll, eye roll, teeth suck)”: The situated coproduction of social categories and identities through stancetaking and transmodal stylization. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 20(1), 179–194.
31.
GrayB.BiberD. (2012). Current conceptions of stance. In HylandK.Sancho GuindaC. (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 15–33). Palgrave Macmillan.
32.
Grutsch McKinneyJ. (2016). Strategies for writing center research. Parlor Press.
33.
HaasC. A.WitteS. P. (2001). Writing as an embodied practice: The case of engineering standards. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 15(4), 413–457.
34.
HallK.GoldsteinD. M.IngramM. B. (2016). The hands of Donald Trump: Entertainment, gesture, spectacle. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 6(2), 71–100.
35.
HeathC.HindmarshJ.LuffP. (2010). Video in qualitative research: Analysing social interaction in everyday life. SAGE.
36.
HengstJ. A. (2001). Collaborating on reference: A study of discourse and aphasia [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
37.
HengstJ. A. (2010). Semiotic remediation, conversational narratives, and aphasia. In PriorP. A.HengstJ. A. (Eds.), Exploring semiotic remediation as discourse practice (pp. 107–138). Palgrave Macmillan.
38.
HepburnA.BoldenG. B. (2017). Transcribing for social research. SAGE.
39.
HoldingC.BellwoarH. (2013). Literacies of touch: Massage therapy and the body composed. In KatzM.-L. (Ed.), Moving ideas: Multimodality and embodied learning in communities and schools (pp. 229–242). Peter Lang.
40.
HughesM. A.HayhoeG. F. (2008). A research primer for technical communication: Methods, exemplars, and analyses. LEA.
JaffeA. (2009). Introduction: The sociolinguistics of stance. In JaffeA. (Ed.), Stance: Sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 3–28). Oxford University Press.
KatzS. M. (2002). Ethnographic research. In GurakL. J.LayM. M. (Eds.), Research in technical communication (pp. 23–45). Praeger.
45.
KendonA. (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge University Press.
46.
KendonA. (2017). Pragmatic functions of gestures: Some observations on the history of their study and their nature. Gesture, 16(2), 157–175.
47.
KinkeadJ. A. (2016). Researching writing: An introduction to research methods. Utah State University Press.
48.
KroskrityP. K. (2010). Language ideologies—Evolving perspectives. In JaspersJ.OstmanJ.-O.VerschuerenJ. (Eds.), Society and language use (pp. 192–211). John Benjamins.
49.
LakoffG. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In OrtonyA. (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 202–251). Cambridge University Press.
50.
LillisT. (2008). Ethnography as method, methodology, and “deep theorizing”: Closing the gap between text and context in academic writing research. Written Communication, 25(3), 353–388.
51.
MacNealyM. S. (1999). Strategies for empirical research in writing. Allyn & Bacon.
52.
MannS. (2016). The research interview: Reflective practice and reflexivity in research processes. Palgrave Macmillan.
MillerE. L. (2019). Negotiating communicative access in practice: A study of a memoir group for people with aphasia. Written Communication, 36(2), 197–230.
56.
MishlerE. G. (1991). Representing discourse: The rhetoric of transcription. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 1(4), 255–280.
57.
MondadaL. (2014). The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 65, 137–156.
58.
MondadaL. (2016). Challenges of multimodality: Language and the body in social interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(3), 336–366.
59.
NiemeläM. (2010). The reporting space in conversational storytelling: Orchestrating all semiotic channels for taking a stance. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(12), 3258–3270.
60.
OchsE. (1979). Transcription as theory. In OchsE.SchieffelinB. (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics (pp. 43–72). Academic Press.
61.
OdellL.GoswamiD.HerringtonA. (1983). The discourse-based interview: A procedure for exploring the tacit knowledge of writers in nonacademic settings. In MosenthalP.TamorL.WalmsleyS. A. (Eds.), Research on writing: Principles and methods (pp. 221–236). Longman.
62.
OlingerA. R. (2011). Constructing identities through “discourse”: Stance and interaction in collaborative college writing. Linguistics and Education, 22(3), 273–286.
63.
OlingerA. R. (2014). On the instability of disciplinary style: Common and conflicting metaphors and practices in text, talk, and gesture. Research in the Teaching of English, 48(4), 453–478.
64.
OlingerA. R. (2016). A sociocultural approach to style. Rhetoric Review, 35(2), 121–134.
65.
OlingerA. R. (2019). Self-contradiction in talk about writing: Making and unmaking autonomous models of literacy [Manuscript submitted for publication]. University of Louisville.
66.
PorterL. R.CogginW. O. (1995). Research strategies in technical communication. John Wiley.
67.
PotterJ.HepburnA. (2012). Eight challenges for interview researchers. In GubriumJ. F.HolsteinJ. A. (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 555–570). SAGE.
PriorP. (2004). Tracing process: How texts come into being. In BazermanC.PriorP. (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it (pp. 167–200). Lawrence Erlbaum.
70.
PriorP. A. (2010). Remaking IO: Semiotic remediation in the design process. In PriorP. A.HengstJ. A. (Eds.), Exploring semiotic remediation as discourse practice (pp. 206–234). Palgrave Macmillan.
71.
PriorP. A.HengstJ. A. (2010). Introduction: Exploring semiotic remediation. In PriorP. A.HengstJ. A. (Eds.), Exploring semiotic remediation as discourse practice (pp. 1–23). Palgrave Macmillan.
72.
PriorP.ThorneS. L. (2014). Research paradigms: Beyond product, process, and social activity. In JakobsE.-M.PerrinD. (Eds.), Handbook of writing and text production (pp. 31–54). Walter de Gruyter.
73.
RoozenK.EricksonJ. (2017). Expanding literate landscapes: Persons, practices, and sociohistoric perspectives of disciplinary development. Computers and Composition Digital Press/Utah State University Press. https://ccdigitalpress.org/book/expanding
74.
RuleH. J. (2017). Sensing the sentence: An embodied simulation approach to rhetorical grammar. Composition Studies, 45(1), 19–38.
SauerB. A. (2002). The rhetoric of risk: Technical documentation in hazardous environments. Routledge.
77.
Scenters-ZapicoJ. (2010). Generaciones’ narratives: The pursuit & practice of traditional & electronic literacies on the U.S.-Mexico borderlands. Computers and Composition Digital Press/Utah State University Press. https://ccdigitalpress.org/book/generaciones
StreeckJ. (2009). Gesturecraft: The manu-facture of meaning. John Benjamins.
80.
TalmyS. (2011). The interview as collaborative achievement: Interaction, identity, and ideology in a speech event. Applied Linguistics, 32(1), 25–42.
81.
ThompsonI. (2009). Scaffolding in the writing center: A microanalysis of an experienced tutor’s verbal and nonverbal tutoring strategies. Written Communication, 26(4), 417–453.
82.
VanKootenC. (2019). A research methodology of interdependence through video as method. Computers and Composition, 54, 1–17.
83.
VanKootenC. (2013). Toward a rhetorically sensitive model for new media composition. In McKeeH. A.DeVossD. N. (Eds.), Digital writing assessment and evaluation. Computers and Composition Digital Press/Utah State University Press. https://ccdigitalpress.org/book/dwae/09_vankooten.html
84.
VidaliA. (2010). Seeing what we know: Disability and theories of metaphor. Journal of Literary and Cultural Disability Studies, 4(1), 33–54.
85.
WilliamsB.Brydon-MillerM. (2012). Ethics and representation. In AndrewsR.BorgE.Boyd DavisS.DomingoM.EnglandJ. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of digital dissertations and theses (pp. 181–198). SAGE.
86.
WolfeJ. (2005). Gesture and collaborative planning: A case study of a student writing group. Written Communication, 22(3), 298–332.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
