This article considers the application of video-based research to address methodological challenges for organizational scholars concerned with the sociomaterial foundations to work practice. In particular the claim that “all practices are always sociomaterial” raises a “problem of relevance”—that is, on what grounds can we select material to include in the analytic account when there is a vast array of material in each setting? Furthermore, how can we grasp the sociality of material objects that are often taken for granted and that drift in and out of view? We address these methodological questions drawing on ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, and by making use of video recordings of everyday work and organizing. We demonstrate the approach with data from two service settings and explore the analysis both of single cases and collections. To conclude, the article considers the distinctive contributions that these video-based studies have for our understanding of sociomateriality and organizational practice more generally.
BalogunJ.BestK.LêJ. (2015). Selling the object of strategy: How frontline workers realize strategy through their daily work. Organization Studies, 36(10), 1285–1313.
2.
BalogunJ.JacobsC.JarzabkowskiP.MantereS.VaaraE. (2014). Placing strategy discourse in context: Sociomateriality, sensemaking, and power. Journal of Management Studies, 51(2), 175–201.
3.
BaptistaJ.NewellS.CurrieW. (2010). Paradoxical effects of institutionalisation on the strategic awareness of technology in organisations. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 19(3), 171–183.
4.
BaradK. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs, 28(3), 801–831.
5.
BarleyS. R. (2015). Why the Internet makes buying a car less loathsome: How technologies change role relations. Academy of Management Discoveries, 1(1), 5–35.
6.
BarleyS.KundaG. (2001). Bringing work back in. Organization Science, 12(1), 76–95.
7.
BarleyS. R.MeyersonD. E.GrodalS. (2011). E-mail as a source and symbol of stress. Organization Science, 22(4), 887–906.
8.
BezemerJ.MaversD. (2011). Multimodal transcription as academic practice: A social semiotic perspective, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(3), 191–206.
9.
BlumerH. (1969). The methodological position of symbolic interactionism. In Symbolic interactionism (pp. 1–60). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
10.
BodenD. (1994). The business of talk. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
11.
BoltonS. C.HoulihanM. (2005). The (mis)representation of customer service, Work, Employment & Society, 19(4), 685–703.
12.
ButtonG. (Ed.). (1991). Ethnomethodology and the human sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13.
ClarkC.DrewP.PinchT. (1994). Managing customer “objections” during real-life sales negotiations. Discourse and Society, 5(4), 437–462.
14.
ClarkC.DrewP.PinchT. (2003). Managing prospect affiliation and rapport in real-life sales encounters. Discourse Studies, 5, 5–31.
15.
CollinsH.YearleyS. (1992). Epistemological chicken. In PickeringA. (Ed.), Science as practice and culture (pp. 301–326). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
16.
CoorenF.FairhurstG.HuëtR. (2012). Why matter always matters in (organizational) communication. In LeonardiP. M.NardiB. A.KallinikosJ. (Eds.), Materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a technological world (pp. 296–314). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
17.
de AlbuquerqueJ. P.ChristM. (2015). The tension between business process modelling and flexibility: Revealing multiple dimensions with a sociomaterial approach. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 24(3), 189–202.
18.
de VaujanyF. X.VaastE. (2014). If these walls could talk: The mutual construction of organizational space and legitimacy. Organization Science, 25(3), 713–731.
19.
EricksonF. (2011). Uses of video in social research: A brief history. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(3), 179–189.
20.
FeldmanM. S.OrlikowskiW. J. (2011). Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organization Science, 22(5), 1240–1253.
21.
GarfinkelH. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
22.
GoodwinC. (1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York, NY: Academic Press.
23.
GoodwinC. (1995). Seeing in depth. Social Studies of Science, 25, 237–74.
24.
GoodwinC. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489–1522.
25.
GrimshawA. (1982). Sound-image data records for research on social interaction: Some questions answered. Sociological Methods and Research, 11(2), 121–144.
26.
GylfeP.FrankH.LeBaronC.MantereS. (2016). Video methods in strategic research: Focusing on embodied cognition. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 133–148.
27.
HeathC. (1986). Body movement and speech in medical interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
28.
HeathC. (2012). The dynamics of auction: Social interaction and the sale of fine art and antiques. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
29.
HeathC.HindmarshJ.LuffP. (2010). Video in qualitative research. London, UK: Sage.
30.
HeathC.LuffP. (2000). Technology in action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
31.
HepburnA.BoldenG. B. (2013). The conversation analytic approach to transcription. In SidnellJ.StiversT. (Eds.), Handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 57–76). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
32.
HeritageJ. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
33.
HeritageJ. (1999). Conversation analysis at century’s end: Practices of talk-in-interaction, their distribution and their outcome. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32(1-2), 69–76.
34.
HeritageJ.StiversT. (2013). Conversation analysis and sociology. In SidnellJ.StiversT. (Eds.), Handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 657–753). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
35.
HindmarshJ.HeathC. (2000). Sharing the tools of the trade the interactional constitution of workplace objects. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 29(5), 523–562.
36.
HindmarshJ.PilnickA. (2002). The tacit order of teamwork: Collaboration and embodied conduct in anesthesia. Sociological Quarterly, 43(2), 139–164.
37.
HindmarshJ.PilnickA. (2007). Knowing bodies at work: Embodiment and ephemeral teamwork in anaesthesia. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1395–1416.
38.
IverothE. (2011). The sociomaterial practice of IT-enabled change: A case study of a global transformation. Journal of Change Management, 11(3), 375–395.
39.
JarrahiM. H.SawyerS. (2013). Social technologies, informal knowledge practices, and the enterprise. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 23(1-2), 110–137.
40.
JarzabkowskiP.BurkeG.SpeeP. (2015). Constructing spaces for strategic work: A multimodal perspective. British Journal of Management, 26(S1), 26–47.
41.
JarzabkowskiP.PinchT. (2013). Sociomateriality is “the new black”: Accomplishing re-purposing, re-inscripting and repairing in context. M@n@gement, 16(5), 579–592.
42.
JeffersonG. (1984). Transcript notation. In AtkinsonJ. M.HeritageJ. (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. ix–xvi). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
43.
JonesM. (2014). A matter of life and death: Exploring conceptualizations of sociomateriality in the context of critical care. MIS Quarterly, 38(3), 895–925.
44.
KorczynskiM. (2009). The mystery customer: Continuing absences in the sociology of service work. Sociology, 43(5), 952–967.
45.
KoschmannT.LeBaronC.GoodwinC.FeltovichP. (2011). “Can you see the cystic artery yet?” A simple matter of trust. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 521–541.
46.
LeBaronC. D.JonesS. E. (2002). Closing up closings: Showing the relevance of the social and material surround to the completion of interaction. Journal of Communication, 52(3), 542–565.
47.
LeonardiP. M. (2012). Materiality, sociomateriality, and socio-technical systems: What do these terms mean? How are they different? Do we need them? In LeonardiP. M.NardiB. A.KallinikosJ. (Eds.), Materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a technological world (pp. 25–48). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
48.
LeonardiP. M.BarleyS. R. (2008). Materiality and change: Challenges to building better theory about technology and organizing. Information and Organization, 18(3), 159–176.
49.
LeonardiP. M.BarleyS. (2010). What’s under construction here. Academy of Management Annals, 4(10), 1–51.
50.
LiuF.MaitlisS. (2014). Emotional dynamics and strategizing processes: A study of strategy conversations in top team meetings. Journal of Management Studies, 51(2), 202–234.
51.
LlewellynN. (2015). Microstructures of economic action: Talk, interaction and the bottom line. British Journal of Sociology, 66(3), 486–511.
52.
LlewellynN. (2016). “Money talks”: Communicative and symbolic functions of cash money. Sociology, 50(4), 796–812.
53.
LlewellynN.HindmarshJ. (Eds.). (2010). Organisation, interaction and practice: Studies of ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
54.
LlewellynN.HindmarshJ. (2013). The order problem: Inference and interaction in interactive service work. Human Relations, 66(11), 1401–1426.
55.
LuffP.HeathC. (2015). Transcribing embodied action. In TannenD.HamiltonH. E.SchiffrinD. (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 367–390). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
56.
LuffP.HeathC.PitschK. (2009). Indefinite precision: The use of artefacts in interaction in design work. In JewittC. (Ed.), Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis (pp. 213–22). London, UK: Routledge.
57.
LynchM. (1997). Scientific practice and ordinary action: Ethnomethodology and social studies of science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
58.
MazmanianM.CohnM.DourishP. (2014). Dynamic reconfiguration in planetary exploration: A sociomaterial ethnography. MIS Quarterly, 38(3), 831–848.
59.
MazmanianM.OrlikowskiW. J.YatesJ. (2013). The autonomy paradox: The implications of mobile email devices for knowledge professionals. Organization Science, 24(5), 1337–1357.
60.
MondadaL. (2013). The conversation analytic approach to data collection. In SidnellJ.StiversT. (Eds.), Handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 32–56). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
61.
MondadaL. (2014). Instructions in the operating room: How the surgeon directs their assistant’s hands. Discourse Studies, 16(2), 131–161.
62.
NishizakaA.SunagaM. (2015). Conversing while massaging: Multidimensional asymmetries of multiple activities in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(2), 200–229.
63.
NizameddinZ. (2016). Occupational skills and communication in body treatments (Unpublished doctoral thesis). King’s College London, London, UK.
64.
ObornE.BarrettM.DawsonS. (2013). Distributed leadership in policy formulation: A sociomaterial perspective. Organization Studies, 34(2), 253–276.
65.
OrlikowskiW. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435–1448.
66.
OrlikowskiW. J. (2010). The sociomateriality of organizational life: Considering technology in management research. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34, 125–141.
67.
OrlikowskiW. J.ScottS. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433–474.
68.
OshimaS.StreeckJ. (2015). Coordinating talk and practical action: The case of hair salon service assessments. Pragmatics and Society, 6(4), 538–564.
69.
RawlsA. W. (2008). Harold Garfinkel, ethnomethodology and workplace studies. Organization Studies, 29(5), 701–732.
70.
RobinsonJ. D. (2007). The role of numbers and statistics within conversation analysis. Communication Methods and Measures, 1(1), 65–75.
71.
RobinsonJ. D.StiversT. (2001). Achieving activity transitions in physician-patient encounters. Human Communication Research, 27(2), 253–298.
72.
SacksH. (1984). Notes on methodology. In AtkinsonJ. M.HeritageJ. (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 21–27). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
73.
SacksH. (1992). Lectures on conversation (2 vols.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
74.
SacksH.SchegloffE. A.JeffersonG. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.
75.
SchegloffE. A. (1991). Reflections on talk and social structure. In BodenD.ZimmermanD. H. (Eds.), Talk and social structure: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (pp. 44–70). Cambridge, UK: Polity.
76.
SchegloffE. A. (1993). Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26(1), 99–128.
SchegloffE. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: Volume 1: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
79.
SchegloffE. A.SacksH. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289–327.
80.
SchultzA. (1970). Reflections on the problem of relevance. New Haven: Yale University Press.
81.
ScottS. V.OrlikowskiW. J. (2012). Reconfiguring relations of accountability: Materialization of social media in the travel sector. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(1), 26–40.
82.
ScottS. V.OrlikowskiW. J. (2014). Entanglements in practice: Performing anonymity through social media. MIS Quarterly, 38(3), 873–893.
83.
SidnellJ. (2013). Basic conversation analytic methods. In SidnellJ.StiversT. (Eds.), Handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 77–100). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
84.
SidnellJ.StiversT. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of conversation analysis. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
85.
SilvermanD. (1997). Studying organizational interaction: Ethnomethodology’s contribution to the “new institutionalism.”Administrative Theory & Praxis, 19(2), 178–195.
86.
SimpsonA. V.Pina e CunhaM.CleggS. (2015). Hybridity, sociomateriality and compassion: What happens when a river floods and a city’s organizations respond?Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(3), 375–386.
87.
SpeerS. A. (2002). “Natural” and “contrived” data: A sustainable distinction?Discourse Studies, 4(4), 511–525.
88.
StiversT. (2015). Coding social interaction: A heretical approach in conversation analysis?, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(1), 1–19.
89.
StreeckJ. (1996). How to do things with things. Human Studies, 19(4), 365–384.
90.
StreeckJ.GoodwinC.LeBaronC. (2011). Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
91.
SuchmanL. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
92.
SymonG.PritchardK. (2015). Performing the responsive and committed employee through the sociomaterial mangle of connection. Organization Studies, 36(2), 241–263.
93.
SzymanskiM. H.WhalenJ. (Eds.). (2011). Making work visible: Ethnographically grounded case studies of work practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
94.
ten HaveP. (2007). Doing conversation analysis. London, UK: Sage.
95.
VentersW.ObornE.BarrettM. I. (2014). A trichordal temporal approach to digital coordination: The sociomaterial mangling of the CERN grid. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 38(3), 927–949.
96.
WhalenJ.WhalenM.HendersonK. (2002). Improvisational choreography in teleservice work. British Journal of Sociology, 53, 239–259.
97.
WiederD. L.MauH.NicholasC. (2007). Documentaries are not data. In CoorenF. (Ed.), Interacting and organizing: Analyses of a management meeting (pp. 245–288). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
