This article shows how artefacts – and more specifically documents and visualizations such as images, maps and plans – can be analysed in detail within an ethnomethodological and conversation analytic perspective focusing on the way in which they are manipulated within social activities. The aim is double. On the one hand, the article deals with the way in which the temporal and interactional feature of inscriptions in interaction can be preserved and analysed on the basis of video data, highlighting some of the challenges of producing adequate video recordings and video transcriptions of these phenomena. On the other hand, the article offers an empirical study of a professional activity in which participants manipulate texts, plans and other visualizations. Thus, it analyses in detail a meeting video recorded in an architectural office, in which three architects read, discuss, and draw plans, as well as explore and discover ideas by formulating, gesticulating, and sketching them.
BuscherM (2006) Vision in motion. Environment and Planning A38(2): 281–299.
7.
CuffD (1991) Architecture: The Story of a Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8.
DetienneFTraversoV (eds) (2009) Méthodologies d’analyse de situations coopératives de conception: Corpus Mosaic. Nancy: PUN.
9.
DiMatteoRRobinsonJHeritageJC. (2003) Correspondence among patients’ self-reports, chart records, and audio/videotapes of medical visits. Health Communication15: 393–413.
10.
DrewP (2006) When documents ‘speak’: documents, language and interaction. In: DrewPRaymondGWeinbergD (eds) Talk and Interaction in Social Research Methods. London: Sage, 63–80.
11.
GarfinkelH (2002) Ethnomethodology’s Program. Working out Durkheim’s Aphorism. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
12.
GarfinkelHLynchMLivingstonE (1981) The work of a discovering science construed with materials from the optically discovered pulsar. Philosophy of the Social Sciences11: 131–158.
13.
GoodwinC (1993) Recording human interaction in natural settings. Pragmatics3: 181–209.
14.
GoodwinC (1994) Professional vision. American Anthropologist96(3): 606–633.
15.
GoodwinC (1999) Practices of color classification. Mind, Culture, and Activity7: (1–2), 62–82.
16.
GoodwinC (2000) Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics32: 1489–1522.
17.
GoodwinC (2002) Time in action. Current Anthropology43: 19–35.
18.
GoodyJ (1977) The Domestication of the Savage Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
HeathC (1982) Preserving the consultation: medical record cards and professional conduct. Sociology of Health & Illness4: 56–74.
20.
HeathC (1986) Body Movement and Speech in Medical Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21.
HeathCLuffP (1996) Documents and professional practices: ‘bad’ organisational reasons for ‘good’ clinical records. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Boston, November 16–20. Boston, MA: ACM Press, 354–363.
22.
HeathCHindmarshJLuffP (2010) Video in Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
23.
HendersonK (1999) On Line and On Paper: Visual Representations, Visual Culture and Computer Graphics in Design Engineering. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
IvarssonJ (2010) Developing the construction sight: architectural education and technological change. Visual Communication9(2): 171–191.
26.
JenkingsKNBarberN (2006) Same evidence, different meanings: transformation of textual evidence in hospital new drugs committees. Text & Talk26(2): 169–189.
27.
KendonA (1990) Conducting Interaction: Patterns of Behavior in Focused Encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
KressGRVan LeeuwenT (2001) Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. London and New York: Arnold and Oxford University Press.
30.
LatourB (1986) Visualization and cognition: thinking with eyes and hands. Knowledge and Society6: 1–40.
31.
LatourB (1996) On interobjectivity. Mind, Culture, and Activity3(4): 228–245.
32.
LeBaronC (1998) Building communication: architectural gestures and the embodiment of new ideas. PhD Thesis, University of Texas, Austin, TX.
33.
LivingstonE (1995) An Anthropology of Reading. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
34.
LomaxHCaseyN (1998) Recording social life: reflexivity and video methodology. Sociological Research Online3(2). Available at: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/3/2/1.html
35.
LuffPHeathCGreatbatchD (1992) Tasks-in-interaction: paper and screen-based documentation in collaborative activity. In: TurnerJKrautR (eds) Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Work. Toronto, November 01–04. New York: ACM, 163–170.
36.
LymerG (2009) Demonstrating professional vision: the work of critique in architectural education. Mind, Culture, and Activity16(2): 145–171.
37.
LynchM (1988) The externalized retina. Human Studies11(2/3): 201–234.
38.
LynchMWoolgarS (Eds.) (1990) Representation in Scientific Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39.
MacbethD (1999) Glances, trances, and their relevance for a visual sociology. In: JalbertPL (ed.) Media Studies: Ethnomethodological Approaches. Washington, DC: University Press of America, 135–170.
40.
MondadaL (2005) Visions controversées de la carte: construire le visible par les gestes et la parole en interaction. In: D’AlessandroCCharvolinFNovemberVRémyE (eds) Espaces, savoirs et incertitudes. Paris: Belin, 15–31.
41.
MondadaL (2006) Video recording as the reflexive preservation-configuration of phenomenal features for analysis. In: KnoblauchH. (eds) Video Analysis. Bern: Lang, 51–68.
42.
MondadaL (2007) Transcript variations and the indexicality of transcribing practices. Discourse Studies9(6): 809–821.
MondadaL (2008b) Documenter l’articulation des ressources multimodales dans le temps: la transcription d’enregistrements vidéos d’interactions. In: BilgerM (ed.) Données orales, les enjeux de la transcription. Perpignan: Presses Universitaires de Perpignan, 127–155.
45.
MondadaL (2008c) Doing video for a sequential and multimodal analysis of social interaction: videotaping institutional telephone calls. FQS (Forum: Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research)9(3). Available at: www.qualitative-research.net/
46.
MondadaL (2009) Emergent focused interactions in public places: a systematic analysis of the multimodal achievement of a common interactional space. Journal of Pragmatics41: 1977–1997.
47.
MondadaL (in press) The conversation analytic approach to data collection. In: SidnellJStiversT (eds) Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Blackwell-Wiley.
48.
MooreRJWhalenJCabell Hankinson GathmanE (2010) The work of the work order: document practice in face-to-face service encounters. In: LlewellynNHindmarshJ (eds) Organisation, Interaction and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49.
MurphyK (2005) Collaborative imagining: the interactive use of gestures, talk, and graphic representation in architectural practice. Semiotica156(1): 113–145.
50.
OchsEGonzalesPJacobyS (1996) When I come down I’m in the domain state: grammar and graphic representation in the interpretive activity of physicists. In: OchsESchegloffEThompsonS (eds) Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 328–369.
51.
PomerantzA (1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In: AtkinsonJMHeritageJ (eds) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 57–101.
52.
RawlsA (2005) Garfinkel’s conception of time. Time & Society14(2–3): 163–190.
53.
RobinsonJ D (1998) Getting down to business: Talk, gaze, and body orientation during openings in doctor-patient consultation. Human Communication Research25: 98–124.
54.
RothW-MLawlessDV (2002) When up is down and down is up: body orientation, proximity, and gestures as resources. Language in Society31: 1–28.
55.
SchmidtKWagnerI (2004) Ordering systems: coordinative practices and artefacts in architectural design and planning. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)13(5–6): 349–408.
56.
SellenAHarperRHR (2001) The Myth of the Paperless Office. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
57.
SöderströmO (2000) Des images pour agir. Le visuel en urbanisme. Lausanne: Payot.
58.
StreeckJ (1996) How to do things with things: objets trouvés and symbolization. Human Studies19(4): 365–384.
59.
StreeckJKallmeyerW (2001) Interaction by inscription. Journal of Pragmatics33: 465–490.
60.
StreetB (1984) Literacy in Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
61.
SuchmanL (2000) Making a case: ‘knowledge’ and ‘routine’ work in document production. In: LuffPHindmarshJHeathC (eds) Workplace Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 29–45.
62.
VinckD (2003) Everyday Engineering: An Ethnography of Design and Innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
63.
VinckD (1999) Les objets intermédiaires dans les réseaux de coopération scientifique. Revue française de sociologieXL(2): 385–414.
64.
WatsonDR (2010) Analysing Practical and Professional Texts. A Naturalistic Approach. London: Ashgate.
65.
YanevaA (2005) Scaling up and down: extraction trials in architectural design. Social Studies of Science35(6): 867–894.
66.
YanevaA (2009) The Making of a Building: A Pragmatist Approach to Architecture. Bern: Lang.
