With the development of visual digital technologies it has become more common in the social sciences to both use and present research visually. This article explores different strategies for working with and including images in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (EMCA) transcriptions. The purpose is to investigate how, and if, the ontology of the transcript changes when verbal transcripts become visual transcripts. The article explores what ensures that a transcript is still a transcript and what happens to the reflexive interpretative strategy fundamental to EMCA when new digital technologies make it possible to incorporate images in transcripts. The article’s focus is on the social life of methods as well as methodological productivity showing how images can enact different social ‘realities’ and scientific knowledge.
AmbrosioC (2014) Objectivity and representative practices across artistic and scientific visualization. In: CarusiA, et al. (eds) Visualization in the Age of Computerization. New York: Routledge, 118–144.
2.
AshmoreMReedD (2000) Innocence and nostalgia in conversation analysis: The dynamic relations of tape and transcript. Forum: Qualitative Social Research1(3).
3.
AyassR (2015) Doing data: The status of transcripts in conversation analysis. Discourse Studies17: 505–528.
4.
BallMSmithG (2011) Ethnomethodology and the visual: Practices of looking, visualization, and embodied action. In: MargolisEPauwelsL (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Visual Research Methods. Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 392–430.
5.
BanksM (2001) Visual Methods in Social Research. London: Sage.
6.
BezemerJMaversD (2011) Multimodal transcription as academic practice: A social semiotic perspective. International Journal of Social Research Methodology14: 191–206.
7.
BrothM (2009) Seeing through screens, hearing through speakers: Managing distant studio space in television control room interaction. Journal of Pragmatics41: 1998–2016.
8.
CartwrightL (2015) Visual Science studies: Always already materialist. In: CarusiA, et al. (eds) Visualization in the Age of Computerization. New York: Routledge, 243–268.
CarusiAHoelASWebmoorTWoolgarS (2015) Introduction. In: CarusiA, et al. (eds) Visualization in the Age of Computerization. New York: Routledge, 1–15.
11.
CoopmansC, et al. (2014) Introduction: Representation in Scientific Practice Revisited. In: CoopmansC, et al. (eds) Representation in Scientific Practice Revisited. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1–14.
12.
EmmisonMSmithP (2000) Researching the Visual: Images, Objects, Contexts and Interactions in Social and Cultural Inquiry. London: Sage.
13.
ForresterM (2011) The video-camera as a cultural object: The presence of (an)Other. In: ReaveyP (ed.) Visual Methods in Psychology: Using and Interpreting Images in Qualitative Research. New York: Routledge.
14.
GoodwinC (1994) Professional vision. American Anthropologist96: 606–633.
15.
GoodwinC (2000) Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics32(10): 1489–1522.
16.
GoodwinC (2001) Practice of seeing, visual analysis: An ethnomethodological approach. In: Van LeeuwenTJewittC (eds) Handbook of Visual Analysis. London: Sage, 157–182.
17.
HaberlandHMortensenJ (2016) Transcription as second-order entextualization: The challenge of heteroglossia. In: CaponeAMeyJL (eds) Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society. London: Springer, 581–600.
18.
HamiltonP (2006) Visual Research Methods. London. Sage.
19.
HarawayDJ (1992) Primate Visions: Gender, Race and Nature in the World of Modern Science. London: Verso.
20.
HeathCHindmarshJLuffP (2010) Video in Qualitative Research: Analysing Social Interaction in Everyday Life. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
21.
HindmarshJTuttD (2012) Video analytic practice. In: PinkS (ed.) Advances in Visual Methodology. London: Sage, 57–73.
22.
JaffeA (2006) Transcription in practice: Nonstandard orthography. Journal of Applied Linguistics3: 163–183.
23.
LatourBWoolgarS (1986) Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
24.
LaurierE (2014) The graphic transcript: Poaching comic book grammar for inscribing the visual, spatial and temporal aspects. Geography Compass8: 235–248.
25.
LawJ (2004) After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. London: Routledge.
26.
LindwallO (2008) Lab work in science education: Instruction, inscription, and the practical achievement of understanding. PhD thesis, Linköping Studies in Arts and Science, Linköping.
27.
LomaxHCaseyN (1998) Recording social life: Reflexivity and video methodology. Sociological Research Online3(2). Available at: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/3/2/1.html (accessed 9 November 2017).
28.
LynchMWoolgarS (eds) (1990[1988]) Representation in Scientific Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29.
MargolisEPauwelsL (eds) (2011) The SAGE Handbook of Visual Research Methods. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
30.
MitchellWJT (1994) Picture Theory: Essays on Verbal and Visual Representation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31.
MolA (1999) Ontological politics: A word and some questions. In: LawJHassardJ (eds) Actor Network Theory and After. Oxford: Blackwell/The Sociological Review, 74–89.
32.
MolA (2002) The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
33.
MondadaL (2007a) Commentary: Transcript variations and the indexicality of transcribing practices. Discourse Studies9: 809–821.
34.
MondadaL (2007b) Multimodal resources for turn-taking: Pointing and the emergence of possible next speakers. Discourse Studies9: 194–225.
35.
MondadaL (2012) Video analysis and the temporality of inscriptions within social interaction: The case of architects at work. Qualitative Research12: 304–333.
PaaboRFödischMHollmanL (2009) Rules for Estonian sign language transcription. Trames13: 401–424.
38.
PauwelsL (2006) Visual Cultures of Science: Rethinking Representational Practices in Knowledge Building and Science Communication. Hanover, NH: Dartmouth College Press.
39.
PinkS (ed) (2012) Advances in Visual Methodology. London: Sage.
40.
RiisJA (1980[1971]) How the Other Half Lives: Studies among the Tenements of New York: With 100 Photographs from the Jacob A. Riis Collection. New York: Dove.
RoseG (2012) The question of method: Practice, reflexivity and critique in visual culture studies. In: HeywoodISandywellB (eds) The Handbook of Visual Culture. London: Berg, 542–558.
43.
RoseG (2016[2001]) Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to Researching with Visual Materials, 4th edn.London: Sage.
44.
RuppertELawJSavageM (2013) Reassembling social science methods: The challenge of digital devices. Theory, Culture & Society30: 22–46.
45.
SavageM (2013) The social life of methods: A critical introduction. Theory, Culture & Society30: 3–21.
46.
SidnellJStiversT (2013) The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
47.
SparrmanA (2005) Video-recording as interaction: Participant observation of children’s everyday life. Qualitative Research in Psychology2, Special Issue on ‘Visual Methodologies’: 241–255.
48.
SparrmanA (2014) Access and gatekeeping in researching children’s sexuality: Mess in ethics and methods. Sexuality & Culture18(2): 291–309.
49.
SparrmanA (2015) Seeing (with) the ‘sexy’ body: Young children visual enactment of sexuality. In: RenoldE, et al. (eds) Children, Sexuality and the ‘Sexualization’ of Culture. Chichester: Palgrave, 123–140.
50.
StanczakGC (2007) Visual Research Methods: Image, Society, and Representation. New Delhi: Sage.
