Part of
Interacting with Objects: Language, materiality, and social activityEdited by Maurice Nevile, Pentti Haddington, Trine Heinemann and Mirka Rauniomaa
[Not in series 186] 2014
► pp. 339–356
Edited by Maurice Nevile, Pentti Haddington, Trine Heinemann and Mirka Rauniomaa
[Not in series 186] 2014
► pp. 339–356
Envisioning the plan in interaction
Configuring pipes during a plumbers’ meeting
The central focus of this chapter is the methods of practical reasoning that accomplish a mutual understanding of relevant objects during the organisation and operation of a plumbing design. To execute successfully the task of coordinating disparate actions in the work, participants must achieve a shared and collective vision of the particular objects under discussion. We emphasise that for objects to be used as interactional resources, they must first be made recognisable and intelligible as interactional accomplishments, though we also suggest that these two analytical issues are inseparable for members when developing a course of practical activity. Objects in our study include tangible artefacts that have physical materiality as well as not-yet-existing abstractions, the designs.
References (26)
Crabtree, A., Rouncefield, M., & Tolmie, P. (2012). Doing design ethnography. London: Springer. 
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
. (2008). Toward a sociological theory of information. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
Goodwin, C. (2003). Pointing as situated practice. In S. Kita (Ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture and cognition meet (pp. 217–241). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Heath, C., & Hindmarsh, J. (2000). Configuring action in objects: From mutual space to media space. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7(1–2), 81–104.
Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, P. (2010). Video in qualitative research: Analysing social interaction in everyday life. New York, NY: Sage.
Heath, C., & Luff, P. (2000). Technology in action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hindmarsh, J., & Heath, C. (2000). Sharing the tools of the trade: The interactional constitution of workplace objects. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 29(5), 523–562.
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G.H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kitazawa, Y. (1999). The accountability of hand-drawn maps and rendering practices. Human Studies, 22(2–4), 299–314.
Llewellyn, N., & Hindmarsh, J. (Eds.) (2010). Organisation, interaction and practice: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lymer, G., Ivarsson, J., & Lindwall, O. (2009). Contrasting the use of tools for presentation and critique: Some cases from architectural education. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(4), 423–444.
Lynch, M. (1985). Discipline and the material form of images: An analysis of scientific visibility. Social Studies of Science, 15(1), 37–66.
. (1988). The externalized retina: Selection and mathematization in the visual documentation of objects in the life sciences. Human Studies, 11(2–3), 201–234.
Lynch, M., & Woolgar, S. (1988). Introduction: Sociological orientations to representational practice in science. Human Studies, 11(2–3), 99–116.
Mondada, L. (2012). Video analysis and the temporality of inscriptions within social interaction: The case of architects at work. Qualitative Research, 12(3), 304–333.
Mortensen, K., & Lundsgaard, C. (2011). Preliminary notes on ‘grooming the object’: The example of an architectural presentation. In J. Buur (Ed.),
Proceedings of the Participatory Innovation Conference
(pp. 99–104). Sønderborg: University of Southern Denmark.
Murphy, K.M. (2005). Collaborative imagining: The interactive use of gestures, talk, and graphic representation in architectural practice. Semiotica, 156(1), 113–145.
. (2011). Building stories: The embodied narration of what might come to pass. In J. Streeck, C. Goodwin, & C. LeBaron (Eds.), Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world (pp. 243–253). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nevile, M. (2004a). Beyond the black box: Talk-in-interaction in the airline cockpit. Aldershot: Ashgate.
. (2004b). Integrity in the airline cockpit: Embodying claims about progress for the conduct of an approach briefing. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37(4), 447–480.
. (2009). ‘You are well clear of friendlies’: Diagnostic error and cooperative work in an Iraq war friendly fire incident. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 18(2–3), 147–173.
Psathas, G. (1979). Organizational features of direction maps. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 203–226). New York, NY: Irvington.
Rawls, A.W. (2008). Editor’s introduction. In H. Garfinkel, Toward a sociological theory of information (pp. 1–100). Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
Sakai, S., Awamura, N., & Ikeya, N. (2012). The practical management of information in a task management meeting: Taking ‘practice’ seriously. Information Research, 17(4).
Streeck, J. (1996). How to do things with things. Human Studies, 19(4), 365–384.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Kilbrink, Nina, Stig-Börje Asplund & Hamid Asghari
2023. Introducing the object of learning in interaction: vocational teaching and learning in a plumbing workshop session. Journal of Vocational Education & Training 75:2 ► pp. 323 ff. 
Asplund, Stig-Börje & Nina Kilbrink
2018. Learning How (and How Not) to Weld: Vocational Learning in Technical Vocational Education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 62:1 ► pp. 1 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.