Article published in:
Interacting with Objects: Language, materiality, and social activity
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

| Seisen University
| Rikkyo University
| Hokusei Gakuen University
| Hokkai-Gakuen University
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.
Published online: 12 September 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.186.15sak
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

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. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 february 2021. 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.

References
Crabtree, A., Rouncefield, M., & Tolmie, P.
(2012) Doing design ethnography. London: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, H.
(1967) Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
(2008) Toward a sociological theory of information. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Heath, C., & Hindmarsh, J.
(2000) Configuring action in objects: From mutual space to media space. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7(1–2), 81–104. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, P.
(2010) Video in qualitative research: Analysing social interaction in everyday life. New York, NY: Sage.Google Scholar
Heath, C., & Luff, P.
(2000) Technology in action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kitazawa, Y.
(1999) The accountability of hand-drawn maps and rendering practices. Human Studies, 22(2–4), 299–314. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Llewellyn, N., & Hindmarsh, J.
(Eds (2010) Organisation, interaction and practice: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, M.
(1985) Discipline and the material form of images: An analysis of scientific visibility. Social Studies of Science, 15(1), 37–66. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1988) The externalized retina: Selection and mathematization in the visual documentation of objects in the life sciences. Human Studies, 11(2–3), 201–234.Google Scholar
Lynch, M., & Woolgar, S.
(1988) Introduction: Sociological orientations to representational practice in science. Human Studies, 11(2–3), 99–116.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Murphy, K.M.
(2005) Collaborative imagining: The interactive use of gestures, talk, and graphic representation in architectural practice. Semiotica, 156(1), 113–145.Google Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
Nevile, M.
(2004a) Beyond the black box: Talk-in-interaction in the airline cockpit. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Psathas, G.
(1979) Organizational features of direction maps. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 203–226). New York, NY: Irvington.Google Scholar
Rawls, A.W.
(2008) Editor’s introduction. In H. Garfinkel, Toward a sociological theory of information (pp. 1–100). Boulder, CO: Paradigm.Google Scholar
Sakai, S., Awamura, N., & Ikeya, N.
(2012) The practical management of information in a task management meeting: Taking ‘practice’ seriously. Information Research, 17(4).Google Scholar
Streeck, J.
(1996) How to do things with things. Human Studies, 19(4), 365–384. CrossrefGoogle Scholar