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.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Garfinkel, H
(
1967)
Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Garfinkel, H
(
2008)
Toward a sociological theory of information. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heath, C., & Hindmarsh, J
(
2000)
Configuring action in objects: From mutual space to media space.
Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7(1–2), 81–104.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, P
(
2010)
Video in qualitative research: Analysing social interaction in everyday life. New York, NY: Sage.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heath, C., & Luff, P
(
2000)
Technology in action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kitazawa, Y
(
1999)
The accountability of hand-drawn maps and rendering practices.
Human Studies, 22(2–4), 299–314.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Llewellyn, N., & Hindmarsh, J
(Eds (
2010)
Organisation, interaction and practice: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lynch, M
(
1985)
Discipline and the material form of images: An analysis of scientific visibility.
Social Studies of Science, 15(1), 37–66.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lynch, M
(
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lynch, M., & Woolgar, S
(
1988)
Introduction: Sociological orientations to representational practice in science.
Human Studies, 11(2–3), 99–116.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Murphy, K.M
(
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nevile, M
(
2004a)
Beyond the black box: Talk-in-interaction in the airline cockpit. Aldershot: Ashgate.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nevile, M
(
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.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nevile, M
(
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.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rawls, A.W
(
2008)
Editor’s introduction. In
H. Garfinkel,
Toward a sociological theory of information (pp. 1–100). Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Streeck, J
(
1996)
How to do things with things.
Human Studies, 19(4), 365–384.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (2)
Cited by 2 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.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
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.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 july 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.