Reenactments at Work: Demonstrating Conduct in Data Sessions

Abstract

Reenactments (introduced by Sidnell, 2006) are embodied demonstrations of past events or scenes. In this article we explore how reenactments are deployed in the course of, and indeed support work in, collaborative data analysis sessions among groups of social scientists (and primarily conversation analysts). The data used to build the analysis are drawn from audiovisual recordings of a range of data sessions involving formal and informal groupings of social scientists who themselves are analyzing video data. One way in which participants discuss and discriminate on-screen conduct is through imitating or enacting that conduct. This article examines how participants, having noticed something on-screen, set about having others see it (or see it in a particular way) through the use of reenactments, which are not a reproduction of the actions on-screen but a version of events that inevitably selects and often exaggerates certain features. In doing so we highlight some of the key differences in the design of reenactments in these data sessions, in comparison to those that feature in everyday conversational settings. These differences concern the relationship of the design of the reenactments to visible artifacts in the scene, the configuration of the interactional huddle, and the opportunities for coparticipants to progressively shape and reshape the reenactment. These all reveal the distinctive characteristics and demands of deploying reenactments in developing analytic claims.Data sessions in which participants collaboratively analyze video data provide an interesting case study for those with an interest in bodily expression and gesture. They form a common workplace setting for video experts and practitioners, found both in academic departments and in

The Embodied Turn in Research on Language and Social Interaction

“…One approach is to present multiple images, ordered in a series to show embodiment change over time (Alby & Zucchermaglio, 2007;Arnold, 2012;Kidwell, 2005;Llewellyn & Butler, 2011;Luff & Heath, 2002;Sidnell, 2006;Streeck, 1994Streeck, , 2008. Occasionally authors provide clock timings or a timeline, for example, at the left margin perhaps, instead of line numbers (Kleifgen, 2001;Tutt & Hindmarsh, 2011). For transcriptions, many authors indicate within the stream of talk the exact moments of embodiment's occurrence, especially onset, linking to images and descriptions with inserted arrows, lines, figure numbers, or symbols (e.g., like ↑ this; like Fig.1 this; like #this).…”

“…Foreshadowing many researchers' later experiences, we learn how, using film of an interview and other interactions, the group grappled with the demands and methods of transcription and analysis, such that only a few scenes were analyzed in detail. Akin to CA data sessions (Antaki, Biazzi, Nissen, & Wagner, 2008;Tutt & Hindmarsh, 2011), as early as 1956 the group engaged in a process of "soaking," which involved group sessions for multiple viewing of film segments to identify scenes and phenomena ("symptomatic features") of interest, watching in slow motion or even frame-by-frame (Leeds-Hurwitz, 1987, p. 8, p. 24). We can recognize how in many ways the NHI anticipated CA's empirical data-driven approach to natural data, as situated, ongoing, patterned (ordered), contextualized, and multimodal (LeedsHurwitz, 1987, p. 31).…”

“…Authors can use diagrammatic marks on images (e.g., arrows, shapes, etc.) to highlight features of interest (Mirivel & Tracy, 2005;Mori, 2003;Nishizaka, 2010;Tutt & Hindmarsh, 2011). Images are commonly given captions offering descriptions of embodiment and/or are visually related to transcriptions or segments of talk-for example, with boxes, lines, arrows, symbols or other forms of reference-or talk/description might be overlaid on images (Arnold, 2012;Haddington, 2010;Llewellyn & Butler, 2011).…”

“…These descriptions usually have distinctive text formatting, for example, as bolded, in italics, or as an alternative font type, size, or shade. Or, individual forms of embodiment (e.g., gesture, gaze) are indicated each on its own line of transcription (e.g., Rendle-Short, 2005;Streeck, 1994;Tutt & Hindmarsh, 2011).…”

“…E-mail: nevile@sdu.dk structure (Streeck, 2008); language development (Forrester, 2008); epistemic questioning and displays (Kidwell, 2011;Koole, 2010); instruction (Mondada, 2009a;later Keevallik, 2010a andArnold, 2012); enactment (Wilkinson, Beeke, & Maxim 2010); activity opening (Licoppe & Dumoulin, 2010); problem presentation (Nishizaka, 2010); mobility (Haddington, 2010); hostility (Llewellyn & Butler, 2011); proposing (Zinken & Ogiermann, 2011); reenactment (Tutt & Hindmarsh, 2011); participation and technologies (Licoppe & Morel, 2012); greeting and stance (Pillet-Shore, 2012); requesting (Keisanen & Rauniomaa, 2012); demonstration (Keevallik, 2013); or guiding and task organization (Kääntä & Piirainen-Marsh, 2013).…”