Difference between revisions of "Due2021a"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (AndreiKorbut moved page Due2020a to Due2021a without leaving a redirect)
m
 
Line 3: Line 3:
 
|Author(s)=Brian Due;
 
|Author(s)=Brian Due;
 
|Title=RoboDoc: Semiotic resources for achieving face-to-screenface formation with a telepresence robot
 
|Title=RoboDoc: Semiotic resources for achieving face-to-screenface formation with a telepresence robot
|Tag(s)=EMCA; F-formation; ethnomethodology; multimodal conversation analysis; telepresence robot; mobility; mediated interaction; Peircean semiotics
+
|Tag(s)=EMCA; F-formation; ethnomethodology; multimodal conversation analysis; telepresence robot; mobility; mediated interaction; Peircean semiotics; AI reference list
 
|Key=Due2021a
 
|Key=Due2021a
 
|Year=2021
 
|Year=2021

Latest revision as of 19:35, 29 March 2021

Due2021a
BibType ARTICLE
Key Due2021a
Author(s) Brian Due
Title RoboDoc: Semiotic resources for achieving face-to-screenface formation with a telepresence robot
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, F-formation, ethnomethodology, multimodal conversation analysis, telepresence robot, mobility, mediated interaction, Peircean semiotics, AI reference list
Publisher
Year 2021
Language English
City
Month
Journal Semiotica
Volume
Number 238
Pages 253–278
URL Link
DOI 10.1515/sem-2018-0148
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

Face-to-face interaction is a primordial site for human activity and intersubjectivity. Empirical studies have shown how people reflexively exhibit a face orientation and work to establish a formation in which everyone is facing each other in local participation frameworks. The Face has also been described by, e.g., Levinas as the basis for a first ethical philosophy. Humans have established these Face-formations when interacting since time immemorial, but what happens when one of the participants is present through a telepresence robot? Based on ethnomethodology, Peircean/Goodwinian semiotics, multimodal conversation analysis and video data from a Danish residential rehabilitation center, the article shows the ways in which participants manage to interactively, cooperatively, and moment by moment achieve an F-formation in situ. The article contributes a detailed analysis and discussion of the kind of participant a telepresence robot is, in and through situated interactions: I propose that we term this participant the RoboDoc, given that it is an assemblage of a doctor who controls a robot. By focusing on the affordances of mobility, the article contributes to a renewed understanding of the importance and relevance of establishing Face-orientations in an increasingly technofied telepresence world.

Notes