Difference between revisions of "Oak2011"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Arlene Oak |Title=What can talk tell us about design?: Analyzing conversation to understand practice |Tag(s)=EMCA; collaborative design;...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
|Journal=Design Studies | |Journal=Design Studies | ||
|Volume=32 | |Volume=32 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Number=3 |
| − | |Abstract=This paper considers how the conversational aspects of design may be examined | + | |Pages=211–234 |
| − | from perspectives associated with micro-sociology/social psychology: Symbolic | + | |URL=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142694X10001006 |
| − | Interactionism (SI) and Conversation Analysis (CA). Since many aspects of | + | |DOI=10.1016/j.destud.2010.11.003 |
| − | design involve face-to-face talk, this paper argues that an SI-informed CA | + | |Abstract=This paper considers how the conversational aspects of design may be examined from perspectives associated with micro-sociology/social psychology: Symbolic Interactionism (SI) and Conversation Analysis (CA). Since many aspects of design involve face-to-face talk, this paper argues that an SI-informed CA offers an effective approach to understanding how communication and negotiation are central to design. Through analyzing excerpts of talk (an architect’s meeting with a client, and a design education critique) we can see how the collaborative nature of conversation contributes to understandings and assessments of objects. This discussion outlines how SI and CA can help delineate the processes that link the details of interaction to the wider social conditions and constraints that impact upon the practices and objects of design. |
| − | an | ||
| − | central to design. Through analyzing excerpts of talk (an architect’s meeting | ||
| − | with a client, and a design education critique) we can see how the collaborative | ||
| − | nature of conversation contributes to understandings and assessments of objects. | ||
| − | This discussion outlines how SI and CA can help delineate the processes that | ||
| − | link the details of interaction to the wider social conditions and constraints that | ||
| − | impact upon the practices and objects of design. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 04:04, 20 January 2016
| Oak2011 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Oak2011 |
| Author(s) | Arlene Oak |
| Title | What can talk tell us about design?: Analyzing conversation to understand practice |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, collaborative design, communication, conversation analysis, design practice |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2011 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Design Studies |
| Volume | 32 |
| Number | 3 |
| Pages | 211–234 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.destud.2010.11.003 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This paper considers how the conversational aspects of design may be examined from perspectives associated with micro-sociology/social psychology: Symbolic Interactionism (SI) and Conversation Analysis (CA). Since many aspects of design involve face-to-face talk, this paper argues that an SI-informed CA offers an effective approach to understanding how communication and negotiation are central to design. Through analyzing excerpts of talk (an architect’s meeting with a client, and a design education critique) we can see how the collaborative nature of conversation contributes to understandings and assessments of objects. This discussion outlines how SI and CA can help delineate the processes that link the details of interaction to the wider social conditions and constraints that impact upon the practices and objects of design.
Notes
