Difference between revisions of "Hindmarsh-Llewellyn2018"
m (Clair-AntoineVeyrier moved page Hindmarsh-Llewellyn2016 to Hindmarsh-Llewellyn2018 without leaving a redirect: year) |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
|Author(s)=Jon Hindmarsh; Nick Llewellyn; | |Author(s)=Jon Hindmarsh; Nick Llewellyn; | ||
− | |Title=Video in | + | |Title=Video in sociomaterial investigations: a solution to the problem of relevance for organizational research |
|Tag(s)=EMCA; sociomateriality; relevance; video; ethnomethodology; conversation analysis; | |Tag(s)=EMCA; sociomateriality; relevance; video; ethnomethodology; conversation analysis; | ||
− | |Key=Hindmarsh- | + | |Key=Hindmarsh-Llewellyn2018 |
|Year=2018 | |Year=2018 | ||
|Language=English | |Language=English | ||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|Volume=21 | |Volume=21 | ||
|Number=2 | |Number=2 | ||
− | |Pages= | + | |Pages=412–437 |
− | | | + | |URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1094428116657595 |
+ | |DOI=10.1177/1094428116657595 | ||
|Abstract=This article considers the application of video-based research to address methodological challenges for organizational scholars concerned with the sociomaterial foundations to work practice. In particular the claim that “all practices are always sociomaterial” raises a “problem of relevance”—that is, on what grounds can we select material to include in the analytic account when there is a vast array of material in each setting? Furthermore, how can we grasp the sociality of material objects that are often taken for granted and that drift in and out of view? We address these methodological questions drawing on ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, and by making use of video recordings of everyday work and organizing. We demonstrate the approach with data from two service settings and explore the analysis both of single cases and collections. To conclude, the article considers the distinctive contributions that these video-based studies have for our understanding of sociomateriality and organizational practice more generally. | |Abstract=This article considers the application of video-based research to address methodological challenges for organizational scholars concerned with the sociomaterial foundations to work practice. In particular the claim that “all practices are always sociomaterial” raises a “problem of relevance”—that is, on what grounds can we select material to include in the analytic account when there is a vast array of material in each setting? Furthermore, how can we grasp the sociality of material objects that are often taken for granted and that drift in and out of view? We address these methodological questions drawing on ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, and by making use of video recordings of everyday work and organizing. We demonstrate the approach with data from two service settings and explore the analysis both of single cases and collections. To conclude, the article considers the distinctive contributions that these video-based studies have for our understanding of sociomateriality and organizational practice more generally. | ||
}} | }} |
Latest revision as of 06:19, 13 January 2020
Hindmarsh-Llewellyn2018 | |
---|---|
BibType | ARTICLE |
Key | Hindmarsh-Llewellyn2018 |
Author(s) | Jon Hindmarsh, Nick Llewellyn |
Title | Video in sociomaterial investigations: a solution to the problem of relevance for organizational research |
Editor(s) | |
Tag(s) | EMCA, sociomateriality, relevance, video, ethnomethodology, conversation analysis |
Publisher | |
Year | 2018 |
Language | English |
City | |
Month | |
Journal | Organizational Research Methods |
Volume | 21 |
Number | 2 |
Pages | 412–437 |
URL | Link |
DOI | 10.1177/1094428116657595 |
ISBN | |
Organization | |
Institution | |
School | |
Type | |
Edition | |
Series | |
Howpublished | |
Book title | |
Chapter |
Abstract
This article considers the application of video-based research to address methodological challenges for organizational scholars concerned with the sociomaterial foundations to work practice. In particular the claim that “all practices are always sociomaterial” raises a “problem of relevance”—that is, on what grounds can we select material to include in the analytic account when there is a vast array of material in each setting? Furthermore, how can we grasp the sociality of material objects that are often taken for granted and that drift in and out of view? We address these methodological questions drawing on ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, and by making use of video recordings of everyday work and organizing. We demonstrate the approach with data from two service settings and explore the analysis both of single cases and collections. To conclude, the article considers the distinctive contributions that these video-based studies have for our understanding of sociomateriality and organizational practice more generally.
Notes