Hindmarsh2009
| Hindmarsh2009 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Hindmarsh2009 |
| Author(s) | Jon Hindmarsh |
| Title | Work and the moving image: Past, present and future |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Ethnomethodology, Moving Image, Video, Work Practice |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2009 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Sociology |
| Volume | 43 |
| Number | 5 |
| Pages | 990–996 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/0038038509340723 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This article explores some of the similarities and differences between two approaches to the study of work that use moving images. The first approach, most notably practised by Frank and Lillian Gilbreth, ‘dissected’ the movement of workers’ bodies in the pursuit of efficiency. The second approach has emerged in the last few decades from ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. The ar ticle notes how shared technologies for data collection and shared interests in work practice belie more fundamental differences in analytic orientation. The article uses this comparison to highlight the potential contributions that the more recent corpus of studies can make to our understanding of work; an understanding that prioritizes the methodic practices in and through which members of society accomplish, experience and constitute work and organization.
Notes
