Video Recording Practices and the Reflexive Constitution of the Interactional Order: Some Systematic Uses of the Split-Screen Technique
In this paper, I deal with video data not as a transparent window on social interaction but as a situated product of video practices. This perspective invites an analysis of the practices of video-making, considering them as having a configuring impact on both on the way in which social interaction is documented and the way in which it is locally interpreted by video-makers. These situated interpretations and online analyses reflexively shape not only the record they produce but also the interactional order itself as it is documented. Dealing with practices of video-making not as a resource but as a topic, I explore a particular editing practice, the use of the split-screen technique, consisting in combining various camera views within the same image. This technique is now widely used in cinema, professional settings, TV, and social research. I focus on its uses in TV talk shows and debates: through a systematic sequential analysis of the positions where split screen is introduced, I show that directors do orient to the sequential features of interaction in using this technique and that, conversely, their uses of split screen reveal their local understanding—and configuring—of what the interactional dimension of debates and interviews consist of, for all practical purposes.
KeywordsVideo Social interaction Conversation analysis Ethnomethodology Turn-taking Sequentiality Participation Overlap Disagreement
Elements of this paper have been presented and discussed at the conference Le français dans les médias, Stockholm, June 2005, and at the 9th EMCA Conference, The International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis, Bentley College, Waltham, MA USA August 6–9, 2005. Thanks to George Psathas, Christian Greiffenhagen, Jon Hindmarsh, Eric Laurier and Mathias Broth for their valuable comments on earlier versions. Thanks also to two anonymous HS reviewers for their helpful comments. I am grateful to Mary Richards for revising the English version. Any remaining shortcomings are my own responsibility.
- Auer, P. (2002). Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Interaction and Linguistic Structures, 33, 39.Google Scholar
- Ball, M. (2000). The visual availability and local organization of public surveillance systems: The promotion of social order in public space. Sociological Research Online, 5(1) (www.socresonline.org.uk).
- Broth, M. (2004). The production of a live TV-interview through mediated interaction. In C. van Dijkum, J. Blasius, H. Kleijer, B. van Hilten (Eds.), Recent developments and applications in social research methodology (Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Logic and Methodology, August 17–20, 2004, Amsterdam). Amsterdam: SISWO (http://www2.fmg.uva.nl/emca/RC33Broth.pdf).
- Buscher, M. (2005). Social life under the microscope? Sociological Research Online, 10 (1) ( http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/1/1.html).
- Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s program: Working out Durkheim’s aphorism. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
- Garfinkel, H., Lynch, M., & Livingston, E. (1981). The work of discovering science construed with materials from the optically discovered pulsar. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 11, 131–158.Google Scholar
- Goodwin, C. (2000). Practices of seeing, visual analysis: An ethnomethodological approach. In T. van Leeuwen & C. Jewitt (Eds.), Handbook of Visual Analysis (pp. 157–182). London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Heath, C., et al. (2002). Configuring awareness. CSCW, 11(3–4), 317–347.Google Scholar
- Hester, S., & Eglin, P. (Eds.). (1997). Culture in action: Studies in membership categorization analysis. Washington: University Press of America.Google Scholar
- Laurier, E., & Philo, C. (2006). Natural problems of naturalistic video data. In H. Knoblauch, J. Raab, H.-G. Soeffner, & B. Schnettler (Eds.), Video-analysis methodology and methods (pp. 183–192). Bern: Lang.Google Scholar
- Laurier, E., Strebel, I., Brown, B. (2008). Video analysis: Lessons from professional video editing practice. FQS (Forum: Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research), 9 (3) ( www.qualitative-research.net/).
- Lomax, H., & Casey, N. (1998). Recording social life: Reflexivity and video methodology. Sociological Research Online, 3(2) (www.socresonline.org.uk).
- Lynch, M. (1985). Art and artifact in laboratory science. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
- Lynch, M. (1988). The externalized retina: Selection and mathematization in the visual documentation of objects in the life sciences. Human Studies, 11, 201–234.Google Scholar
- Macbeth, D. (1999). Glances, trances, and their relevance for a visual sociology. In P. L. Jalbert (Ed.), Media studies: Ethnomethodological approaches (pp. 135–170). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
- Mondada, L. (2005). Visions controversées de la carte: Construire le visible par les gestes et la parole en interaction. In C. D’Alessandro, et al. (Eds.), Espaces, savoirs et incertitudes (pp. 15–31). Paris: Belin.Google Scholar
- Mondada, L. (2006). Video recording as the reflexive preservation-configuration of phenomenal features for analysis. In H. Knoblauch, et al. (Eds.), Video analysis (pp. 51–68). Bern: Lang.Google Scholar
- Mondada, L. (2007c). Operating together through videoconference: Members’ procedures for accomplishing a common space of action. In S. Hester & D. Francis (Eds.), Orders of ordinary action (pp. 51–67). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
- Mondada, L. (2009). Emergent focused interactions in public places: A systematic analysis of the multimodal achievement of a common interactional space. Journal of Pragmatics (in press). Google Scholar
- Perakyla, A., & Ruusuvuori, A. (2006). Facial expression in an assessment. In H. J. Knoblauch, J. Raab, H.-G. Soeffner, & B. Schnettler (Eds.), Video-analysis: Methodology and methods (pp. 127–142). Bern: Lang.Google Scholar
- Relieu, M. (1999). La réalisation et la réception du produit télévisuel comme accomplissements. In J.-P. Desgoutte (Ed.), La mise en scène du discours audiovisuel (pp. 35–65). Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
- Sacks, H. (1972a). Notes on police assessment of moral character. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 280–293). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
- Sacks, H. (1972b). An initial investigation of the usability of conversational materials for doing sociology. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 31–74). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
- Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (Vol. 2). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to tersons and their interaction. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 15–21). New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
- Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: a partial sketch of a systematics. In B. Fox (Ed.), Studies in anaphora (pp. 437–485). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
- Whalen, M., & Whalen, J. (2004). Studying workspaces. In P. LeVine & R. Scollon (Eds.), Discourse and technology: Multimodal discourse analysis (pp. 208–229). Georgetown University Press: Washington.Google Scholar
- Zimmerman, D. H., & Pollner, M. (1971). The everyday world as a phenomenon. In J. D. Douglas (Ed.), Understanding everyday life: Toward the reconstruction of sociological knowledge (pp. 80–104). Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar