Advertisement

Technology and Social Interaction in the Multimodal, Multispace Setting of Audiometric Testing

  • Maria Egbert
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7258)

Abstract

A frequent motivation for integrating the technological and the social sciences lies in understanding the users of technologies in order to innovate [1-3]. This paper argues that a shift is necessary from ‘the user’ to ‘the interaction in the participation framework’ because it is here where the interactants display to each other their relevancies. Using Conversation Analysis [5-8], this point is exemplified by the examination of interaction in an audiological consultation where the interface of sociality and technology is relevant as a barrier. The analysis focuses on what aspects the participants in their talk and nonverbal conduct orient to as problematic given the task and the technology in this multimodal, multispace environment. The analytical results are discussed for innovation within the framework of User-Centered Design.

Keywords

Innovation in technology and interaction User-Centered Design Conversation Analysis communication disability audiological interaction communication with hearing loss audiometric testing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Suchman, L., Blomberg, J., Orr, J., Trigg, R.: Reconstructing technologies as social practice. Special Issue of the American Behavioral Scientist on Analysing Virtual Societies: New Directions in Methodology 43(3), 392–408 (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Suchman, L.A., Trigg, R.: Understanding practice: Video as a medium for reflection and design. Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems, 65–89 (1991)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buur, J., Matthews, B.: Participatory innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management 12(3), 255–273 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Egbert, M.: Conversation analysis applied to user-centered design: a study of who ‘the user’ is. In: Antaki, C. (ed.) Applied Conversation Analysis, pp. 207–221. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sacks, H.: Lectures on conversation, vol. 2. Basil Blackwell, Oxford (1992); Edited by G. Jefferson with introductions by E.A. SchegloffGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pomerantz, A., Fehr, B.J.: Conversation analysis: an approach to the study of social action as sense making practices’. In: van Dijk, T.A. (ed.) Discourse as Social Interaction, pp. 64–91. Sage, London (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schegloff, E.A.: A primer for conversation analysis: Sequence organization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Antaki, C. (ed.): Applied conversation analysis. Palgrave Macmillan (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    World Health Organization. Global health risks: Mortality and burden of disease attributable to selected major risks. WHO Press, Geneva (2009), http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/GlobalHealthRisks_report_full.pdf(accessed August 18, 2011)
  10. 10.
    Shield, B.: Evaluation of the social and economic costs of hearing impairment. A report for Hear-it (2006), http://www.hear-it.org/multimedia/Hear_It_Report_October_2006.pdf (accessed March 1, 2012)
  11. 11.
    Sorri, M., Jounio-Ervasti, K., Uimonen, S., Huttunen, K.: Will hearing health care be affordable in the next millennium? Scandinavian Audiology 30, 203–204 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bisgaard, N.: Global hearing aid usage. Internal hearcom-Workshop (2009), http://hearcom.eu/lenya/hearcom/authoring/about/DisseminationandExploitation/Workshop/5_Nikolai_Bisgaard_Industry-perspectives.pdf (accessed August 18, 2011)
  13. 13.
    World Health Organisation. Deafness and hearing impairment survey. WHO Project ICP DPR 001, New Delhi (2001), http://www.searo.who.int/LinkFiles/Publications_SEA-DEAF-4.pdf (accessed August 18, 2011)
  14. 14.
    Kochkin, S.: MarkeTrak III: Why 20 million in US don’t use hearing aids for their hearing loss. Hearing Journal 46(1) 20–27; 46(2), 26–31; 46(4), 36–37 (1993)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    ProMatura. Exploring the consumer’s journey: A report of an in-depth survey with hearing aid users to learn what impacts their sense of delight with their hearing aid (Hearing Industries Association) (February 2007a)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    ProMatura. Report of four focus groups with hearing aid users to define the best practices for dispensing hearing instruments that will improve the success rate (August 21, 2007b) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Meis, M., Gabriel, B.: Barriers in the supply with hearing systems: The view of the customer. In: Proceedings of the 51st International Congress of Hearing Aid Acousticians, Frankfurt/Main, October 10-20 (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Egbert, M.: Interaktion bei der Tonaudiometrie: Zur Paradoxie der Relevanzmarkierung von Störungen [Interaction during tone audiometry: About the paradoxy of relevancies in troubles]. In: Ayaß, R., Meyer, C. (eds.) Sozialität in Slow Motion: Theoretische und Empirische Perspektiven [Sociality in Slow Motion: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives, pp. 463–479. Springer VS, Wiesbaden (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Egbert, M., Deppermann, A. (eds.): Hearing aids communication. Integrating social interaction, audiology and user centered design to improve communication with hearing loss and hearing technology use. Verlag für Gesprächsforschung, Mannheim (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sacks, H.: On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In: Button, G., Lee, J.R. (eds.) Talk and Social Organisation, pp. 54–69. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon (1973/1987)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Heritage, J., Clayman, S.: Talk in action. Interactions, identities, and institutions. Wiley (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schegloff, E.A., Jefferson, G., Sacks, H.: The preference for self-correction in the organisation of repair in conversation. Language 53, 361–382 (1977)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hetu, R.: The stigma attached to hearing impairment. Scandinavian Audiology 25(43), 12–24 (1996)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    McKenna, L.: Psychological aspects of acquired hearing loss. In: Graham, J., Martin, M. (eds.) Ballantyne’s Deafness, pp. 258–271. Whurr, Philadelphia (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Egbert
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Southern DenmarkSonderborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations