Author: Dirk vom Lehn

Incomplete List of Books and Papers on ‘Mobility’

Announcement, Anthropology, ethnography, interaction, Mobile, mobility

Mobility – Short List 

Mobility – Short List 

Asimakopoulos, Stavros, and Alan Dix. ‘Walking: A Grounded Theory of Social Engagement and Experience’. Interacting with Computers 29, no. 6 (1 November 2017): 824–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwx014.

Becker, Carol. ‘The Art of Crossing the Street’. Art Journal 58, no. 1 (1999): 10–15.

Broth, Mathias, and Lorenza Mondada. ‘Delaying Moving Away: Place, Mobility, and the Multimodal Organization of Activities’. Journal of Pragmatics 148 (July 2019): 44–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.05.013.

———. ‘Walking Away: The Embodied Achievement of Activity Closings in Mobile Interaction’. Journal of Pragmatics47, no. 1 (2013): 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.016.

Broth, Matthias, and Frederik Lundstrom. ‘A Walk on the Pier. Establishing Relevant Places in a Guided, Introductory Walk’. In Interaction and Mobility: Language and the Body in Motion, edited by Pentti Haddington, Maurice Nevile, and Lorenza Mondada. Berlin: DeGryter, 2013.

Brown, Barry, and Eric Laurier. ‘Maps and Car Journeys: An Ethno-Methodological Approach’. Cartographica 4 (2005): 17–33.

Brown, Barry, Eric Laurier, Hayden Lorimer, Owain Jones, Oskar Juhlin, Mark Perry, Daniele Pica, et al. ‘Driving and “ Passengering ”: Notes on the Ordinary Organization of Car Travel’. Mobilities 3, no. 1 (2008): 1–31.

Carlin, Andrew P. ‘Navigating the Walkways: Radical Inquiries and Mental Maps’, n.d.

Cosley, Dan, Jonathan Baxter, Soyoung Lee, Brian Alson, Saeko Nomura, Phil Adams, Chethan Sarabu, and Geri Gay. ‘A Tag in the Hand : Supporting Semantic , Social , and Spatial Navigation in Museums’. Technology, 2009, 1953–62.

De Stefani, Elwys. ‘Rearranging (in) Space: On Mobility and Its Relevance for the Study of Face-to-Face Interaction’. In Space in Language and Linguistics, edited by Peter Auer, Martin Hilpert, Anja Stukenbrock, and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi, 434–63. DE GRUYTER, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110312027.434.

De Stefani, Elwys, and Lorenza Mondada. ‘Encounters in Public Space: How Acquainted Versus Unacquainted Persons Establish Social and Spatial Arrangements’. Research on Language and Social Interaction 51, no. 3 (3 July 2018): 248–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1485230.

Deppermann, Arnulf. ‘Intersubjectivity and Other Grounds for Action-Coordination in an Environment of Restricted Interaction: Coordinating with Oncoming Traffic When Passing an Obstacle’. Language & Communication 65 (March 2019): 22–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2018.04.005.

Deppermann, Arnulf, Eric Laurier, and Lorenza Mondada. ‘Overtaking as an Interactional Achievement: Video Analyses of Participants’ Practices in Traffic’. Gesprächsforschung 19 (2018): 1–131.

Due, Brian, and Simon Lange. ‘Semiotic Resources for Navigation: A Video Ethnographic Study of Blind People’s Uses of the White Cane and a Guide Dog for Navigating in Urban Areas’. Semiotica 2018, no. 222 (25 April 2018): 287–312. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2016-0196.

Drury, John, and Elizabeth Stokoe. ‘The Interactional Production and Breach of New Norms in the Time of COVID-19: Achieving Physical Distancing in Public Spaces’. British Journal of Social Psychology 61, no. 3 (2022): 971–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12513.

Foster, Susan Leigh. ‘Walking and Other Choreographic Tactics: Danced Inventions of Theatricality and Performativity’. SubStance 31, no. 2 (2002): 125–46. https://doi.org/10.1353/sub.2002.0028.

Goffman, Erving. Behavior in Public Places. Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York and London, 1963.

———. Relations in Public. Microstudies of the Social Order. New York: Basic Books, 1971.

Haddington, Pentti. ‘Leave-Taking as Multiactivity: Coordinating Conversational Closings with Driving in Cars’. Language & Communication 65 (March 2019): 58–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2018.04.003.

Haddington, Pentti, and Tiina Keisanen. ‘Location, Mobility and the Body as Resources in Selecting a Route’. Journal of Pragmatics 41, no. 10 (October 2009): 1938–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.018.

Hall, Tom. ‘Footwork: Moving and Knowing in Local Space(s)’. Qualitative Research 9, no. 5 (1 November 2009): 571–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794109343626.

Hall, Tom, and Robin James Smith. ‘Stop and Go: A Field Study of Pedestrian Practice, Immobility and Urban Outreach Work’. Mobilities 8, no. 2 (1 May 2013): 272–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2012.659470.

Hester, Stephen, and David Francis. ‘Analysing Visually Available Mundane Order: A Walk to the Supermarket’. Visual Studies 18, no. 1 (1 April 2003): 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/14725860320001000056.

Karamouzas, Ioannis, Brian Skinner, and Stephen J. Guy. ‘Universal Power Law Governing Pedestrian Interactions’. Physical Review Letters 113, no. 23 (2 December 2014). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.238701.

Laurier, Eric, Magnus Hamann, Saul Albert, and Elizabeth Stokoe. ‘Guest Blog: Walking in the Time of COVID-19’. Research on Language and Social Interaction – Blog (blog), 5 May 2020. https://rolsi.net/2020/05/05/guest-blog-walking-in-the-time-of-covid-19/.

Weilenmann, Alexandra, Daniel Normark, and Eric Laurier. ‘Managing Walking Together: The Challenge of Revolving Doors’. Space and Culture 17, no. 2 (May 2014): 122–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1206331213508674.

Laurier, Eric, and Barry Brown. ‘Rotating Maps and Readers: Praxiological Aspects of Alignment and Orientation’. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 33 (April 2008): 201–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2008.00300.x.

Lloyd, Michael. ‘Getting by: The Ethnomethods of Everyday Cycling Navigation’. New Zealand Geographer n/a, no. n/a. Accessed 14 August 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/nzg.12274.

Marsh, Peter, and Peter Collett. ‘Patterns of Public Behavior: Collision Avoidance on a Pedestrian Crossing’. In Non-Verbal Communication Interaction and Gesture, edited by Adam Kendon, 199–217. The Hague: Mouton, 1981.

Merlino, Sara, and Lorenza Mondada. ‘Crossing the Street: How Pedestrians Interact with Cars’. Language & Communication 65 (March 2019): 131–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2018.04.004.

Mondada, Lorenza. ‘Commentary: Being Mobile, Talking on the Move: Conceptual, Analytical and Methodological Challenges of Mobility’. In Space in Language and Linguistics, edited by Peter Auer, Martin Hilpert, Anja Stukenbrock, and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi, 464–70. DE GRUYTER, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110312027.464.

———. ‘Talking and Driving: Multiactivity in the Car’. Semiotica 191 (2012): 223–56.

———. ‘Walking and Talking Together: Questions/Answers and Mobile Participation in Guided Visits’. Social Science Information 56, no. 2 (2017): 220–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018417694777.

Petri, Jakub. ‘The Forgotten Art of Walking. Toward Intra-Active Geography of an Urban Landscape’. Journal of Aesthetics & Culture 14, no. 1 (31 December 2022): 2156437. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004214.2022.2156437.

Ryave, A. L., and J. N. Schenkein. ‘Notes on the Art of Walking’. In Ethnomethodology, edited by Roy Turner, 265–74. Middlesex: Penguin, 1974.

Smith, Robin James, and Tom Hall. ‘Mobilities at Work: Care, Repair, Movement and a Fourfold Typology’. Applied Mobilities 1, no. 2 (2 July 2016): 147–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/23800127.2016.1246897.

———. ‘Pedestrian Circulations: Urban Ethnography, the Mobilities Paradigm and Outreach Work’. Mobilities 11, no. 4 (7 August 2016): 498–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2016.1211819.

Vergunst, Jo Lee, and Tim Ingold, eds. Ways of Walking: Ethnography and Practice on Foot. 1st edition. London New York: Routledge, 2016.

vom Lehn, Dirk. ‘Configuring Standpoints: Aligning Perspectives in Art Exhibitions’. Bulletin Suisse de Linguistique Appliquée 96 (2012): 69–90.

———. ‘Withdrawing from Exhibits: The Interactional Organisation of Museum Visits’. In Interaction and Mobility: Language and the Body in Motion, edited by Pentti Haddington, Lorenza Mondada, and Maurice Nevile, 65–90. March. Berlin: de Gryter, 2013.

Watson, Rod. ‘The Visibility Arrangements of Public Space: Conceptual Resources and Methodological Issues in Analysing Pedestrian Movements’. Communication & Cognition 38, no. 3–4 (2005): 201–27.

Call for Abstracts – Edited Book – “Sensing Life: the social organization of the senses in interaction” #sociology #sssi #emca #interaction #senses

Announcement, book, Call for Papers, Ethnomethodology, sociology, SSSI

Sensing Life: the social organization of the senses in interaction

Co-edited by 

Will Gibson (University College London), Natalia Ruiz-Junco (Auburn University), and Dirk vom Lehn (King’s College London)

This edited collection aims to continue the advances in scholarship of the senses as interactional phenomena and experiences. Our aim is to bring together contemporary empirical research that looks at how the senses are used in interaction, showcasing the broad range of concepts and methodologies through which they can be examined.

In the past decade or so interactionist researchers have been increasingly interested in the role of the senses in social interaction (see e.g., Vannini, Waskul and Gottschalk 2012). A special issue of the journal Symbolic Interaction in 2021 brought together studies that examined sensorial practice, focusing on diverse areas including everyday acts such as cheese and coffee tasting (Mondada, 2021; Fele and Liberman, 2021) through to the professional work of nurses (Grosjean, Matte, and Nahon-Serfaty, 2021) and race car testers (Salvadori and Gobo). These collected papers marked an important development in the empirical examination of communication about the senses, showing how talk, gesture, gaze, material artefacts and other aspects of the physical environment can be mobilised to make the senses accountable to others. The introduction to this special issue (vom Lehn and Gibson, 2021) pointed to several interrelated features of sensorial praxis which the papers helped to bring into focus.  The intersection between different sensorial experiences; the entwinement of the senses with cultural resources and practices; their contextually situated nature and the multimodal, structured but also serendipitous form of expression.

The proposed volume aims to continue these lines of analysis by inviting contributions from a multiplicity of approaches, including symbolic interactionism, ethnomethodology, Conversation Analysis, and cognate areas from Discourse Studies and multimodal inquiry. To balance the strong EMCA theme represented in the 2021 special issue we are particularly keen to encourage papers from symbolic interactionism or that use ethnographic methods.  We are interested in papers that examine conceptually and empirically the uses of the senses in ‘making something happen’, which might be in an institutional or non-institutional context. 

We welcome tentative expressions of interest and are happy to explore the fit of possible research papers with the above theme.

An abstract of no more than 400 words should be submitted by email to Will Gibson, Natalia Ruiz-Junco, and Dirk vom Lehn (SensesInteractionism@gmail.com) by 11 April. 

Bibliography

Fele, Giolo, and Kenneth Liberman. 2021. ‘Some Discovered Practices of Lay Coffee Drinkers’. Symbolic Interaction 44, no. 1: 40–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.486.

Gibson, Will, and Dirk vom Lehn. 2021. ‘Introduction: The Senses in Social Interaction’. Symbolic Interaction 44, no. 1: 3-9.

Grosjean, Sylvie, Frederik Matte, and Isaac Nahon-Serfaty. 2021. ‘“Sensory Ordering” in Nurses’ Clinical Decision-Making: Making Visible Senses, Sensing, and “Sensory Work” in the Hospital’. Symbolic Interaction 44, no. 1: 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.490.

Mondada, Lorenza. 2021. ‘Orchestrating Multi-Sensoriality in Tasting Sessions: Sensing Bodies, Normativity, and Language’. Symbolic Interaction 44, no. 1: 63–86.

Vannini, Philip, Dennis D. Waskul, and Simon Gottschalk. 2012. The Senses in Self, Society, and Culture. London: Routledge.

Salvadori, Francesca Astrid, and Giampietro Gobo. 2021. ‘Sensing the Bike: Creating a Collaborative Understanding of a Multi-Sensorial Experience in MotoGP Racing’. Symbolic Interaction 44, no. 1: 112–133. https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.529.

Wiggins, Sally, and Leelo Keevallik. 2021. ‘Enacting Gustatory Pleasure on Behalf of Another: The Multimodal Coordination of Infant Tasting Practices’. Symbolic Interaction 44, no. 1: 87–111. https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.527.

The Anthem Companion to Harold Garfinkel #EMCA #SSSI #Interactionism

Ethnomethodology, Garfinkel, interaction, interactionism

Hopefully, by the end of the year or at the latest by Spring 2023 “The Anthem Companion to Harold Garfinkel” co-edited by Philippe Sormani and myself will be published with Anthem Press. It’s currently due to be published in March 2023.

CONTENTS

List of Illustrations

Introduction                Rediscovering Garfinkel’s ‘Experiments’, Renewing Ethnomethodological Inquiry

by Philippe Sormani and Dirk vom Lehn 

Part I: Exegesis

Chapter One                Garfinkel’s Praxeological ‘Experiments’ 

by Michael Lynch 

Chapter Two               The Continuity of Garfinkel’s Approach:  Seeking Ways of ‘Making the Phenomenon Available Again’ through the Experience and Usefulness of ‘Trouble’ 

by Clemens Eisenmann and Anne Warfield Rawls

Part II: ‘Experiments’

Chapter Three             Lay and Professional Competencies: Linking Garfinkel’s Tutorial Exercises to a Study of Legal Work

by Stacy Lee Burns 

Chapter Four               Bargaining on Street-Markets as ‘Experiment in Miniature’ 

by Dirk vom Lehn 

Chapter Five               Notes on Galileo’s Pendulum

by Dušan I. Bjelić 

Chapter Six                 Disruptures of Normal Appearances in Public Space: the Covid19 Pandemic as a Natural Breaching Situation

by Lorenza Mondada and Hanna Svensson 

Chapter Seven             Gender as a Scientific Experiment: Towards a Queer Ethnomethodology 

by Luca Greco 

Chapter Eight              Breaching and Robot Experiments: Continuing Harold Garfinkel’s Spirit of Experimentation

by Keiichi Yamazaki and Yusuke Arano 

Chapter Nine               Dealing with Daemons: Trust in Autonomous Systems 

by Jonas Ivarsson 

Part III: Implications              

Chapter Ten                Experimenting with the Archive? Performing Purdue in Paris, an Instructive Reprise

by Yaël Kreplak and Philippe Sormani  

Chapter Eleven           Rereading Galileo’s Inclined Plane Demonstration

by Kenneth Liberman, in conversation with Harold Garfinkel  

Postface                      ‘Experiments’ – What Are We Talking About? A Plea for Conceptual Investigations

by Wes Sharrock 

Notes on Contributors

Index of Names

Index of Subjects

Review Essay zur Übersetzung von Harold Garfinkels “Studies in Ethnomethodology” #Soziologie #Ethnomethodologie #Konversationsanalyse #Gesprächsanalyse #emca

Uncategorized

Soeben ist mein Aufsatz/Review Essay zur exzellenten Übersetzung von Harold Garfinkels ‘Studies in Ethnomethodology’ in der Soziologischen Review erschienen.

vom Lehn, D. (2021). Ethnomethodologie: von marginalem Forschungsprogramm zu soziologischem Klassiker. Review Essay zu Harold Garfinkel, ‚Studien zur Ethnomethodologie‘, herausgegeben von Erhard Schüttpelz / Anne Warfield Rawls / Tristan Thielmann, übersetzt von Brigitte Luchesi, Frankfurt/New York: Campus 2020, 386 S., gb., 24,95 € Original: Harold Garfinkel, ‘Studies in Ethnomethodology’, Englewood Cliffs/NJ, Prentice-Hall 1967, 304 S. In Soziologische Revue, vol. 44, no. 4, 2021, pp. 518-531. https://doi.org/10.1515/srsr-2021-0069

Book Chapter with Brigitte Biehl (@doktordrama): “Atmospheres as dynamic configurations: The case of a museum and a techno club” #sociology #marketing #emca #museums #technoclub #berghain #StudioBerlin

Announcement, dramaturgical, exhibitions, experience, interaction

Brigitte Biehl and I have continued our exploration of “atmospheres” by examining how spaces and their atmospheres are dynamically produced through people’s action and interaction. Our analysis is based on studies at a museum and a techno club that due to the global pandemic was transformed into an art exhibition. The research was published in the book “The Metamorphosis of Cultural and Creative Organizations” edited by Federica De Molli and Marilena Secco.

Atmospheres as dynamic configurations: The case of a museum and a techno club by Brigitte Biehl & Dirk vom Lehn

Abstract: Organizational spaces and museum exhibitions are often designed to encompass people with a given atmosphere that encourage particular behavioural and cognitive responses. In a leisure context such as techno clubs, people are given the opportunity to have experiences that are site-specific standing in a particular a nightlife tradition. Similarly, in museums people encounter objects and artefacts displayed to allow them to have an aesthetic experience. In our chapter, we will draw on Gernot Böhme’s aesthetic theory, developing his notion of atmosphere and aesthetic work. We explore how spaces and their atmospheres are dynamically produced through people’s action and interaction. Our investigation will consider atmospheres as ongoing, as continually produced and transformed through people’s “aesthetic work”, i.e. actions, movements, and embodied interaction influenced by their moods, emotions and energy, as well as their memories and past experiences. Based on our analysis we will argue that leisure and cultural experiences arise within the spaces and atmosphere that people co-create through their presence and activities. We draw on examples from the cultural and creative industries: the Victoria and Albert Museum in London and Berghain techno club in Berlin, which during the global pandemic in 2020 was transformed into an art exhibition “Studio Berlin” in co-operation with Boros art foundation.

Table of Contents

Preface Antonio Strati 

1. Cultural and creative organizations’ space: An introduction 

Federica De Molli and Marilena Vecco 

Part I – Aesthetic 

2. Atmosphere in cultural organisations: A circumplex model of affective atmospheres 

Christian Julmi 

3. Atmospheres as dynamic configurations: The case of a museum and a techno club 

Brigitte Biehl (Biehl-Missal) and Dirk vom Lehn 

4. Creative spaces in higher education 

Tatiana Chemi

5. ‘Being t/here apart-together’: Co-creative work(ing) in bodily-digital ‘inter-places’ 

Wendelin Küpers and Stephan Sonnenburg 

Part II – Symbolic 

6. Organizational spatial transformation: The case of the un-festival 

Grant Hall and Ruth Rentschler

7. The spatial production of festivals: Ritualization, liminality and performativity 

Leonore van den Ende 

8. Artistic space: Painting and the making of space 

Eleonora Montagner and Alvise Favotto 

9. Museum spaces and changes 

Graham Black 

Part III – Instrumental 

10. Space technologies and cultural organizations 

Daniel Ericsson 

11. The regional context in entrepreneurial finance of cultural business: Urban versus rural space for creative and cultural entrepreneurship 

Elmar D. Konrad and Max Höllen 

12. Community-driven cultural spaces and the COVID-19 pandemic 

Matina Magkou, Laura Huret and Vincent Lambert

13. The expansion of virtual spaces of superstar and star museums during the COVID-19 lockdown 

Anne Gombault and Oihab Allal-Cherif 

14. Future perspectives for research on creative and cultural sectors using a spatial approach 

Federica De Molli

FQS – Debate: “Quality of Qualitative Research” #sociology #sssi #emca

Announcement, Call for Papers, quantitative/qualitative, research methods, Uncategorized

Over 20 years ago, in 2000, Franz Breuer, Jo Reichertz and Wolff-Michael Roth started a FQS debate on the “Quality of Qualitative Research.” In past contributions to this debate a wide range of issues has been discussed, such as various qualitative techniques of collecting or analyzing data, or the application of such methods within different disciplinary and institutional contexts. Since its beginning, the call for contributions to this debate has remained unchanged, while academic discussions surrounding this topic have changed substantially. The questions that were raised originally—What is “good” science? What are “good” social sciences? What is “good” qualitative social research? What are the criteria and standards for such evaluations?—are still relevant today and will continue to provide a baseline for future contributions, however, an update of the call for this FQS debate may be in order.

In the past, qualitative researchers have fought hard for acceptance and recognition of their work; this battle has largely been won. Today, in most social science disciplines (perhaps with the exception of psychology), qualitative epistemologies, theories, and methods are used and taught as “mainstream” science alongside their quantitative counterparts. Most university colleagues, students, and administrators have fully accepted their legitimacy and utility. While this is excellent news, it does not mean that debates about the “quality” of qualitative research have been, or should be, abandoned. Today, such debates take place in multiple contexts of discourse in which the “quality” of qualitative research is understood and treated in very different ways.

  1. The continued globalization and interdisciplinary appeal of qualitative research has accelerated the diversification of existing frameworks, theories, methodologies and methods. We are encountering many innovative developments that originate within the “older” qualitative approaches, such as social constructionism, symbolic interactionism, ethnomethodology, conversation analysis, phenomenology, hermeneutics, grounded theory methodology, and discourse analysis. In addition, today, many qualitative researchers transcend traditional boundaries and draw on a much broader theoretical canon when using and developing new qualitative methods, including critical approaches such as feminist, postcolonial and critical race theories, political economy frameworks, as well as postmodernism, poststructuralism and arts-based epistemologies. Moreover, collaboration between qualitative social scientists and scholars from discipline as diverse as the arts, design, computer sciences, medicine, and other health sciences have accelerated the development of “alternative” research methods. These developments lead to many new questions, such as: What does the new theoretical landscape of qualitative epistemologies and methodologies look like? How do various national and cultural contexts shape developments and debates of new qualitative frameworks? Finally, how is the “quality” of new qualitative research practices assessed across different disciplines and epistemological contexts?
  2. Over the past 20 years, qualitative research has been influenced by tremendous developments and expansions in technology and social media. Researchers increasingly use tools such as video-cameras, smart phones, and the Internet to collect data. A wide array of software packages has both reduced and increased the complexity of data collection and analysis. We must ask new questions, such as: How does the proliferation of new tools and technologies shape the practical and intellectual work of qualitative researchers? Which new social worlds and relationships have emerged, and how should they be examined and theorized qualitatively?
  • Funding mechanisms in the (social) sciences have also changed substantially, alongside institutional structures in the university. Today, in addition to public and non-profit funding bodies, researchers must turn to private and commercial institutions to acquire resources, some of which are very open toward qualitative approaches while others question their utility. New questions, such as the following, emerged: How do changes in funding and other institutional structures influence the theory and practice of qualitative research? How do the new funding and institutional landscapes vary by country, by region, and by discipline? What impacts do these changes have on the selection of research topics and on qualitative research ethics and responsibilities?
  • Lastly scientific research has increasingly come under pressure from politicians and policy makers, as well as from other influential experts, who have bluntly questioned the scholarly enterprise and confronted all scientific research with hostility and antagonism. This raises questions, such as: How do researchers who use qualitative theories, methodologies and methods respond to fundamental challenges of their (social) scientific expertise? How do they convince public audiences that their work raises and helps solve important questions?

Despite long-standing discussions about the quality of qualitative research, still no agreement has been reached about a catalogue of criteria that would serve to guarantee its value across the myriad contexts in which it is used today, similar to the classical, canonical standards that exist for quantitative scholars. In fact, we must broaden our understandings of what qualitative research is, and how it is practiced, while we continue to ask questions about its “quality.” The many issues and questions raised above may serve to re-invigorate discussions about the “Quality of Qualitative Research” in this FQS Debates, in alignment with current developments and concerns. As internal and external conditions for qualitative research practice have changed, a new engagement with the original issues, we hope, will invite new participants, raise new questions, and will lead to new insights within this worthwhile “Quality” debate. A reconfigured international FQS debate team eagerly awaits your submissions.

This is a Call without a deadline.

For questions, please contact the Section Editors: Franz Breuer, Paul Eisewicht, Margarethe Kusenbach, Jo Reichertz, Dirk vom Lehn, e-mail: deb_quality@qualitative-research.net

The Robots are Coming

Book Review, interactionism, Technology

There is lots of interest in the influence robots have on our work and life. Public debate often considers the emerging technology as an external force that shapes and threatens social relationships, thereby ignoring that it is people who make decisions about the design, development and deployment of new technology.

In her book “The New Breed” Kate Darling offers a novel perspective on human-robot relationships by introducing the human-animal relationship as an analogy that may encourage researchers, including interactionists, to consider the relationship between humans and robots in new ways. My review of The New Breed” has just been published in Symbolic Interaction.

PhD Studentship – Work, Interaction & Technology Research Group, King’s Business School – Communication in Optometry before and after Covid-19 #optometry #sociology #studentship

Uncategorized

The changing role of the optometrist in assessing eye-sight and eye health during and after Covid-19

King’s Business School have a 4 year, fully funded PhD studentship (fees and stipend) available to undertake research concerned with communication and interaction in remote optometry consultations. The successful candidate will be expected to undertake qualitative, in-depth, studies of the organisation of eye examinations undertaken via telephone, video-phone, etc. Their research will relate to previous video-based studies of communication and interaction undertaken by the supervisory team. 

The successful candidate will be a member of the Work, Interaction & Technology Research Group at King’s Business School. Members of the WIT Group are concerned with social interaction in organisational settings, examining the interplay between social interaction and technology. Candidates will undertake naturalistic studies of communication and interaction in optometry that draw on ethnographic and video-based research methods. They will have a social science background and have received training in qualitative research methods, including ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, ethnography, qualitative interviewing and grounded theory.

The PhD project will be undertaken in collaboration with the College of Optometrists and co-supervised by Professor Dirk vom Lehn (KCL) and Professor Peter Allen (Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge). It, therefore, provides candidates with the opportunity to develop a distinctive approach to their research.

The successful candidate will begin in October 2021.

For further information, please contact Professor Dirk vom Lehn at dirk.vom_lehn@kcl.ac.uk

Application Information 

Early applications are encouraged. Applicants are strongly advised to contact the supervisor Professor Dirk vom Lehn at dirk.vom_lehn@kcl.ac.uk

Please submit the following to kbs-phd@kcl.ac.uk 

  1. Copy of your CV
  2. One academic reference letter
  3. Letter of interest (1-2 page) including how you would be a best fit for the project.  

Note – applicants must check that they meet our entry requirements prior to applying

You should hold, or be completing, a Master’s degree with a Merit or higher (or overseas equivalent) and have achieved a 2:1 Bachelor’s degree (or overseas equivalent) in a relevant subject.

English language requirements

If you are a native English speaker or have been awarded a degree within the last five years from one of the countries listed here, you may not be required to take an English language test. English language competency is assessed on a case-by-case basis.

If your first language is not English you must be able to provide recent evidence that your spoken and written command of the English language is adequate for the programmes for which you have applied. Check our English language requirements here (Band B). You can use our pre-sessional English calculator to check if your language scores meet our requirements.

Please note, we cannot review individual eligibility before you apply and are only able to consider complete applications which include all supporting documents.

Application Procedure 

Shortlisted candidates will be invited to an interview and the successful candidate will be asked to submit their formal application via King’s Apply online system. 

Please contact kbs-phd@kcl.ac.uk if you have any queries regarding the application procedure.