Technical agency in practice: The enactment of artefacts as conversation partners, actants and opponents

PsychNology Journal

Volumn 13, Issue 2-3, 2015, Pages 179-202

  Krummheuer, Antonia ^a  

^a AALBORG UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Actor network theory; Ethnomethodology; Humans; Nonhumans; Technical agency

Indexed keywords

EID: 84958987174     PISSN: 17207525     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Alač M., Movellan J., & Tanaka, F. (2011). When a robot is social: Spatial arrangements and multimodal semiotic engagement in the practice of social robotics. Social Studies of Science, 41(6), 893-926. doi:10.1177/0306312711420565.
2. Bergmann, J. R. (1985). Flüchtigkeit und methodische Fixierung sozialer Wirklichkeit. Aufzeichnungen als Daten der interpretativen Soziologie. In Bnoß, W. and Hartmann, H. (Eds.), Entzauberte Wissenschaft. Zur Relativität und Geltung soziologischer Forschung (pp. 299-320). Göttingen: Schwarz.
3. Bijker, W., & Law, J. (Eds.), (1992). Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
4. Braun-Thürmann, H. (2002). Künstliche Interaktion. Wie Technik zur Teilnehmerin sozialer Wirklichkeit wird. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.
5. Button, G. (1990). Going Up a Blind Alley. Conflating Conversation Analysis and Computer Modelling. In P. Luff, N. Gilbert & D. Frohlich (Eds.), Computers and Conversation (pp. 67-90). London: Academic Press.
6. Callon, M. (1986). Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge (pp. 196-233). London: Routledge.
7. Casper, M. J. (1994). Reframing and Grounding Nonhuman Agency: What Makes a Fetus an Agent? American Behavioral Scientist, 37(6), 839-856. doi:10.1177/0002764294037006009.
8. Cassell, J., Sullivan, J., Prevost, S., & Churchill E. (Eds.), (2000). Embodied Conversational Agents. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
9. Collins, H. M., & Kusch, M. (1995). Two Kinds of Actions: A Phenomenological Study. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 55(4), 799-819.
10. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
11. Garfinkel, H. (1972). Studies of the Routine Grounds of Everyday Activities. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in Social Interaction (p. 1-30.) New York: Free Press. (Orig. 1964, Social Problems, 11 (3), 225-250.).
12. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Perception. London: Houghton Miffling.
13. Goffman, E. (1981). Footing. In E. Goffman (Ed.), Forms of Talk (pp. 124-159). Oxford: Blackwell.
14. Goffman, E. (1986). Frame Analysis. An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper & Row.
15. Goodwin, C. (1996). Transparent Vision. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp. 370-404). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16. Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and Embodiment within Situated Human Interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489-1522. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X.
17. Goodwin, C. (2004). A competent speaker who can't speak: the social life of aphasia. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 14(2), 151-70.
18. Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M.H. (1998). Seeing as a Situated Activity: Formulating Planes. In Y. Engeström & D. Middleton (Eds.), Cognition and Communication at Work (pp. 61-94). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19. Goodwin, C. & Heritage J. (1990) Conversation Analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 283-307.
20. Haase, J. (2005). Computer aus Nutzerperspektive. Von der Nutzeranalyse zum Interface-Design. Wiesbaden: DUV.
21. Heath, C. (2011). Embodied action: video and the analysis of social interaction. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative Research (pp. 250-269). London: Sage, London.
22. Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff P. (2010). Video in Qualitative Research: Analysing Social Interaction in Everyday Life. London: Sage.
23. Heath C. & Luff P. (2000). Technology in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
25. Hutchby, I. (2001a). Technologies, Texts and Affordances. Sociology, 35 (2), 441-456.
26. Hutchby, I. (2001b). Conversation and Technology. From the Telephone to the Internet. Cambridge: Polity Press.
27. Hutchins, E. (1996). Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28. Jefferson, G. (1972) Side Sequences. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in Social Interaction. (pp. 294-338) New York: Free Press.
29. Johnson, J. [alias Latour, B.] (1988). Mixing Humans and Nonhumans Together: The Sociology of a Door-Closer. Social Problems, 35(3), 298-310.
30. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981). The Manufacture of Knowledge. Oxford: Pergamon.
31. Kopp, S., Gesellensetter, L., Krämer, N. C., & Wachsmuth, I. (2005). A Conversational Agent as Museum Guide-Design and Evaluation of a Real-World Application. In T. Panayiotopoulos, J. Gratch, R. Aylett, D. Ballin, P. Olivier & T. Rist (Eds.), Intelligent Virtual Agents. Proceedings of the 5th International Working Conference IVA 2005 in Kos, Greece (pp. 329-343). Berlin: Springer.
32. Kopp, S., Jung, B., Leßmann, N., & Wachsmuth, I. (2003). Max-A Multimodal Assistant in Virtual Reality Construction. Künstliche Intelligenz, 4, 11-17.
33. Krummheuer, A. (2009). Conversation analysis, video-recordings, and humancomputer interchanges. In Kissmann, U. T. (Ed.), Video Interaction Analysis. Methods and Methodology (pp. 59-83). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
34. Krummheuer, A. (2010). Interaktion mit virtuellen Agenten? Zur Aneignung eines ungewohnten Artefakts. Stuttgart: Lucius und Lucius.
35. Krummheuer, A. (2015). Users, Bystanders and Agents: Participation Roles in Human-Agent Interaction. In J. Abascal et al. (Eds.), INTERACT 2015, Part IV, LNCS 9299, pp. 240-247.
36. Krummheuer, A. (forthcoming). Performing an action one cannot do: Participation, scaffolding and embodied interaction. Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders.
37. Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action. How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
38. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
39. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory Life. The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Beverly Hills: Sage.
40. Law, J. (Ed.), (1991). A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination. London: Routledge.
41. Luckmann, T. (1980). Über die Grenzen der Sozialwelt. In T. Luckmann (Ed.), Lebenswelt und Gesellschaft: Grundstrukturen und geschichtliche Wandlungen (pp. 56-92). Paderborn: Schöningh.
42. Luff, P., Gilbert, N., & Frohlich, D. (Eds.), (1990). Computers and Conversation. London: Academic Press.
43. Luff, P., Hindmarsh, J., & Heath, C. (Eds.), (2000). Workplace Studies. Recovering Work Practice and Informing System Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44. Lynch, M. (1985). Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science: A Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
45. Lynch, M. (1993). Scientific Practice and Ordinary Action. Ethnomethodology and Social Studies of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46. McKenzie, D., & Wajcman, J. (Eds.), (1999). The Social Shaping of Technology. Berkshire: Open University Press.
47. Norman, D.A. (1988). The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books.
48. Passoth, J.-H., Peuker, B., & Schillmeier, M. (Eds.), (2012). Agency without Actors? New Approaches to Collective Action. London: Routledge.
49. Pickering, A. (1993). The Mangle of Practice: Agency and Emergence of the Sociology of Science. American Journal of Sociology, 99(3), 559-589.
50. Pickering, A. (1995). The Mangle of Practice. Time, Agency, and Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
51. Preda, A. (2000). Order with Things? Humans, Artifacts, and the Sociological Problem of Rule-Following. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. 30 (3) 269-298.
52. Rammert, W. (2012). Distributed Agency and Advanced Technology. Or: How to Analyze Constellations of Collective Inter-agency. In J.-H. Passoth, B. Peuker & M. Schillmeier (Eds.), Agency without Actors? New Approaches to Collective Action. (pp. 89-112) London: Routledge.
53. Raudaskoski, P. (1990). Repair Work in Human-Computer Interaction. In P. Luff, N. Gilbert & D. Frohlich (Ed.), Computers and Conversation (pp. 151-172). London: Academic Press.
54. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735.
55. Sacks, H. (1984). Notes on Methodology. In M. J. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 21-27). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56. Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation. Language, 53(2), 361-382.
57. Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (2012). The Handbook of Conversation Analysis: Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics. Chicester: Wiley.
58. Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
59. Suchman, L. (2007). Human-Machine Reconfigurations. Plans and Situated Actions, 2nd Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
60. Turkle, S. (2012). Alone together: why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books.
61. Wittgenstein L. (1953). Philosophical Investigation. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
62. Wooffitt, R., Fraser, N. M., Gilbert, N., & McGlashan, S. (1997). Humans, Computers and Wizards. Analysing Human (Simulated) Computer Interaction. London: Routledge.