Establishing jointness in proximal multiparty decision-making: The case of collaborative writing

Sexual consent as an interactional achievement: Overcoming ambiguities and social vulnerabilities in the initiations of sexual activities

“…Nevertheless, as the second part of our analysis has emphasized, the establishing of consent is far from a hopelessly ambiguous endeavor. In many joint actions in the embodied domain, no words are necessary to construct the activity as a joint one (Magnusson, 2021; Stevanovic and Monzoni, 2016), and this holds also for sexual activities (i.e. synchronous establishing of nonverbal consent, slow probing ).…”

“…While the above-described distal proposals call for explicit verbal commitment to future action, sexual consent is typically established in close temporal proximity to the joint action that the proposal targets. Consequently, the initiation of sexual activity is associated with proximal proposals , which – unlike their distal counterparts – rely much on embodied behaviors (Magnusson, 2021; Stevanovic and Monzoni, 2016). Proximal proposals may be directed to specific aspects of the physical environment (Broth and Lundström, 2013), to activities associated with specific spaces (Cekaite, 2010; Goodwin and Cekaite, 2013), and to culturally known objects whose manipulation conveys ideas about those activities that the participants should get involved with (Stevanovic and Monzoni, 2016).…”

“…Proximal proposals may be directed to specific aspects of the physical environment (Broth and Lundström, 2013), to activities associated with specific spaces (Cekaite, 2010; Goodwin and Cekaite, 2013), and to culturally known objects whose manipulation conveys ideas about those activities that the participants should get involved with (Stevanovic and Monzoni, 2016). In those proximal decision-making contexts where the proposed activity involves physical engagement, a proposal, and its acceptance may be realized entirely without words, words becoming relevant only when things do not unfold as expected – for example, when the recipient seeks to reject the proposal (Magnusson, 2021; Stevanovic and Monzoni, 2016). In response to proximal proposals, explicit verbal commitment may seem superfluous and even distracting.…”

Understanding Digital Inequality: A Theoretical Kaleidoscope

“…Greene ( 2007 ) considers it an approach that is sometimes deemed countercultural since the academic norm, particularly in the humanities, is the lone scholar, and the ‘gold standard’ writing product is the single-authored monograph. Collaborative writing has particular pragmatics and ethics: as a ‘coming together’, as an observational tool (Magnusson 2021 ), and as a method of inquiry (Gale and Bowstead 2013 ), pushing us towards a different understanding, a continuous struggle for meaning-making (Jandrić et al 2022a , b ). Starting from where we are, we acknowledge the problems as we generate a shared sense of, and hope for, higher education ‘otherwise’.…”

Multimodal methods for managing deontic rights in interdisciplinary trials

“…Stevanovic and Peräkylä (2012) have demonstrated how deontic authority is locally achieved in the interaction and is claimed and negotiated through turns-at-talk. While a majority of previous studies have focused on how deontic authority is managed through talk (Stevanovic and Peräkylä, 2012; Weatherall and Edmonds, 2018; Magnusson, 2020; Stevanovic, 2021; Nanouri et al, 2022), less attention has been given to the mobilization of non-verbal resources (Stevanovic and Monzoni, 2016; Clifton et al, 2018; Magnusson, 2021). In a study by Clifton et al (2018), they show that deontic authority is negotiated in a number of ways including multimodally.…”