Interaction in work meetings

Schmitt, Reinhold

doi:10.3917/rfla.112.0069

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In particular, Conversation Analysis has been widely used to describe the ways in which decision making is achieved in organized sequences of talk-in-interaction based on the turn-taking mechanism. Many of these studies regard organizational meetings (Asmuss & Svennevig, 2009), in particular management styles (Schmitt, 2006), managers’ interpretative work (Nielsen, 2009), enactment of leadership (Clifton, 2006; Svennevig, 2008) and chairing (Pomerantz & Denvir, 2007), negotiation of participants’ mutual influence (Clifton, 2009), facilitation of agreement (Barnes, 2007), collaborative construction of commitment (Huisman, 2001), and use of politeness (Wasson, 2000). These studies concern mainly, although not exclusively (see Castor, 2007), business meetings.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Meetings require active participation in decision making (Schnurr & Chan, 2011); decision making is not achieved through single actions, such as proposals or “position reports,” but when actions are understood and assessed through other actions (Francis, 1995) in a communicative process. Meetings are multiparty conversations, which can produce quite different interactional situations (Schmitt, 2006). The article’s main focus is the communicative processes whereby decisions are achieved before they are announced (Clifton, 2006): it aims to analyze ways to achieve coordinated decisions (Alby & Zucchermaglio, 2006) in these processes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Forms of Decision Making: Gatekeeping and Dialogic Coordination in CISV Organizational Meetings

Baraldi

2013

International Journal of Business Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present article deals with decision making as a communicative process taking place in organizations as social systems. We will investigate the process whereby decisions are produced, before being announced, by looking at turn design and sequence organization in the interaction, and by considering cultural presuppositions, which are specific patterns of expectations about interlocutors’ expectations. In so doing, we will try to combine theories and methodologies deriving from Conversation Analysis and Social Systems Theory. The article deals with interactionally achieved patterns of expectations concerning participants’ positioning in decision making and analyzes two different forms of decision making, namely, gatekeeping and coordination of participative decision making. These are analyzed within the framework of organizational meetings in which educational activities for children’s camps are planned. The analysis of videotaped and transcribed interactions taking place during these meetings highlights the ways in which different forms of decision making are socially constructed.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Forms of Decision Making: Gatekeeping and Dialogic Coordination in CISV Organizational Meetings

Baraldi

2013

International Journal of Business Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mondada (2012) reminds us that “from its very beginnings, Conversation analysis has been a pioneering movement that has explicitly recognized the use of recorded data” (p. 52). Because of conversational analysis’s focus on speech (historically with telephone conversations, according to Schmitt, 2006, and in comparison to its grounds in Garfinkel’s ethnomethodology , see Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009, p. 221), Duboscq and Clot did not include gesture in the transcription principles.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Solo works of mixed music with live electronics: A qualitative enquiry in timbre and gesture from the performer’s perspective

Boutard

2016

Musicae Scientiae

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The performance of mixed music with live electronics is challenging for performers. In this context, idiosyncratic sound processing and synthesis tools are developed specifically for each work, inclined to technological obsolescence, and thus creating transmission and preservation issues. Still, performers, especially in the case of solo works, develop an expertise over time and over multiple performances by multiple performers. From this perspective, the question of co-construction of meaning in relation to performance is especially relevant. We designed an experiment to study this process of co-construction of expertise and appropriation of live electronics from the perspective of instrumentalists. We commissioned four solo works (each one for a different instrument) and asked two instrumentalists (for each work) to play the piece during a concert. We used qualitative methods stemming from psychology of work to study the performance activity in relation to gesture and timbre from the point of view of instrumentalists. For each work, the instrumentalists were confronted with the traces of their own activity, that is to say, the video and audio recordings of their performance and, subsequently, with those of the other instrumentalist in his/her presence. The data was then compared to conceptual frameworks designed mainly in relation to instrumental music. This study provides us with a better understanding of the appropriation of live electronics by instrumentalists, the strategies for transmitting an expertise, and proposes theoretical and practical grounds for new frameworks for documenting and disseminating mixed music with live electronics.

show abstract