Video in Sociomaterial Investigations

Abstract

This paper considers the application of video-based research to address methodological challenges for organizational scholars concerned with the sociomaterial foundations to work practice. In particular the claim that 'all practices are always sociomaterial' raises a 'problem of relevance' -that is on what grounds can we select material to include in the analytic account when there is a vast array of material in each setting? Furthermore, how can we grasp the sociality of material objects that are often taken for granted and that drift in and out of view? We address these methodological questions drawing on ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, and by making use of video recordings of everyday work and organizing. We demonstrate the approach with data from two service settings and explore the analysis both of single cases and collections. To conclude, the paper considers the distinctive contributions that these video-based studies have for our understanding of sociomateriality and organizational practice more generally.

Focusing ethnography: theory and recommendations for effectively combining video and ethnographic research

“…3 In contrast, for other theoretical lenses that can equally well be mobilized to understand sociomateriality, much more clear methodological considerations exist. In particular, it has been shown how participant observation and video methods can be combined with the lenses of material interaction (Dant, 2008), or practice theory (Hindmarsh & Llewellyn, 2016). In comparison to assemblage theories, practice theory offers a related, yet more clearly explicated choice in that doing ethnography can easily and stringently be conceptualized as a practice, the implications of which have been discussed in detail (Gobo, 2008;Mengis et al, 2016;Silverman, 1998).…”

“…It captures rich traces of background sound, speech, material set-up, spatial layout, body position and posture, visual attention and lines of sight, gestures and body language (Belk & Kozinets, 2005;Knoblauch, Schnettler, Raab, & Soeffner, 2006) -and all of these in their sequential order, so that pauses, rhythms, and speeds can be recovered during the analysis, for example when the temporal unfolding is of interest (Woermann & Rokka, 2015). Attending to the sequential unfolding of the embodied orders of situated performances social conduct is arguably important for grounding qualitative inquiry of many types (Woermann, 2016), but it is especially important from a practice perspective (Hindmarsh & Llewellyn, 2016;Toraldo et al, 2016). That is because it is rooted in Wittgensteinian language philosophy in which every interaction or situated conduct is seen as an improvisation over a set of formal and informal rules, and where the resources that enable competent rule-following include bodily skills, material tools, and emotional routines (Stern, 2003).…”

“…The opposite is true: focus on definitive detail is essential. This point is worth underlining in particular in light of a number of recent notable papers that each spell out how video methods can be combined with a practice perspective in order to solve a different critical challenge of (organizational) ethnography: the problem of relevance of the material (Hindmarsh & Llewellyn, 2016), the problem of elusive or tacit knowledge (Toraldo et al, 2016), the problem of accountability in the constitution of research knowledge (Whiting et al, 2016), and the problem of performativity of data collection technology (Mengis et al, 2016). All these notable contributions share the same reasoning underlying my argument, and taken together, they also demonstrate why finding focus is a key necessity for video-based, practice-minded research.…”

Participant-led video diaries

“…Participants could have kept written diaries (Bolger, Davis, & Rafaeli, 2003) or audiorecordings (Crozier & Cassell, 2016) to capture such material. However, written diaries rely too much on reported behaviour and audio-recordings would not fully capture the role of the technology in the switch (or other kind of materiality, Hindmarsh & Llewellyn, 2016).…”

“…It is far more common for researchers to video some event or activity themselves (e.g. through a static camera or as a form of video ethnography) than put the camcorder in the participants' hands (Hindmarsh & Llewellyn, 2016). Doing so raises new issues around ethics, research participation and power.…”