Interaction Analysis:Foundations and Practice

1
Interaction AnalysisFoundations and Practice

• Brigitte Jordan and Austin Henderson

2
Authors

• Briggitte Jordan
• Consulting corporate anthropologist
• Previously principal scientist at Xerox Paolo
  Alto Research Center
  
• Spent many years as a university professor,
  teaching and doing research on dynamics of change
  in medical systems in developing countries
  
• Recipient of the prestigious Margaret Mead Award
  of the American Anthropological Association

3
Authors

• Austin Henderson
• Phd in Comp Sc from MIT
• Interested in Human Computer Interaction
• Built applications in various areas like air
  traffic control, manufacturing and electronic
  mail
  
• Done research for Xerox and Apple
• Co-founder of Pliant Research, a research
  consortium explaining the theory and practice of
  computing systems
  
• ACM/SIGCHI conference chair(1985) and
  organization chair(1989-1993)

4
Overview of the paper

• What is interaction analysis
• Assumptions of interaction analysis
• Steps of interaction analysis
• Videotape participants in ethnographic context
• Content logs
• Group work
• Individual researchers work
• Transcription
• Viewing video tapes by participants
• Why video is important in interaction analysis
• Advantages
• Disadvantages

5
Overview of the paper(contd.)

• Camera effects on participants
• Foci for analyzing interaction effects
• The structure of events
• Beginnings and endings
• Segmentation
• Temporal organization of activity
• The macro level
• Rhythm and Reciprocity
• Participation Structures
• Trouble and Repair
• Spatial Organization of activity
• Artifacts and documents
• Conclusions

6
What is Interaction Analysis

• Interdisciplinary method for the empirical
  investigation of the interaction of human beings
  with each other and with objects in their
  environment.
• Investigates human activities like talk, non
  verbal communication, how they interact with
  artifacts and technologies.
  
• Rooted in ethnography, sociolinguistics,
  ethnomethodology, conversation analysis,
  kinesics, proxemics and ethology

7
Assumptions of interaction analysis

• Knowledge and action are socially constructed
  through interactions
  
• Verifiable observation provides best foundation
  of analytic knowledge
  
• Grounding theories of knowledge in empirical
  evidence

8
Steps of Interaction Analysis

• Videotape participants in the ethnographic
  context
  
• The context furnishes the background against
  which the analysis is carried out
  
• Content logs
• Made as soon as possible after the videotape
• Lists headings and gives identifying information
  for each(level of detail determined by
  researcher)
  
• Group work
• Collaborative analysis by the practitioner
  groups
  
• Aim of deep understanding of order in interaction
  between participants.

9
Steps of Interaction Analysis(contd.)

• Individual researchers
• Analyze videotapes and audiotapes of work groups
• Tries to find generalized patterns in the
  participant interaction
  
• Proceeds in an inductive manner, building theory
  from the empirical data.

10
Steps of Interaction Analysis (contd.)

• Transcription
• Content logs expanded into transcriptions
• Level of detail depends on researcher
• Debate on how much to transcribe
• Viewing video tapes by participants
• Can give deeper insight

11
Why video is important to interaction analysis

• Advantages
• Optimal data when we want to reconstruct what
  really happed.
  
• Researcher bias removed
• Enables theorizing on a phenomenon
• Creates a permanent primary record
• Can represent complex interactional data, which
  can be difficult to be represented using text(due
  to the limitation of language).
  

12
Disadvantages of video

• Only a reconstruction of reality, not reality
  itself.
  
• Incorporates the camera-operator bias
• Technology is limited to represent some data(It
  cannot capture the full complexity. E.g. it
  cannot capture the sense of smell or has limited
  peripheral representation).

13
Camera effects

• Participants tend to react to the camera
• Change behavior if conscious about the camera
• Caution exercised by individuals
• However, people tend to be habituated to the
  camera quickly(reaction above wears off)
  
• More involvement with the major task at hand
  makes people less aware of cameras
  
• Authors take Camera effects should be
  considered for analysis, but they should not be
  regarded as fatal.

14
Foci for analysis

• Analytic foci are ways of looking at how the
  interaction can be analyzed, i.e. from what
  aspect can be interaction be analyzed.
  
• Authors present a limited number of such foci in
  here.

15
Foci for analysis-the structure of events

• Peoples experience on tape bunched into events
• Culturally significant tokens in the social
  intercourse (e.g meals, tutoring sessions,
  bedtime stories etc).
  
• Events have a structure, at the least they have
  Beginnings and Endings
  
• Official beginnings
• Rearrangement of artifacts
• Collaboratively achieved by participants rather
  than officially imposed
  
• Events are segmented
• Transition between segments may be smooth or bad
• Heralded by changes and shifts in activity(e.g.
  putting away of dishes before the dessert
  
• Many learning and work activities involve a known
  projectable sequence of events

16
Foci for analyzing events-the temporal
organization of activity

• The macro level
• Interaction analysis examines the temporal
  organization of moment to moment, real time
  interaction.
  
• Shape of an event and its temporal ordering and
  activity
  
• How externally imposed timetables organize the
  activities of many settings.
  
• Rhythm and periodicity
• Identify rhythms and patterns in activity
• Activities engage in some sort of periodicity
• Social interaction by a shared rhythmic
  framework
  
• Provides for slack times
• Could be driven by technology(e.g. assembly
  line)
  

17
Foci for analyzing events-turn taking

• Interaction analysis takes into account all sorts
  of turn taking during conversation.
  
• Taking a turn may be actually talking or may be
  bodily gestures or gestures with artifacts.
  
• Talk driven interactions imply a turn in
  talk(e.g. business meetings)
  
• Instrumental driven conversations imply a turn in
  the manipulation of a physical object(e.g. repair
  a car)
  
• Various differences between talk driven and
  instrumental conversations
  
• Topics stay much alive downstream in instrumental
  conversations
  
• Turn taking in conversational interaction may
  need prior consultation of artifacts(e.g. looking
  up a document)
  
• Talk driven interactions can be easily
  interrupted(e.g. phone call coming in).
  

18
Foci for analyzing events-participation structures

• Participation Structures
• Common task orientation and attention focus among
  participants
  
• Social work provides for the interactional
  infrastructure for coordination and collaboration
  among co-present individuals.
  
• Analyzes how participants communicate their
  engagements to each other
  

19
Foci for analyzing events-trouble and repair

• Interaction analysis can focus on the trouble in
  any activity
  
• Sequence of activity broken in some way.
• Careful analysis reveals unspoken rules
• Interaction analysis not only understands the
  verbal repair but also bodily, artifactual,
  social and spatial repair.
  
• Interaction analysis also can analyze breakdown
  and repair of conversation and interaction
  between humans and machines.
  
• Interaction analysis can reveal the learning on
  part of the humans (especially in interaction
  with machines) in order to repair the trouble.

20
Foci for analyzing events- Spatial Organization
of activity

• Interaction analysis can reveal how people are
  spatially oriented during an interaction.
  
• Physical co-presence managed by socially
  recognized rules regarding
  
• Occupancy of space
• Interaction with others
• Use of objects and resources
• Display of physical presence
• Voice
• Interaction analysis reveals that some spaces
  provide more interaction resources (e.g. all
  focus is on the speaker at the end of the table)
  
• Interaction Analysis also reveals which
  participant owns a particular space or territory
  
• Interaction Analysis also analyzes whether
  spatial orientations are free flowing or imposed.

21
Foci for analyzing events-artifacts and documents

• Basic premise of Interaction Analysis is that
  artifacts and documents set up a social field
  which influences the likelihood of an activity
  occurring.
• Interaction Analysis follows peoples focus on
  artifacts.
  
• Construction, completion and revision of
  artifacts signify participant agreement
  
• Interaction Analysis can capture the symbolic and
  instrumental value of an artifact.

22
Conclusions

• Video based Interaction Analysis is a powerful
  tool to analyze human activity
  
• Interaction Analysis is evolving
• Stock of wisdom in the IA practitioner field
  difficult to evaluate
  
• Practitioners of Interaction Analysis vary in
  their approaches
  
• Advantageous in complex work and learning
  environments
  
• Authors view is that Interaction Analysis still
  needs to evolve and mature
  
• Greater technological developments will
  facilitate Interaction Analysis
  

23
Questions

• What is interaction analysis?
• What are the assumptions/premises of interaction
  analysis?
  
• Describe the steps of interaction analysis.
• How is video important to interaction analysis.
• What are the limitations of technology in
  interaction analysis?
  
• What are camera effects? Are they necessarily a
  problem?
  
• Other than the foci of analysis presented by the
  authors, are there any others that you can think
  of?
  
• Do you think any of the loci presented should be
  given more precedence in interaction analysis?
  
• Can interaction analysis benefit from a knowledge
  of at least some of the CDF dimensions?
  
• Does interaction analysis do away with the notion
  of epistemic fidelity?