Participation across distance

Claiming the floor in multiple-location video meetings

Authors

  • Kristin Halvorsen NTNU Social Research

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.25758

Keywords:

floor, decision-making, participation, team interaction, videoconference, workplace discourse

Abstract

Team decision-making across geographical distance is increasingly common in the global workplace, often taking place via multiple location videoconference. Participation in these meetings is challenging, as claiming the floor requires coordination with numerous other participants and occurs in the absence of nonverbal information such as direct gaze. The present study examines how participants in a daily morning meeting in the offshore oil and gas industry claim the floor and how these turns at talk contribute to the daily adjustment of operational decisions. A discourse analytic approach emphasizing the relevance of the activity type (Levinson 1979) is taken. A systematic mapping of the encounter shows a highly structured and routinized activity type. Micro-analysis of interaction shows the meeting’s collaborative nature, evidenced in participants claiming the floor without having been assigned speaking turn and thematically orientating to a shared communicative project. By offering local information and operational details that have consequences for other participants, the speakers contribute to the continuous adjustment of inter-related decisions. The study contributes to our understanding of team decision-making in an empirical site rarely studied, with relevance for professional practice. The connection between activity type structure and the participants’ ability to claim the floor might encourage practitioners to reflect on the availability of the floor in existing activity types.

Author Biography

  • Kristin Halvorsen, NTNU Social Research

    Kristin Halvorsen received her PhD in Applied Linguistics from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) and is currently a Researcher at NTNU Social Research. Her research interests include professional discourse, workplace interaction, and team decision-making in operational and high-risk settings. She has previously published in the Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, Journal of Pragmatics, and International Journal of Business Communication.

References

Almklov, P. G. and Antonsen, S. (2014) Making work invisible: New public management and operational work in critical infrastructure sectors. Public Administration 92 (2): 477– 492. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/padm.12069

Asmuss, B. and Svennevig, J. (2009) Meeting talk: An introduction. Journal of Business Communication, 46 (1): 3–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021943608326761

Boden, D. (1994) The Business of Talk: Organizations in Action. Cambridge: Polity.

Boden, D. and Zimmerman, D. H. (eds) (1991) Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. Oxford: Polity Press.

Button, G. (ed.) (1993) Technology in Working Order: Studies of Work, Interaction, and Technology. London: Routledge.

Button, G. (2003) Studies of work in human-computer interaction. In J. M. Carroll (ed.) HCI Models, Theories, and Frameworks, 357–380. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

Buxton, W. A. S., Sellen, A. J. and Sheasby, M. C. (1997) Interfaces for multiparty videoconferences. In K. E. Finn, A. J. Sellen and S. B. Wilbur (eds) Video-Mediated Communication, 385–400. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Clayman, S. and Heritage, J. (2002) The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511613623

Coulthard, M. (1985) An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.

Darling, A. L. and Dannels, D. P. (2003) Practicing engineers talk about the importance of talk: A report on the role of oral communication in the workplace. Communication Education 52 (1): 1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634520302457

Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds) (1992) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Edelsky, C. (1981) Who’s got the floor? Language in Society, 10 (3): 383–421. http://dx.doi. org/10.1017/S004740450000885X

Finn, K. E., Sellen, A. J. and Wilbur, S. B. (eds) (1997) Video-Mediated Communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ford, C. E. (2008) Women Speaking Up: Getting and Using Turns in Workplace Meetings. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230582187

Ford, C. E. and Stickle, T. (2012) Securing recipiency in workplace meetings: Multimodal practices. Discourse Studies 14 (1): 11–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461445611427213

Goffman, E. (1963) Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: The Free Press.

Heath, C. and Luff, P. (1993) Disembodied conduct: Interactional asymmetries in videomediated communication. In G. Button (ed.) Technology in Working Order, 35–54. London: Routledge.

Heath, C. and Luff, P. (2000) Technology in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489839

Jones, R. H. (2004) The problem of context in computer-mediated communication. In P. LeVine and R. Scollon (eds) Discourse and Technology: Multimodal Discourse Analysis, 20–33. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Jones, R. and Thornborrow, J. (2004) Floors, talk and the organization of classroom activities. Language in Society 33 (3): 399–423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047404504043040

Levinson, S. C. (1979) Activity types and language. Linguistics 17 (5–6): 365–399. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1515/ling.1979.17.5-6.365

Linell, P. (2010) Communicative activity types as organisations in discourse and discourses in organisations. In S.-K. Tanskanen, M.-L. Helasvuo, M. Johansson and M. Raitaniemi (eds) Discourses in Interaction, 33–59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. http://dx.doi. org/10.1075/pbns.203.05lin

Mehan, H. (1982) The structure of classroom events and their consequences for student performance. In P. Gilmore and A. A. Glatthorn (eds) Children in and out of School: Ethnography and Education, 59–87. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Mané, A. (1997) Group space: The role of video in multipoint videoconferencing and its implications for design. In K. E. Finn, A. J. Sellen and S. B. Wilbur (eds) Video-Mediated Communication, 401–414. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Mondada, L. (2007) Multimodal resources for turn-taking: Pointing and the emergence of possible next speakers. Discourse Studies 9 (2): 194–225. http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/1461445607075346

Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures on Conversation. 2 volumes. Oxford: Blackwell. http://dx.doi. org/10.1002/9781444328301

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. and Jefferson, G. (1974) A simplest systematics of the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50 (4/1): 696–735.

Sarangi, S. (2000) Activity types, discourse types and interactional hybridity. In S. Sarangi and M. Coulthard (eds) Discourse and Social Life, 1–27. London: Longman.

Sarangi, S. (2010) Practising discourse analysis in healthcare settings. In I. Bourgeault, R. Dingwall and R. DeVries (eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Methods in Health Research, 397–416. London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446268247.n21

Sarangi, S. and Roberts, C. (eds) (1999) Talk, Work and Institutional Order: Discourse in Medical, Mediation and Management Settings. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110208375

Schegloff, E. A. (2001) Discourse as an interactional achievement III: The omnirelevance of action. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen and H. E. Hamilton (eds) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 229–249. Oxford: Blackwell.

Streeck, J. (2010) New Adventures in Language and Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pbns.196

Svennevig, J. (2012) Interaction in workplace meetings. Discourse Studies 14 (1): 3–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461445611427203

Published

2016-10-18

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Halvorsen, K. (2016). Participation across distance: Claiming the floor in multiple-location video meetings. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 10(1), 45-67. https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.25758