Organization Studies http://oss.sagepub.com
Organization in Actual Episodes of Work: Harvey Sacks and Organization Studies Nick Llewellyn Organization Studies 2008; 29; 763 DOI: 10.1177/0170840608088766 The online version of this article can be found at: http://oss.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/5/763
Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
European Group for Organizational Studies
Additional services and information for Organization Studies can be found at: Email Alerts: http://oss.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://oss.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations (this article cites 69 articles hosted on the SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms): http://oss.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/29/5/763
Downloaded from http://oss.sagepub.com at University of Warwick on June 24, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
article title
Organization in Actual Episodes of Work: Harvey Sacks and Organization Studies Nick Llewellyn
Abstract Nick Llewellyn University of Warwick, UK
This paper explores the relevance of Harvey Sacks’ work for contemporary organization studies. Sacks encourages analysts to tether their studies to real-time workplace activities; ordinary scenes of work are recorded, slowed down and made the central object of study. Something of Sacks’ analytic mentality and style are illustrated through the analysis of two data extracts: an emergency 999 call and a face-to-face sales encounter. A distinctive way of doing organizational analysis is discussed that foregrounds knowledgeability and agency via the examination of sequence and method. Sacks raises the possibility that organization might be recoverable from the fine-grained detail of actual episodes. The idea that order, intelligibility and the constitution of social scenes might have a basis aside from the more general notion of discourse is discussed. Keywords: Harvey Sacks, sequential analysis, membership catagorization, organizational discourse, practice
Introduction
Organization Studies 29(05): 763–791 ISSN 0170–8406 Copyright © 2008 SAGE Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore) www.egosnet.org/os
The work of Harvey Sacks addresses the order and organization of actual episodes of concerted activity. Sacks asks, through what mundane methods and practices of reasoning are orderly and intelligible courses of action produced; what do people use to project activities, recognize what has just been done and craft contributions in light of a prior? When applied to work and organization, Sacks provides resources for studying the detailed order and organization of ordinary work activities; what people use to get work activities done, how people recognize the projects of others and craft their contribution to unfolding courses of action. Moreover, by recording scenes of work, slowing them down and watching them repeatedly, the analyst can start to recover how real-time work activities are produced in light of distinctive organizational contingencies and accountabilities. Organization is revealed, as an intersubjectively recognized order, at a very fine level of detail. The focus on ordinary activity and mundane scenes of work might not sound especially radical. Many traditions within organization studies have taken ordinary workplace activity seriously, both empirically and conceptually. Well-known ethnographic studies (see Roy 1960; Kunda 1992; Barker DOI: 10.1177/0170840608088766 Downloaded from http://oss.sagepub.com at University of Warwick on June 24, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
764
Organization Studies 29(05)
1993), for example, tether analysis to the mundane activities of the workplace. Such studies get close to work activities, with analysts on occasion actually doing the work itself (see Burawoy 1979). The relevant matter for understanding Sacks’ potential contribution is not whether, but how, ordinary activities have been treated within organization studies. Here there is a paradox, for Sacks at least; ordinary work activities are simultaneously everywhere and nowhere. They are everywhere in the rich descriptive background; nowhere in the analytic limelight (see Strauss 1985 for this distinction). In contrast, Sacks places the detailed order of ordinary work activities centre stage. The result has been to show that workplace activities are remarkably organized and that members recognize, or ‘orient to’, this organization at previously unimagined levels, second by second. Moreover, the detailed order of work activities is not incidental or merely interesting but vital for understanding how people find themselves at work, find ways of dealing with others and find solutions to practical problems which arise along the way. It is not only that work activities are finely ordered; this order appears to matter. The aim of this paper is to consider Harvey Sacks, not in the abstract through an evaluation of his career (see Silverman 1998) or the trajectory of his thoughts (see Schegloff 1992a), but by attempting to locate where a concentrated analytic focus on the detailed order of ordinary workplace activity might take organization studies. It is one thing to say that organization studies has overlooked such matters; it is quite another to say it should make them part of its domain of study. In this regard, the main argument will concern the importance of real-time workplace activity as a site for the reproduction of workplace logics and arrangements. While organization studies has always had a rich tradition of binding studies to ‘the work itself’ (Strauss 1985), arguably contemporary developments have seen something of a gulf emerge between theoretical accounts and common scenes of work (see Barley and Kunda 2001 for this argument). Even the mechanisms which are thought to provide for meaning and identity at work — various discourses of work and organization (Hardy and Phillips 1999, 2004; Phillips et al. 2004) — are typically only examined in general terms; how they stand in relation to particular instances of talk or embodied conduct ‘is not always well specified’ (Bergström and Knights 2006). The functioning of such mechanisms thus becomes a mysterious affair, available only to the analyst. Harvey Sacks provides an alternative mentality and approach, which has the virtue of endeavouring to provide for actual occasions of intelligible utterance, recognizable fact, orderly action, etc. Perhaps this is why Sacks is now especially relevant for contemporary developments in organization studies, where organizational practices are increasingly examined through the analysis of in situ work (Luff et al. 2000; Nicolini et al. 2003; Samra-Fredericks 2003, 2004; Hindmarsh and Pilnick 2007; Nicolini 2007; Llewellyn and Hindmarsh, in preparation). The present paper locates Sacks with respect to these developments. Through the illustrative analysis of two data extracts, it shows how the detailed order of the activities that constitute a practice can be recovered from live audio/video recordings.
Downloaded from http://oss.sagepub.com at University of Warwick on June 24, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Symposium — Llewellyn: Organization in Actual Episodes of Work
765
Witnessing (and Witness-able) Scenes of Work It has been claimed that organization studies has tended to place ordinary activities in the rich descriptive background and not in the analytic foreground (Strauss 1985). This is a very general claim and requires some elaboration. Start by considering a brief extract from Catherine Casey’s (1995) ethnography, of events that took place during a meeting. ‘Another disciplinary practice was the self-initiated confession, most evident in the Sunrise Meetings. Employees would report, with expressions of culpability and remorse, their failures, delays and mistakes. More serious errors were punitively criticized and the offender would apologize again and promise to improve … Occasionally, an offending employee in his own ego-defense would blame others in the team or another team for the problem.’ (Casey 1995: 122)
It is worth listing the commonplace activities, expressions and identities that Casey witnessed: at least (1) expressions of culpability, (2) expressions of remorse, (3) orders of criticism (punitive criticism), (4) offenders, (5) apologies, (6) promises, (7) blaming, (8) a team, (9) employees, (10) orders of error (mistakes and more serious errors), (11) a meeting, (12) failures and (13) mistakes. Casey’s study takes mundane activities at work, even facial expressions, seriously. How social relations are reproduced through mundane interaction is one concern of the study. People feel guilt, promise to do better and shift blame. But Casey’s research also raises a series of intriguing questions. How is it possible to observe ‘criticism’? What exactly is an ‘expression of remorse’? How do people blame others? What does an ‘apology’ look like? How is it possible to distinguish orders of criticism, such that ‘punitive criticism’ can be observed? What does a ‘serious error’ look like? These questions are not addressed by Casey. As a result, the activities themselves (the blaming, the promise, the criticism, etc.) escape analytic attention. The reader learns only that such things happened, not how they happened or what they looked like. This is not Casey’s failure; Casey is interested in other things and writes from a different perspective. But there is an opportunity to take these concerns, so apparent in ethnographic studies, a stage further. It is worth considering a small number of further examples. Consider two brief extracts from studies by Paul du Gay (1996) and Michael Burawoy (1979). ‘… he took visible delight in informing the store manager that he would take responsibility for filling it with his own Father’s Day promotion … which was then ceremoniously transported by two of his members of staff to the empty space in store. DM was obviously very proud of his display and spent a considerable amount of time putting the finishing touches to it. However, in contrast to DM’s evident enthusiasm for and pride in his display … the younger sales managers were appalled and amused in equal measure.’ (du Gay 1996: 152–153) ‘Such royal attention had me flustered from the start. I couldn’t even set up the balance properly. The superintendent became impatient and started ordering me to do this, that and the other, all of which I knew to be wrong … As the clay piled up on the plate, way beyond what was necessary to balance it, the superintendent began to panic. He obviously thought his neck was on the line, but he had little idea as to how the machine works. He was an old timer, unaccustomed to this new-fangled equipment.’ (Burawoy 1979: 69)
Downloaded from http://oss.sagepub.com at University of Warwick on June 24, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
766
Organization Studies 29(05)
It is worth listing the commonplace activities, expressions and identities reported. From Burawoy we have (14) orders of attention (royal), (15) impatience, (16) ordering, (17) panic, (18) another’s obvious thoughts, (19) another’s lack of ideas and (20) old timers. From du Gay there are (21) expressions of delight, (22) informing, (23) orders of transportation (ceremoniously transported), (24) displays of pride, (25) orders of time (considerable amounts of time), (26) finishing touches, (27) enthusiasm, (28) expressions of amusement, (29) members of staff and (30) younger sales managers. In these studies, readers do confront the raw realities of work. How much closer is it possible to get than Burawoy, labouring on those machines! We hear accounts of anger, getting by and indignation at others, for their lack of ability or co-operation. But even here, the activities themselves seem to slip through the analyst’s grasp. A series of enigmatic questions are left untouched. What do ‘finishing touches’ look like? How is it possible to discern someone is ‘displaying pride’ and ‘enthusiasm’? How it is possible to distinguish ‘considerable amounts of time’ from say ‘normal amounts of time’? What does ‘impatience’ look like? Given people are amenable to a multiplicity of alternative characterizations, why are ‘younger managers’ and ‘old timers’ described? This is not a criticism. These issues are raised simply to identify a point of departure. Organization studies has always had an interest in ordinary scenes of work. But there is a further step to take. What is in the descriptive background could be brought into the analytic foreground. Analysts could analyse the activities themselves to consider how they were accomplished as those activities. Such an endeavour would start to reveal practices that produce and sustain the appearance of recognizable organizational activities, expressions and identities; the witness-ability of ‘old timers’, ‘promises’ and ‘enthusiasm’. Of course, Sacks was not unique in drawing on recordings. A number of ethnographic studies within organization studies have accessed such data (see Gephart 1978; Gronn 1983; Watson 1995; Forray and Woodilla 2002). But these studies have also treated ordinary activities descriptively. To illustrate this point, consider a data fragment from Boje’s (1991) study of a large office supplies firm. 1 Ruth: …especially under Raymond 2 Smith, I’m sure Sam could 3 share a few examples 4 (laughter). Examples of when 5 he was out pulling invoices 6 out in the warehouse while 7 he was the frigging 8 controller of the company. 9 People were afraid to hire 10 people ((continues)) Consider how Boje renders this brief stretch of interaction. He says ‘Ruth, begins with (31) an assertion … and then follows it up with (32) an invitation to Sam to tell a story … Sam, while invited to follow up with his own story, (33) remains
Downloaded from http://oss.sagepub.com at University of Warwick on June 24, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Symposium — Llewellyn: Organization in Actual Episodes of Work
767
quiet’ (Boje 1991: 116). In Boje’s rendering, at least three mundane activities are witnessed: an ‘assertion’, an ‘invitation’ and ‘declining an invitation’. This raises a now familiar set of questions. What exactly does an invitation look like? How is it possible to see that someone has declined an invitation to speak, when they have not said anything? Going back to the extract, Boje’s version of events seems to turn on the utterance ‘I’m sure Sam could share a few examples’ (lines 2–3). This seems to be treated as the ‘invitation’ for Sam to tell a story. But is this an ‘invitation’? While these words could form part of an invitation, they could also be part of something else. They could be part of a ‘joke’ and nothing more. To decide one way or the other it would be necessary to explicate the labours of doing an ‘invitation’; to show the activity itself. Where might these labours be; what might they look like? Consider a few speculative possibilities. Perhaps as Ruth says ‘I’m sure Sam could share a few examples’ she turns to Sam and in some way gives Sam the floor. Perhaps she casts her gaze directly to Sam or gestures in some way, perhaps nodding. As the laughter (line 4) dies down, perhaps Ruth shows she is awaiting some contribution from Sam. Perhaps she is still looking at Sam and allows an extended pause to open up. For his part, perhaps Sam does more than simply remain silent. Perhaps Sam looks away, shrugs or in some other way actively declines the invitation to speak. After an extended pause, perhaps Ruth recognizes a declination by starting to give her own example. These are merely possible ways in which Ruth and Sam might have accomplished the witness-able properties of the activities which Boje’s description presupposes and which Sacks invites analysts to study. Throughout its history, organization studies has had a close interest in mundane work activities. Yet the endogenous order and local organization of actual work activities has evaded successive generations of scholars, i.e. how members — rather than analysts — recognize and act in light of the ordinary actions, bodily movements and commonplace expressions of the workplace. In the first instance the question of what should be inferred from specific expressions, utterances and bodily movements is a problem — not for analysts — but for members. This raises the question of how members solve such problems. This is the project which Sacks sets in train. For Sacks, and those doing work in this tradition, the above list (1–33) would be full of analytic possibilities. Matters which are glossed, such as ‘promises’, would be upgraded into topics to see how members produce, recognize and act in light of such things. If part of the work of managing involves making and extracting promises (Casey 1995), we might look at actual instances of ‘promising’ to see how orders of commitment are produced, oriented to and negotiated in real time. Actual episodes might be video/audio recorded, slowed down and watched repeatedly. The detailed order of ‘promising’ might be unpicked to explore how social relations at work are recognized and reproduced second by second. This is one way of understanding Sacks’ relation to organization studies. His work allows longstanding interest in common scenes of work to be taken a stage further. Sacks poses an intriguing question — even a challenge — to those interested in the organization of ordinary work activities. How far is it possible to go; what level of detailed order can be found? If analysts were to ‘attack the
Downloaded from http://oss.sagepub.com at University of Warwick on June 24, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
768
Organization Studies 29(05)
phenomena at any point’ (Sacks 1984), perhaps for as little as two or three seconds, would it still be possible to recover members orienting to the distinctive arrangements and protocols of the workplace? Is ordinary work activity this orderly, this organized? But there is also a second way of thinking about Sacks’ relation to organization studies, which is a point of departure, rather than a development of already existing themes. This has already been alluded to above and concerns the ‘analytic mentality’ that can underpin research when authors have access to (video or audio) recordings. What may seem a fairly trivial or technical matter turns out to have radical implications for the mode of social science knowledge that can be produced. Consider this point in relation to the aforementioned studies. In these studies the reader learns that analysts are able to resolve various practical and inferential problems bound up with doing research. For example, the reader learns analysts are able to establish fine distinctions between orders of criticism (punitive), error (serious) and time (considerable). The reader learns analysts are able to recognize and name generic social activity types, when they report having observed ‘orders’, ‘apologies’ and ‘promises’. Third, the reader learns analysts are able to draw on commonsense associations between identities (‘old timers’) and various activities and attributes bound to those identities (‘being confused’) (see Sacks 1992: 236–266 for ‘category bound activities’). Much less is learnt, in contrast, about how organizational members resolve precisely the same practical and inferential problems as a necessary feature of accomplishing ordinary work activities. In the work of Harvey Sacks, Harold Garfinkel and others, there is the remarkable recognition that professional analysts trade (in part) on precisely the same methods, procedures and competencies that ordinary members of society use to pick their way through their everyday affairs. As part of doing their work, ordinary members of a society routinely make fine distinctions between various orders of phenomena, such as orders of commitment (‘you promised’) or orders of time (‘you’re late’). Confronted with combinations of words and gestures, people recognize and act in light of generic activity types (‘orders’ and ‘promises’). Further, in the flow of everyday activity, people trade on ways that various identities can imply activities, attributes and entitlements (Sacks 1992). The commonsense competencies and practices of reasoning that professional analysts trade on in order to accomplish their studies are revealed to be general social competencies and practices through which members of a society find order and intelligibility in their daily lives. This is the key difference between Sacks and Garfinkel and authors such as Burawoy, Casey, Boje and du Gay. These latter authors draw on and use what Sacks and Garfinkel want to study. The matter for Sacks is how members, not analysts, (a) delineate orders of phenomena, (b) recognize and act in light of generic activity types and (c) draw on ‘category bound activities’ (see Sacks 1992; Llewellyn 2004). The conventional analytic mentality has the analyst deploying such competencies and practices in the context of building their studies, rather than examining how members deploy such competencies and practices in the context of producing workplace activities. As a result, a whole
Downloaded from http://oss.sagepub.com at University of Warwick on June 24, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Symposium — Llewellyn: Organization in Actual Episodes of Work
769
domain of social practice, essential for understanding the production of orderly and intelligible discourse, has been consistently overlooked within organization studies and has not figured in debate. By using recordings, Sacks is able to bring these previously unexamined competencies and practices into the analytical foreground.
Sequence as the Unit of Analysis An initial attempt has been made to sketch something of Sacks’ analytic mentality via a brief consideration of well-regarded ethnographies, of the type Sacks himself approached with the greatest respect (see Sacks 1992: 27). The best way to illustrate Sacks’ approach is via the analysis of some data. Before this, however, two matters are introduced which figure large in the ways Sacks did analysis and which start to distinguish Sacks’ work from the work of Harold Garfinkel. These are the primacy of sequence and the analytic leverage gained via the next turn. The central analytic problem for Sacks is what people use to assemble courses of action which are, in the first instance, orderly and intelligible for members. For Sacks, the unit of analysis is the sequence — discrete interactional moves assembled, one after another, in orderly and coherent ways. Sequence is central, because the intelligibility of some utterance, gesture or bodily movement will be grasped by reference to its placement with respect to an immediate before and after, i.e. as a continuation or breach of some order of activity. Moreover, the way in which interlocutors understand a prior, as a continuation or breach of some order of activity, will be an accountable, i.e. publicly apparent and inspect-able, property of their next turn. This point is fundamental. In producing next-turn responses, participants display, to interlocutors and analysts alike, a practical analysis of what a prior was doing or at least might have been doing. This will happen regardless of the actual intentions or thoughts of the individual speaker; it is an inescapable constraint upon next actions (Garfinkel 1967). Consider a mundane example. Suppose one party were to say to another ‘do you know the time’. A practical analysis of this would have to be locally embedded into the sequence (Sacks et al. 1974). Practically, the recipient would have to find ‘do you know the time’ to be some order of activity. Because language does not map onto social action in a one-to-one fashion (‘do you know the time’ could be an attempt to realize various actions), a practical problem arises which members confront and resolve typically with little difficulty. In this hypothetical case, does ‘do you know the time’ concern the state of the recipient’s knowledge (the direct speech act, answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’); or is it a request for the embedded questions information (the indirect speech act, answer with the time, ‘7.30 pm’)? Or is it something else entirely?1 At one level, Sacks is concerned with ‘practices of reasoning’ (Garfinkel 1967), through which actors are able to ‘see’ various phenomena over others; such as ‘requests’ over ‘inquiries’; ‘lies’ over the ‘truth’ (Sacks 1992: 115); ‘normality’ over ‘subversion’ (Sacks 1992: 254). Such practical problems are
Downloaded from http://oss.sagepub.com at University of Warwick on June 24, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
770
Organization Studies 29(05)
resolved, typically in a ‘seen but unnoticed’ fashion (Garfinkel 1967), through the practical deployment of knowledge regarding, in this hypothetical example, possible circumstances where someone might genuinely want to know whether someone else knows the time. For Sacks, such practices and bodies of knowledge are not separated in a dualistic fashion from the flow of ordinary conduct. Members’ reasoning and knowledge are apparent in, and accountable features of, their participation in unfolding sequences of talk. The sequence thus remains the central unit of analysis. Should mistakes be made, inapposite conclusions drawn, they will be recognized by participants themselves and made the subject of correction, humour, annoyance, etc. More generally, Sacks is concerned with sequential practices through which people display an orientation to what a prior was trying to achieve, by crafting contributions to unfolding courses of action. In this regard, suppose the recipient answered by giving the time (‘it is 7.30’). And then, in response, the speaker of the initial utterance said ‘thanks’. Through such utterly commonplace moves, the initial utterance has been practically recognized as a ‘request’ for the time. The recipient did not say ‘yes’ and then smugly walk off. Having been given the time, the initial speaker did not say ‘oh, I know the time, I wondered if you knew we were late’. The action has been accounted for one way and not another. It has been managed as a ‘request for the time’. Accounts of ordinary actions are thus not descriptions of those actions or endeavours to establish what someone ‘really meant’ by some utterance. Sacks is concerned, instead, with practical ways in which people publicly display their appreciation of what has gone before, and what should be done next, in the context of unfolding sequences of activity. The central points might be clarified, their relevance driven home. For Sacks, sequence organization — rather than grammar or isolated linguistic unit — must be the central locus of analysis. Any attempt to study metaphors, stories or other discourse phenomena outside sequential constraints within which talk is ‘condemned to be meaningful’ (Heritage 1984a: 110) would be a problem because the sense and function of such units arises from their positioning with respect to an immediate before and after. Furthermore, for the actual activities of the workplace, the meaning of metaphors, questions, stories and other discourse forms will always and inescapably be bound up with some action, or order action, that is being perpetuated or possibly transformed through that unit. To decouple discourse from real-time action is to strip out the key sociological dimension of the phenomenon at hand; discourse is, in the first instance, produced as a medium for the accomplishment of social action (Schegloff 2005). Second, the sequential organization of talk-in-interaction, as the oriented-to project of participants, provides a foothold for analysis that is specific to the domain of talk-in-interaction; that is not afforded to those analysing text or other literary materials (Schegloff 1999). Analysts are not forced to speculate about what participants might have possibly known or understood, about ‘the procedures or constraints to which they conceivably have been oriented; instead … analysis can emerge from observations of the conduct of the parties to the talk themselves’ (Whalen et al. 1988: 342; Sacks et al. 1974). If someone says ‘7.30 pm’, in response to ‘do you know the time’, and then gets ‘thanks’ in response, it is possible to see participants orienting to a ‘request for the time’
Downloaded from http://oss.sagepub.com at University of Warwick on June 24, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Symposium — Llewellyn: Organization in Actual Episodes of Work
771
and not something else. This is not to argue that social life is transparent, either to members or analysts — simply that the analysis of talk-in-interaction can be disciplined by the various ways in which next turns retrospectively embody a possible understanding of a prior.
Order and Organization in Actual Episodes of Work The paper now applies these guiding principles to two actual episodes of work. Illustrative analysis begins to reveal the detailed order of activities that constitute work practices. We start to see that members orient to orders of work very closely, second by second. This close orientation is more than simply interesting; it is shown to be vital for understanding how people find themselves positioned with respect to some activity, find ways of dealing with others and fashion solutions to practical problems which arise along the way. Face-to-Face Sales Work
The Big Issue is a company which produces, among other things, a weekly magazine called The Big Issue. The profits arising from sales are filtered into a charity wing called the Big Issue Foundation. At the time of writing, the circulation figures (England, Scotland and Wales) for the magazine stood at 154,932 issues sold per week. The company employs professional journalists to write the magazine, which it publishes and distributes via a network of local centres around the UK. The magazine is sold on the street by people who are homeless. Sellers do not sell from a fixed stand, but have to establish their own ‘pitch’ on the pavement (Clark and Pinch 1986). The mission of the company is to enable people out of homelessness and poverty, via work. People can register to become vendors. They are given basic training, sign a code of conduct and are given ten free magazines. After that, they have to buy each magazine at a cost of £0.70. The cover price at the time of writing was £1.50. As such, £0.80 from each sale goes to the vendor. The sustainability of the organization and its ability to meet its core mission depends on the ability of vendors to sell magazines in public places. It is to a single episode of this work which we now turn.2 This is an example of a vendor ‘Max’ interacting with a passer-by (transcription conventions are presented in the appendix). As the fragment begins, Max says ‘hello the big issue mam’. The ‘target’ of the utterance is walking towards Max while looking in her bag (plate II). Max then produces an account of her bodily movements along the street. He does not describe her movements; it is not this type of account. He says ‘arh, bless you, thank you very much’. This accounts for her conduct in a particular way, as embodying a ‘response’ to him. Moreover, Max has not seen just any response. This person is not coming over to ask for directions; Max orients to some forthcoming business. This is worth noting. From a range of possible alternatives, one order of activity has been privileged over others. For this encounter, the default setting is ‘buying and
Downloaded from http://oss.sagepub.com at University of Warwick on June 24, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
772
Organization Studies 29(05)
Figure 1. Face-to-Face Encounter of Seller and Donor
S= seller, D = donor S:
Hello the big issue mam (1.1)
S:
arh bless you, thank you ver y much (1.1)
S: D: S.
havin a good day (.7) not too bad [( ) [arh that’s good
(3.4)
D: S:
S. S: D: S. D.
I don’t want the magazine, I hope you don’t mind (.) no:: [I don’t mind ( )] [it’s just that ( ) I’m a catholic and ( [ )= [okay alright (.) woo] =)a lot] of) catholic st [uff ]t-huh= [alright whatever] =to read ((continues))
Downloaded from http://oss.sagepub.com at University of Warwick on June 24, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Symposium — Llewellyn: Organization in Actual Episodes of Work
773
selling’. This is the ‘pattern’ (Garfinkel 1967) against which Max finds the conduct of the passer-by to be orderly and intelligible. To establish this, Max has had to draw upon something, some practical knowledge of ways in which people move around urban spaces (Ryave and Schenkein 1974) with respect to others and, more specifically, with respect to him. The ‘offer’, the ‘walking towards’ and the ‘hand in the bag’ would seem to be enough, on this occasion, to document a forthcoming sale. The scene then shifts totally. Consider the initial alignment of activities and identities. As Max says ‘arh bless you’, he takes clear steps towards the target. His eyes cast upon her purse (see plate III). He thumbs the top copy of the pile of magazines he is holding with his right arm; he is waiting to take money in exchange for goods. This does not need to be inferred. It can be seen that this is how the participants were alive to the alignment of identities and activities (buyer/seller) at that point. The passer-by recognizes she is positioned as a ‘customer’ engaged in ‘buying’ when she says ‘I don’t want the magazine, I hope you don’t mind’. This brings about a realignment of activities and identities (from ‘buyer/seller’ to ‘donor/recipient’) which is handled as a matter of potential ‘delicacy’. In this episode, ‘orders of delicacy’ are relevant matters for members. The passer-by says ‘I hope you don’t mind’ and even though Max says ‘he doesn’t mind’ she produces an account that explains why she is ‘giving’ and not ‘buying’. Notice this account locates the reason for her action in the conditions of her own life. It is worth noting that the realignment of activities and identities is something that Max has participated in. He has taken part even though, on the face of it, he seems to have done very little. All the passer-by said was ‘I don’t want the magazine’. Max does not orient to the possibility she might be about to exit the scene, perhaps because the passer-by has now extracted a purse. He does not say ‘oh, okay then’ and walk off. He remains in place and awaits the passing of money. In this case, remaining in place is doing something. Max has been reconfigured as a target of a ‘donation’ and has socially recognized this; he is playing his part in the emergent local organization of the scene. Finally, consider the account that is produced alongside the ‘donation’. Here we see that conditions of possibility are, in the first instance, practical matters that members address as they go about their daily lives. The passer-by begins by locating herself, and the act of giving, via catholicism. From all the possible categories available, a religious category is selected. The passer-by is a catholic, not once and for all, but for the practical purposes of accounting for a donation. At an early point, after less than one second, Max responds. This is worth noting. Max has already found some way in which her being a catholic makes sense, or could possibly make sense, at this point. Accountabilities and inferences are being managed second by second. Moreover, Max takes a very particular stance towards this overlaying of ‘giving’ with ‘religion’. Max says ‘okay, alright, woo’ and raises his left hand (see plate IV). In ways that are difficult to portray in a transcript, Max displays a sense in which things are getting a little ‘heavy’. Catholicism has shone an inapposite light on the action. Perhaps in response, the passer-by continues on with the account and a new relevance of catholicism is eventually established. Circuitously perhaps, the donation is not a virtuous act via catholicism, but a rational response to being overwhelmed by reading materials. This person does not need more literature.
Downloaded from http://oss.sagepub.com at University of Warwick on June 24, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
774
Organization Studies 29(05)
Constraints of space prevent focusing on the whole encounter; instead there has been a selective focus on just a few aspects. There is a lot more to say about the social and sequential organization of this brief encounter and about Sacks’ approach. We have only started to unpack an approach that considers how members, and not analysts, (a) orient to category-bound activities (ways religious categories might cast light on giving), (b) delineate orders of phenomena (the delicacy of some matter) and (c) build and recognize activity types (acceptances and donations). But even at this early point, two inter-related matters can be drawn out for further discussion. The first concerns the question of ‘context’. What was ‘the context’ of this encounter? For Sacks, and subsequently Schegloff (see 1991, 1997, 1999, 2005 for the debate on ‘context’), this question is not analytically resolvable. On the one hand, for actual episodes, there are always and inescapably a multiplicity of possible contextual relevancies. On the other, when analysts define ‘the context’ they unavoidably displace exactly what Sacks wanted to study; how members recognize the practical relevance of social structures for the constitution of actual episodes of social conduct. How people orient to, draw upon and act in accordance with contextual factors — such as religion — is part of the project. The endogenous concerns of members are privileged, because members’ solutions to problems of context are constitutive of socio-interactional reality and this is what Sacks wanted to study. It might be useful to elaborate these points in relation to the above extract. How did the participants orient to the ‘context’ of this encounter? Initially, (1) Max recognized a ‘buyer’ even though the passer-by had not said anything (she just walked towards him, hand in bag). He did not act in such a way that presupposed she was about to ask for directions. (2) The passer-by recognized the relevance of ‘buying’, for her conduct, even though this had not been explicitly stated or confirmed (Max just said ‘arh bless you’). (3) Max then recognized a ‘donation’ even though a donation had not been explicitly mentioned (all the person said was ‘I don’t want the magazine, I hope you don’t mind’). (4) Max found the overlaying of religion to be problematic at the point where all the person had said was ‘it’s just that I’m a catholic’. With and for each other, in the light of a multiplicity of possible contextual relevancies, these parties clearly have the ability to see how bodily movements, gestures and utterances document different ‘contexts’ or versions of ‘what is going on’. This does not happen by itself; such practical problems have to be solved by members through action. Second, the way this is done is public and accountable, rather than private or cognitive. It is on this basis that concerted actions can be pieced together one after another. As the person walks towards Max he displays a public analysis of her embodied conduct. It is on the basis of this that the passer-by is able to determine how she is seen and thus how to respond ‘in kind’. She does not simply give Max money and then walk off. Her contribution is attentive to accountabilities set in play by Max’s prior utterance (‘arh bless you, thank you very much’). It is not simply that concerted activity is detailed; the detail is oriented to by members and it matters for the way activities are pieced together.
Downloaded from http://oss.sagepub.com at University of Warwick on June 24, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Symposium — Llewellyn: Organization in Actual Episodes of Work
775
Emergency (999) Call Handling Work
This section considers a second data extract, an emergency 999 call. The reason for considering a second example is to look at a more thoroughly organizational setting. The challenge is to recover how ordinary actions display an orientation to distinctive organizational auspices, arrangements and protocols. Toward such ends, two specific matters are analysed: (1) the organization of the call opening and (2) the handler’s initial effort to problematize the ‘reason for the call’. Start with the organization of the call ‘opening’. In previous studies, the openings of telephone calls have been shown to exhibit a highly recurrent, or canonical, organization (Schegloff 1968). They begin with a ‘summons–answer’ adjacency pair (the phone rings and is picked up). Participants then resolve problems of ‘identification’ and ‘recognition’. The completion of ‘greetings’ then paves the way for the ‘reason for the call’, which is the proper work of ‘caller’ and not ‘called’. In this canonical organization, the ‘reason for the call’ is held back, especially if identification and recognition prove troublesome. The openings of 999 calls are managed in light of distinctive organizational contingencies and pressures. As the caller might be in, or reporting, a life-and-death situation, the ‘reason for the call’ is brought forwards. In these openings, orderly variations to the canonical organization can be observed; in such data we find ‘not different or unique orders but adaptations of mundane forms, [which are] selected and shaped to address the interactional contingencies of a given setting’ (Boden and Zimmerman 1991: 14).3 To illustrate these matters, consider an initial fragment from the opening of the call in question. 1 CH: 2 3 4 C: 5 6 C: 7
( ) police can I h:elp you? (.4) hhh (.4) yeah: (.) this is huh: hh (.2) I’ve been (tryin’a) stop
In this extract, the call handler (CH) ‘answers’ the ‘summons’ with a ‘categorical self-identification’ rather than with a name (‘police’, line 1). This is a conventional organizational practice. In 999 calls, and service calls more generally (see Wakin and Zimmerman 1998), there is a preference for identification over recognition (Whalen and Zimmerman 1987). People tend not to give their names. When names are given, there is a presumption that recognition is neither likely nor relevant for the work at hand; names are given for other ‘organizational reasons’ (Garfinkel 1967). The handler then says ‘can I help you’. In and through this turn, organizational auspices are made practically relevant for the caller’s next turn. The absence of a ‘call for help’ in the next slot will be an accountable feature of the caller’s (C) talk. In sequential terms, the design of the handler’s turn has paved the way for a ‘request for help’ to be expressed in the caller’s very first turn.
Downloaded from http://oss.sagepub.com at University of Warwick on June 24, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
776
Organization Studies 29(05)
The caller responds in ways that display a fine-grained orientation to the distinctive organizational setting. How so? It was mentioned above that 999 calls exhibit a preference for identification over recognition (see Whalen and Zimmerman 1987). But this is not simply an analyst’s characterization; it is something that members recognize in and through the way they build actual episodes. Consider the caller’s first turn, following the handler’s ‘question’. 6 C: 7
yeah: (.) this is huh: hh (.2) I’ve been (tryin’a) stop
Following what is hearable as an ‘answer’ to the handler’s initial ‘question’ (‘yeah’, line 6), the caller begins to produce a self-identification. She says ‘this is’ but then initiates ‘self-repair’ (Schegloff et al. 1977). She was about to give a name, but stops in her tracks. Following a brief pause, she then begins upon something else. Even though it is 4.05 am and, by the caller’s testimony she ‘is in agony’ and has ‘taken all the pain killers [she] can’, the caller nevertheless displays a lively orientation to distinctive organizational contingencies, which make personal recognition unlikely and unnecessary for the business of this call. Here we see formal auspices being ‘oriented to’ right down into the fine details of the call. Further, they are not simply relevant but also normative. Having embarked upon something inapposite, the caller does not simply carry on regardless; she breaks off from that activity and repairs the mistake. Having briefly looked at the opening of the call, the analysis now shifts to consider how the handler problematizes the caller’s initial turn (lines 9–10 below). As mentioned above, talk in this opening slot will be practically analysable in relation to distinctive accountabilities, here in terms of whether the talk contains a request for help regarding an emergency. The work of handlers entails gleaning requests for help, often from jumbled descriptions of past or passing events. This work escapes codification; it is an ‘achieved organization’ (Sacks 1992). No formal protocol could ever be written to explicitly cover occasions where callers say, for example, that they ‘beat up a copper and cannot get health insurance’ (see below). Protocols governing the work of 999 call handlers are considerably more general. Handlers always have to find, in the details of each and every call, whether a legitimate emergency is being reported. The relevance and consequentiality of bureaucratic protocols for actual episodes is always and inescapably achieved through action. At line 9, the handler interjects with a question. He says ‘right madam is this an emergency 999 call’. This is not a simple question; it is a question that treats the prior talk sceptically. It presumes it is not a 999 call. By this warrant, the question does something. It works as a method for extracting a request in the next slot. This poses an analytic puzzle; how does the handler’s question get this work done? In the first instance, what makes ‘is this an emergency 999 call’ hearable as ‘this is not an emergency 999 call’?
Downloaded from http://oss.sagepub.com at University of Warwick on June 24, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Symposium — Llewellyn: Organization in Actual Episodes of Work
1 C: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 CT: 10 11 C: 12 CT: 13 C 14 CT: 15 16 C: 17 CT: 18 CT: 19
777
.hh I beat up one of your coppers last year and I can’t get health insurance because of ºitº (.5) now I know it’s over a year, (.5) .hh and I’ve been ve:ry pol:ite, (.4) and I’ve tried (to ring the) court (.4).hh I’ve (2.2) waved down hh (.) a policeman today= =>right< madam is this an emergency 999 c:all= =Yes::[ I would like to talk [to the= [well wh-] [( )] =sergean[t at Bath Prison [>yeah madam<] (.6) Nick (.6) yeah madam this is not an emergency call…
One approach is to think of this utterance, in this position, as a type of methodic sequential practice (Sacks 1992). How might this be sketched? The handler has asked the caller to go back and judge her own prior utterance; whether it stands as a particular category or class of call (‘an emergency 999 call’). The caller is not corrected. They are not told their talk does not stand as a member of that class. They are not told to hang up. They are told to judge it for themselves. The intelligibility of this practice will depend on the sequential environment within which it is produced. The key matter is not the grammar of the utterance, but its position in a sequence. In some sequential environments it would not problematize a prior. For example, in the midst of another’s spoken discourse someone might interject and ask ‘is this a promise’ or ‘is this a confession’. These would be practical ways of formulating the other party’s talk (Sacks 1992). They could mark the possible presence, rather than necessarily the absence, of the category in question. In the present data ‘is this an emergency 999 call’ appears in a very different sequential environment. The prior speaker should have been producing a ‘request for help’. This transforms matters. If someone is supposed to be doing an ‘X’, then the question ‘is this an X’ will mark the absence — rather than the presence — of the category. What other warrant would possibly exist for posing such a question in third position? If the handler thought the caller was acting appropriately, such a question would be pointlessly disruptive, annoying and somehow inexplicable.4 Finally, it is worth noting that the handler does not just say ‘is this an emergency 999 call’. His turn is more nuanced. In the way it is designed and placed, the handler draws on further resources that display a particular stance towards the prior turn. The handler (1) ‘interjects’ before the caller’s turn is complete, (2) the question is prefaced with both ‘right’ and (3) the person reference ‘madam’ (see Sacks and Schegloff 1979). The turn is produced (4) fairly ‘abruptly’ and (5) with falling, rather than questioning, intonation on the final word ‘call’.
Downloaded from http://oss.sagepub.com at University of Warwick on June 24, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
778
Organization Studies 29(05)
We have come close to providing for how ‘is this an emergency 999 call’ might work. Prospectively the handler’s turn extracts a ‘request’ because the caller is able to recognize, in real time, the inferential significance of the category ‘emergency 999 call’. Retrospectively, in this sequential environment, the practice of asking ‘is this an X’ will be heard to cast doubt on the X-ness of something. The questions’ sceptical character was strengthened by various local adaptations, concerning matters of turn design and placement. This single utterance, by warrant of where it appears in a sequence, is orderly through and through. Moreover, it is precisely because the handler’s turn has orderly features that the caller is able to craft an organizationally appropriate response. The caller hears the handler’s scepticism and recognizes the distinctive institutional implications of this. The action is orderly and this detailed order seems to matter for how activities are pieced together. Summary
Two episodes of work have been briefly elaborated. Drawing on the above analysis the following sections establish connections between Harvey Sacks’ work and contemporary developments in organization studies. In the spirit of Sacks’ work, the advantages of tethering appreciations of discourse, language and practice to actual episodes will be explored further. The problems that arise when such connections are severed are also discussed.
Members’ Methods as a Source of Order For Sacks, intelligible utterance, recognizable action, sense and rationality are understood as local artefacts of self-organizing social scenes. This section explores this position more closely and contrasts it with the account of order ‘from discourse’ which has gained increasing prominence within organization studies of late. This body of work is a useful marker because for the most part, though not exclusively, it is based on the opposite set of assumptions to Sacks. It is often reported within contemporary organization studies that recognizable fact, intelligible utterance and ‘situations’ themselves (Phillips et al. 2004) are products of discourse. In the oft-repeated phrase situations, identities and possibilities for intelligible speech are constituted by discourse (see Hardy and Phillips 2004: 302). When contemporary analysts discuss the basis of order, there are few accounts so persuasive or frequently repeated as the account from discourse. The dominant view of how discourse constitutes meaning and identities is antideterministic and theoretically sophisticated (see Hardy and Phillips 1999; Lawrence and Phillips 2004). Nevertheless, one observation is that studies of discourse have not tended to base their claims on the detailed analysis of actual instances of intelligibility, sense and recognizable order (see Hardy and Phillips 1999; Cohen and Musson 2000; Trowler 2001; Meriläinen et al. 2004; Oswick et al. 2004; Phillips and Hardy 2004; Lawrence and Phillips 2004; Brown and Coupland 2005; Hodge and Coronado 2006). Much of the literature has steered clear of actual episodes, relying instead on interview data and documentary analy-
Downloaded from http://oss.sagepub.com at University of Warwick on June 24, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Symposium — Llewellyn: Organization in Actual Episodes of Work
779
sis. Questions are thus raised about whether the theoretical frameworks applied could provide for sense, meaning and intelligibility at the level of actual episodes and, more specifically, at the level of single units (utterances, gestures, bodily movements) within actual episodes. Why does this matter? Perhaps it does not matter for this literature. But for Sacks this is the test for any perspective claiming to have a handle on the production of intelligible discourse, because concerted activity consists of nothing more or less than single units pieced together one after another and quite a lot of the business of the world is done through concerted activity. Any approach that cannot provide for order and intelligibility on actual occasions, ‘wherever the phenomenon is attacked’ (Sacks 1984), has a problem because analysts would always be inferring order from the academic sidelines, rather than analysing actual examples. The matter is whether analysts could show actual occasions of sense and intelligibility to be products of discourse and not, alternatively, products of something else. What grounds are there for talking of things beyond or aside from this or that discourse? One point is that subjects of radically different cultural and discursive systems are nevertheless able to assemble orderly and intelligible sequences of activity. This alone suggests a ‘something else’ which ‘allows us to travel even among those with whom we share no language, and still get by — however clearly set apart we may be from their discourse community’ (Schegloff 1999: 406). Given the dramatic ‘diversities and ruptures, in nationhood, profession, sexuality, race and religion’, which the linguistic and cultural turns in social science have so well exposed, ‘there remains the question of what accounts for massively stable interaction across all these diversities’ (Schegloff 1999: 405–406). Sacks, Schegloff and others provide one way of grappling with such matters. They point to a discrete layer of social organization; an intersubjectively recognized infrastructure of mundane methods and accounting practices which allows for concerted action and which, while not universal or essential, is nevertheless very consistently found, across boundaries of age, gender, nationhood and culture (see Levinson 2005 for an extreme example), to underpin actual occasions of order and intelligibility. It might be useful to elaborate these points from the present data. Consider the Big Issue extract, where the passer-by had occasion to say ‘it’s just that I’m a catholic’. Attempts to frame this episode in terms of an a priori discursive context would be taxing. As it transpires, the act of ‘giving’ is constituted via a discursive association between catholicism and excessive reading. Which analyst could have guessed, before the event, at the possible relevance of such an association? If the link between catholicism and excessive reading forms part of the discursive context of this actual episode, what could reasonably be left out? An alternative analytic project involves studying, not how overarching discursive associations might or might not be forged in symbolic space, but how members resolve such inferential problems in concrete social situations, i.e. how people establish the inferential relevance of various categories (‘catholic’) for various activities (‘giving’) in situ. This is worth doing because members’ practical solutions to such problems, and not those of analysts, are constitutive of actual social scenes (Schegloff 1999). Attention shifts from discourse in the abstract, to the methods and accounting practices through which members display sense, intelligibility and rationality.
Downloaded from http://oss.sagepub.com at University of Warwick on June 24, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
780
Organization Studies 29(05)
These methods and practices, which bring order to actual episodes, form a quasi-autonomous layer of social organization; they are not simply epiphenomena of this or that discourse. In the extract, Max raises his hand, leans back a little and says ‘woo’. By doing so, he displays a sceptical or disaffiliative stance towards the prior utterance (‘it’s just that I’m a catholic’). Perhaps he has heard the predicate (‘catholic’) to be constituting the activity as some kind of ‘religious good deed’ and he wants no part of this. His orientation to the prior is public and accountable, rather than private and hidden. This provides a basis for the passer-by’s next action. The orderly nature of the episode flows from members’ ability to display understanding — or possible understandings — in concrete social situations. The passer-by can now build her next action in light of the inferences Max has found. This is what seems to happen. In her next turn, the passer-by draws out a very different relevance of catholicism. Two key points are worth driving home. First, the constitution of the activity at hand — the imbuing of the action with meaning — is something members solve with and for one another by locally working out how social structures are relevant for practical action; how catholicism might be relevant for giving. Second, local order is the product of peoples’ ability to publicly display what they have found. Towards such ends, people draw upon methods and accounting practices which are largely independent of this or that discourse. Such practices, like raising a hand, leaning back a little and saying ‘woo’ are not fixed by discourse in any straightforward way; they cut across boundaries of discourse, nationhood, gender, etc. They are more generally available ways of embodying a negative stance towards a prior. They can thus be locally applied to bring order to actual occasions, even between people ‘who share no language’5 (Schegloff 1999: 406). To argue this situation was constituted by discourse would be to effectively disregard this whole layer of social practice through which members recognize and sustain a shared social world consisting of common actions, understandable motivations and definite contexts. Of course, this is just one way of approaching the constitution of social scenes. It is not more or less right, simply more or less useful as a way of producing particular insights. So what insights are produced? There are different ways of addressing this, some of which are considered in the conclusion of this paper. At the moment, consider merely the empirical value of such an approach by going back to the 999 call. Confronted with this data, the conventional approach would be to cast the action in terms of a discursive context (see Hardy and Phillips 2004: 300; Boczkowski and Orlikowski 2004: 368–370). After all, how else would the analyst grasp the weight of expectation on the caller’s first turn without appealing to institution, power and history? While such a move is acknowledged to be legitimate and capable of producing valuable findings, it is the opposite of Sacks’ approach. In the first instance, the weight of expectation on the caller’s first turn is a practical problem for members, not analysts, and Sacks wanted to examine their solutions, underpinned by their knowledge of society. But surely unpicking how people do this is ‘terribly mundane, occasional, local and the like’ (Sacks 1984)? Perhaps not. Consider three ways in which ‘right madam, is this an emergency 999 call’ might be conventionally (sociologically) important. First, as we have seen, ‘right madam is this an emergency call’ presumes
Downloaded from http://oss.sagepub.com at University of Warwick on June 24, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Symposium — Llewellyn: Organization in Actual Episodes of Work
781
it is not an ‘emergency call’. It can thus work as a method for extracting a ‘request’. This was what happened in the call; it brought the ‘reason for the call’ forwards. This might be a useful thing to have at your disposal, when regularly speaking to people in life-and-death situations. Further, and second, it treats the prior turn sceptically, but holds back from correction. In the call itself, outright correction (‘this is not a 999 call’, line 18) is only produced after the caller had made their ‘request’. The caller is given one more chance to prove they have an emergency. The utterance can thus act as a type of safety check. As callers are routinely intoxicated, extremely alarmed, etc., this might also be important. Third, there are clear dangers here. The handler’s response has a coercive aspect; it prospectively casts an affirmative response as defiance. It is not a simple ‘yes/no’ question; it is built to prefer a negative response (see Sacks 1992: vol.2, 414). As such it might be a risky move because genuine calls for help could become ‘contaminated’ with dispute and argumentation with potentially disastrous consequences (see Whalen et al. 1988 for a fateful example, where the caller’s mother dies as the result of an argument between handler and caller, which escalates from the caller’s very first turn). A single small and occasional item, which would typically form part of a study’s unexplicated descriptive background, has been placed in the analytic limelight. Even in the context of this unhopeful and plain-looking item, it has been possible to find methodic sequential practices being adapted to produce orderly and intelligible episodes of organizational work. Furthermore, the choice between alternative methods for getting this work done might be sociologically relevant, even a matter of life and death.
Discussion: Sacks and Contemporary Developments in Organization Studies In recent years, language, communication and practice have gained a certain theoretical gravity within organization studies as elsewhere. This is apparent, for example, in turns to discourse, identity and practice. This upgrading of theoretical significance has emanated from, and led analysts to, the work of influential social scientists, including Habermas, Foucault, Giddens and Bourdieu. Such authors, and obviously not just them, have become increasingly important because they appear to place language, communication and practice centre stage within the dramatic structures of their theories. From a Sacksian point of view at least, these are unusual authors to be leading such turns. While they certainly place language and communication in a position of ‘theoretical gravity, none supplies a work-able infrastructure of concepts for studying actual — rather imagined or hypothetical — speech episodes’; ‘Habermas appropriates Austin and Searle; Collins and Giddens adopt Goffman’ (Schegloff 1992b: 1339). Nowhere is there a systematic framework for analysing ‘the prima facie, observable embodiment of sociality — action, activity and conduct in interaction — as effectuated through the deployment of language and the body (Schegloff 1996: 162). In their empirical studies ‘actual communicative actions in ordinary life’ (see Schegloff 1992b: 1339) are either overlooked or are of marginal importance.
Downloaded from http://oss.sagepub.com at University of Warwick on June 24, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
782
Organization Studies 29(05)
There is some evidence this mentality, which theoretically privileges language, but avoids actual episodes, has influenced how recent developments have unfolded in organization studies. The turn to language, for example, did not coincide with an increase in the examination of language use; meaning continued to be analysed aside from practical action. The majority of analysts studied language at a distance, via secondary, manufactured or hypothetical data (Gabriel 1995; Clark and Salaman 1998; Dunford and Jones 2000; Deuten and Rip 2000; Patriotta 2003; Hopkinson 2003; Brown 2006). This imposed a series of quite unnecessary limitations, many of which are straightforwardly resolved via Sacks. For example, many studies of metaphor and storytelling had strongly positivistic elements, because analysts, rather than members, were doing the work of establishing what counted as an observation of the category at hand: whether some talk counted as a ‘story’ or a ‘metaphor’ (Oswick and Montgomery 1999). As these determinations took place aside from the sequential organization of talk in interaction, analysts could not let their analysis be guided by members’ own determinations; they had no choice but to impose technical solutions via the imposition of professional-academic methods. By this token, a traditional analytic mentality was reproduced; that privileged the analysts’ knowledge of speech acts, ascribed significance on the basis of recurrence and judged meaning aside from context, rather than meaning in use. Perhaps more importantly, because studies were disconnected from the work itself, analysts were limited in what they might deliver by way of a contribution. Inevitably, such matters are confined to stories being repositories of meaning, metaphors and persuasion, and the psychic life of the individual (Gabriel 1995). Valuable though these findings are, the relevance of particular discourse units for actual episodes could not be shown, because analysts did not find their categories ‘in the activities in which they are employed’ (Sacks 1992: 27). The more theoretically informed and critical discourse literature (see Lawrence and Phillips 2004; Meriläinen et al. 2004; Phillips and Hardy 2004; Brown and Coupland 2005), heavily inspired by Foucault, also failed to connect with real-time language practices, like Foucault himself. While analysts found new and important theoretical vistas, the analytic mentalities underpinning studies remained quite conservative, leading to some notable ironies. In this period, authors became increasingly interested, via Foucault, in the way power operates through classification systems, practices for fitting people into categories and techniques for dividing populations. It is ironic, then, that this should be precisely what analysts in this tradition should continue to do themselves. More critical studies continued to reduce participants to analysts’ categories, via the very modern technology of the interview, e.g. ‘bewitched’, ‘bothered’ and ‘bewildered’ (Knights and McCabe 2000), ‘good’, ‘bad’ and ‘ambivalent’ (Pratt 2000), ‘hero’, ‘survivor’ and ‘victim’ (Gabriel 1995). The categories which were materially relevant for actual scenes of work were not on the agenda for these studies. Various discourses, such as the discourse of enterprise, were everywhere theoretically, but nowhere on any single occasion. The gap between theoretical accounts of work and the work itself grew (Barley and Kunda 2001). But not all studies were remote from the practical realities of organizational life. A number of authors sought to explore embodied action, language and communication in situ, drawing on recordings of people doing work (Watson
Downloaded from http://oss.sagepub.com at University of Warwick on June 24, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Symposium — Llewellyn: Organization in Actual Episodes of Work
783
1995; Woodilla 1999; Suchman 2000; Forray and Woodilla 2002; Iedema et al. 2003; Cooren and Fairhurst 2004; Fairhurst 2004). In light of these developments, which are recent and have a relatively small number of precursors (see Gephart 1978; Gronn 1983; Boden 1994), Sacks becomes an increasingly relevant figure and is often referenced (see Boje 1991; Forray and Woodilla 1999, 2002; Cooren and Fairhurst 2004). While these scholars reference Sacks and draw on audio recordings, a conventional analytic mentality has nevertheless been produced, that has analysts reporting ‘what is going on’ for them. What members are doing, demonstrably and accountably, with and for each other, goes unreported. The labour of producing ordinary work activities once more slips through the net unrecorded and analysed. In addition to these studies, there is now a clear push to reconnect with the moment-by-moment business of work from within the ‘practice turn’ (see Nicolini et al. 2003 in relation to knowledge; Whittington 2006 in relation to strategy). Research in this area is diverse (see Jarzabkowski 2004; Boczkowski and Orlikowski 2004; Whittington 2006), but we are beginning to see a concern with the activities that constitute the practice of different groups (see Luff et al. 2000; Nicolini et al. 2003; Samra-Fredericks 2003, 2004; Alby and Zucchermaglio 2006; Hindmarsh and Pilnick 2007; Nicolini 2007; Llewellyn and Hindmarsh 2008). There is a recognition that organization studies has tended to overlook the ‘real-time’ work of its core occupational groups and institutions. Organization studies is curious in this regards. Despite massive literatures on strategy, marketing and HR, for example, a tiny overall number of studies have elaborated the ‘real-time’ work of appraising staff, dealing with customers or writing a strategy (see Samra-Fredericks 2003, 2004). In part, the turn to practice is an attempt to rectify this, and Sacks and Garfinkel supply resources for such an undertaking. These authors show how the detailed order of activities within a practice can be transformed into a topic of research. In the present paper, just a few moments from a 999 call were considered. Yet it was still possible to grasp at least the outline form of constitutive elements of the practice of providing emergency assistance. These were practical ways in which handlers (1) bring the reason for the call forwards, (2) extract absent requests for help and (3) manage callers out of the system. The detailed order of these activities can only be appreciated when actual episodes are slowed down and viewed/heard repeatedly. Ordinary activities slip by too quickly and are too nuanced to be captured in any other way. Apparently simple things like ‘right madam is this an emergency 999 call’ can only be grasped via recordings that capture exactly what was assembled and how it related to its immediate before and after. It is not realistic to ask people about the detailed order of a practice either. The best way of grasping knowledgeability is to examine live conduct within a practice. By this token, links between knowledge and action (mind and body) are preserved, rather than artificially separated, as mutually constitutive elements of a practice. What could be a fairly simple and pragmatic motivation to examine recordings, i.e. life happens fast and is very detailed, makes possible a more radical and fundamental shift in the analytic mentality underpinning studies. What is essential for the smooth realization of an organizational practice is preserved, rather than displaced.
Downloaded from http://oss.sagepub.com at University of Warwick on June 24, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
784
Organization Studies 29(05)
Conclusion Via Harvey Sacks, organization studies might grasp the ordinary work activities that have slipped through the fingers of previous generations of scholars. By placing these activities in the analytic limelight, Harvey Sacks, with Garfinkel and others, came to identify a distinctive and previously unexplored subject matter: the mundane methods and accounting practices through which people recognize and locally sustain a shared social world consisting of familiar persons (‘buyers’, ‘sellers’, ‘catholics’), commonplace happenings (‘requests’, ‘donations’, ‘questions’) and definite ‘contexts’ (‘emergency 999 call’, ‘religion’). Through these labours, people recognize the projects of others and practically grasp their own position within shifting social contexts. This is the subject matter which Sacks, Garfinkel and others invite analysts to study. Over the last 30 years this invitation has been taken up very broadly, across diverse disciplines such as psychology (Te Molder and Potter 2005), sociology (Boden and Zimmerman 1991; Heath and Button 2002), anthropology (Goodwin 1994), health studies (Heritage and Maynard 2006), workplace studies (see Luff et al. 2000), education (McHoul 1990) and beyond. There is now some evidence that organization studies is starting to engage with this subject matter (see Greatbatch and Clark 2002, 2005; Alby and Zucchermaglio 2006; Hindmarsh and Pilnick 2007; Llewellyn and Hindmarsh, in preparation). In the context of these developments, the present paper has produced an introductory account of Sacks’ work, which locates where a concentrated analytic focus on the detailed order of ordinary workplace activity might take organization studies. By way of conclusion the theoretical pay-off from such a move is considered. First, analysts gain unprecedented access to ways in which knowledgeability and agency are involved in the local production of orderly courses of action. In the extracts considered above, it should be very clear that people build actions in light of overarching social and organizational considerations. The auspices and protocols of the 999 call were live for members and relevant for the way successive actions were pieced together. Organizational settings (courtrooms, interviews, meetings, sales encounters, appraisals, emergency 999 calls) do not accomplish themselves; they have to be practically accomplished, through each and every successive action. Sacks provides resources for tracking such processes, second by second. The terrain which Sacks opens up reveals artful and sometimes ingenious local solutions to problems of how social and organizational structures are relevant for ordinary actions. Second, via Sacks, analysts preserve the fluid and accomplished character of organizational settings, identities and practices. Consider this in relation to questions of identity and the requirement, via Sacks, to preserve how members find themselves positioned with respect to some activity. When researchers gloss the identities of participants as ‘employees’ or ‘old timers’, they inevitably compete with and displace members’ solutions. In practical circumstances of work people find themselves to be ‘buyers’, ‘sellers’, ‘donors’ and ‘catholics’. But it is not simply that people do resolve such problems; the important theoretical point concerns the character of members’ solutions to problems of identity. They are flexible, occasioned and reflexively tied to social settings. Such matters go right to the heart
Downloaded from http://oss.sagepub.com at University of Warwick on June 24, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Symposium — Llewellyn: Organization in Actual Episodes of Work
785
of how identity is theorized and analytically accessed. Identity is approached, not as an essential substance, but as something that is practically accomplished through action. More importantly, analysts can do more than theoretically claim identity is reflexively tied to practical undertakings and thus in a permanent state of flux and becoming; they can track such processes second by second. Finally, Sacks helps tether theorizing about technology (Luff et al. 2000), authority (Maynard 1991), time (Clayman 1989), surveillance (Heath et al. 2002), ‘the body’ (Hindmarsh and Pilnick 2007), etc., to actual scenes of work. Subjects of academic research are able to find themselves in analytic treatments; they are not alienated from the mechanisms which are supposed to bring order to actual occasions, but can see their position with respect to the local order they help to sustain and reproduce. For their part, analysts confront a unique challenge: to provide for the sense and order of actual discrete episodes. Within organization studies, analysts have tended not to confront this challenge; most research has been at least one step removed from actual scenes of work. Perhaps this is one reason why overarching formations have been heavily privileged in discussions about the constitution of embodied conduct, language and communication. Analysts have tended not to look at actual episodes in ways which would reveal the methodic labours through which members confront and resolve such matters. If scholars did start to analyse live recordings perhaps organization studies might come to recognise and explore the subject matter which Sacks and Garfinkel discovered; mundane methods and accounting practices which bring organization and order to actual episodes of work.
Notes
This paper was first presented at a lively session of the Discourse track at EGOS in 2003. The comments of Jon Hindmarsh, Davide Nicolini and the anonymous OS reviewers were influential in the development of the final article. Further thanks go to ‘Max’ and to Robin Burrow. 1
2 3
This utterance could be performing any number of social activities. Consider one further example. Imagine a couple walking along a high street. They are late for some occasion. One of them stops to look in a shop window. The other says ‘do you know the time’. This is not simply a question. Most likely, it is an effort to problematize the ‘looking’. Video and audio files of the clips used in this paper are publicly available at the following address: http://llewellyn.nick3.googlepages.com/home This distinction between ‘canonical’ and ‘institutional’ forms and practices is central to the ‘institutional talk program’ (see Drew and Heritage 1992; Psathas 1995; Hester and Francis 2000), which draws heavily on Sacks’ work. In this literature, ordinary language is equated with practices, and organizations of practice, for the accomplishment of (a) speaker transition (Sacks et al. 1974), (b) overlapping talk (Schegloff 2000), (c) topic management (Button and Casey 1984), (d) the identification and resolution of troubles of speaking, hearing and understanding talk in interaction (Schegloff et al. 1977), (e) reference to persons in talk (Sacks and Schegloff 1979), (f) reference to place in talk (Drew 1978), (g) the openings and closing of encounters (Schegloff 1968; Schegloff and Sacks 1973), (h) the management of paired activities (Sacks et al. 1974), etc. Further, such studies have revealed various ordinary language ‘preferences’, such as the ‘preference’ for one at a time (Schegloff 2001), self-repair over correction (Schegloff et al. 1977), agreement over disagreement (Pomerantz 1984) and minimization in person reference (Sacks and Schegloff 1979). Institutional practices deviate from canonical practices and preferences for ‘good organizational reasons’ (Garfinkel 1967). There may be constraints upon who gets to repair whose discourse, as in classrooms (McHoul 1990) and job interviews (Button 1987); who gets to speak and when, as in courtrooms (Drew 1992); business meetings may be opened explicitly, as in ‘lets get started’ (Atkinson 1982). From the perspective of this literature, institutional practices are built out of adaptations to ordinary language; ordinary language is the foundational stuff out of which institutions are crafted. Social relations between students and teachers are crafted out of adaptations to ordinary methods for accomplishing repair; the asymmetries of the court are built from adap-
Downloaded from http://oss.sagepub.com at University of Warwick on June 24, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
786
Organization Studies 29(05)
4
5
References
tations to the participation framework of ordinary conversation (Atkinson 1982) and so on. For a critique of ‘Manny’s Dangerous Idea’ see Levinson (2005). Imagine the sequence:
H
Is this an emergency 999 call
C
yes it is
H
yes I agree, carry on
It might be worth considering some further examples. Start with ‘repeating’ (Schegloff et al. 1977). On actual occasions, when people repeat a prior, word for word, they can be heard not to have understood, to be seeking clarification or to be confirming something (Schegloff 2001). But the hear-ability of repeats does not depend, in any straightforward fashion, on conventional sociological boundaries of grammar, culture or discourse. Further, one way people bring telephone calls to a close is with ‘passing turns’ (Sacks 1992), such as ‘oh well then’ or ‘okay’. Such items can be heard to project the forthcoming closure of the call. But they do this work across boundaries of age, gender and nationhood. Or consider how ‘figurative expressions’ (Drew and Holt 1998), such as ‘well he had a good innings’, are routinely heard to occasion the closure of some topic of talk. Or that when people say ‘ohhh’ they are routinely heard to have experienced some ‘change of state’ in their thinking (Heritage 1984b). These practices bring order to actual occasions, they allow for (a) repair in light of lacking understanding (Schegloff et al. 1977), (b) speaker exchange (Sacks et al. 1974), (c) the coordination of social affairs including the ‘closing’ of encounters (Schegloff and Sacks 1973) and (d) the display of some new ‘discovered’ meaning. They do not rely, in any simple way, upon one or other discourse.
Alby, Francesca, and Cristina Zucchermaglio 2006 ‘Afterwards we can understand what went wrong, but now let’s fix it’: How situated work practices shape group decision making’. Organization Studies 27/7: 943–966. Atkinson, Maxwell J. 1982 ‘Understanding formality: The categorization and production of ‘formal’ interaction’. British Journal of Sociology 33/1: 86–118. Barker, James R. 1993 ‘Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams’. Administrative Science Quarterly 38: 408–437. Barley, Stephen, and Gideon Kunda 2001 ‘Bringing work back in’. Organization Science 12/1: 76–95. Bergström, Ola, and David Knights 2006 ‘Organizational discourse and subjectivity: Subjectification during processes of recruitment’. Human Relations 59/3: 351–377. Boczkowski, Pablo J., and Wanda J. Orlikowski 2004 ‘Organizational discourse and new media: A practice perspective’ in Organizational Discourse.
D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick and L. Putnam (eds), 359–378. London: Sage. Boden, Deirdre 1994 The business of talk: Organizations in action. Cambridge: Polity Press. Boden, Deirdre, and Don H. Zimmerman 1991 ‘Structure-in-action: An introduction’. Talk and social structure: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. D. Boden and D. H. Zimmerman (eds), 3–21. Polity: Cambridge. Boje, David M. 1991 ‘The storytelling organization: A study of performance in an office supply firm’. Administrative Science Quarterly 36: 106–126. Brown, Andrew 2006 ‘A narrative approach to collective identities’. Journal of Management Studies 43/4: 731–753. Brown, Andrew D., and Christine Coupland 2005 ‘Sounds of silence: Graduate trainees, hegemony and resistance’. Organization Studies 26/7: 1049–1069. Burawoy, Michael 1979 Manufacturing consent: Changes in the labour process under capitalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Downloaded from http://oss.sagepub.com at University of Warwick on June 24, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Symposium — Llewellyn: Organization in Actual Episodes of Work Button, Graham 1987 ‘Answers as interactional products: Two sequential practices used in job interviews’. Social Psychology Quarterly 50/2: 160–171. Button, Graham, and Neil Casey 1984 ‘Generating topic: The use of topic initial elicitors’ in Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds), 167–190. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Casey, Catherine 1995 Work, self and society: After industrialism. London: Sage. Clark, Colin, and Trevor Pinch 1986 ‘The hard sell: Patter merchanting and the strategic (re)production and local management of economic reasoning in the sales routines of market pitchers’. Sociology 20/2: 169–191. Clark, Timothy, and Graeme Salaman 1998 ‘Telling tales: Management gurus’ narratives and the construction of managerial identity’. Journal of Management Studies 35/2: 137–161. Clayman, Steven E. 1989 ‘The production of punctuality: Social interaction, temporal organization and social structure’. American Journal of Sociology 95/3: 659–91. Cohen, Laurie, and Gill Musson 2000 ‘Entrepreneurial identities: Reflections from two case studies’. Organization 7/1: 31–48. Cooren, Francois, and Gail T. Fairhurst 2004 ‘Speech timing and spacing: The phenomenon of organizational closure’. Organization 11/6: 793–824. Deuten, J. Jasper, and Arie Rip 2000 ‘Narrative infrastructure in product creation processes’. Organization 7/1: 69–93. Drew, Paul 1978 ‘Accusations: The occasioned use of members’ knowledge of “religious geography” in describing events’. Sociology 12/1: 1–22. Drew, Paul 1992 ‘Contested evidence in courtroom cross examination: The case of a trial for rape’ in Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. P. Drew and
787
J. Heritage (eds), 470–520. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Drew, Pul, and John Heritage 1992 Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Drew, Paul, and Elizabeth Holt 1998 ‘Figures of speech: Figurative expressions and the management of topic transition in conversation’. Language in Society 27: 495–522. du Gay, Paul 1996 Consumption and identity at work. London: Sage. Dunford, Richard, and Deborah Jones 2000 ‘Narrative in strategic change’. Human Relations 53/9: 1207–1226. Fairhurst, Gail T. 2004 ‘Textuality and agency in interaction analysis’. Organization 11/3: 335–353. Forray, Jeanie M., and Jill Woodilla 2002 ‘Temporal spans in talk: Doing consistency to construct fair organization’. Organization Studies 23/6: 899–917. Gabriel, Yiannis 1995 ‘The unmanaged organization: Stories, fantasies and subjectivity’. Organization Studies 16/3: 477–502. Garfinkel, Harold 1967 Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity. Gephart, Robert P. 1978 ‘Status degradation and organizational succession: An ethnomethodological approach’. Administrative Science Quarterly 23: 553–581. Goodwin, Charles 1994 ‘Professional vision’. American Anthropologist 96/3: 606–633. Greatbatch, David, and Timothy Clark 2002 ‘Laughing with the gurus’. Business Strategy Review 13/3: 10–18. Greatbatch, David, and Timothy Clark 2005 Management speak: Why we listen to what the gurus tell us. London: Routledge. Gronn, Peter 1983 ‘Talk as the work: The accomplishment of school
Downloaded from http://oss.sagepub.com at University of Warwick on June 24, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
788
Organization Studies 29(05) administration’. Administrative Science Quarterly 28: 1–21. Hardy, Cynthia, and Nelson Phillips 1999 ‘No joking matter: Discursive struggle in the Canadian refuge system’. Organization Studies 20/1: 1–24. Hardy, Cynthia, and Nelson Phillips 2004 ‘Discourse and power’ in Organizational discourse. D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick and L. Putnam (eds), 299–316. London: Sage. Heath, Christian, and Graham Button 2002 ‘Editorial introduction’. British Journal of Sociology 53/2: 157–161. Heath, Christian, Paul Luff, and Marcus Sanchez Svensson 2002 ‘Overseeing organizations: Configuring action and its environment’. British Journal of Sociology 53/2: 181–201. Heritage, John 1984a Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity. Heritage, John 1984b ‘A change of state token and aspects of its sequential placement’ in Structures of social action. J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds), 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heritage, John, and Douglas W. Maynard 2006 Communication in medical care: Interaction between primary care physicians and patients. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hester, Stephen, and David Francis 2000 ‘Ethnomethodology, conversation analysis and “institutional talk”’. Text 20/3: 391–413. Hindmarsh, Jon, and Alison Pilnick 2007 ‘Knowing bodies at work: Embodiment and ephemeral teamwork in anaesthesia’. Organization Studies 28/9: 1395–1416. Hodge, Bob, and Gabriela Coronado 2006 ‘Mexico Inc.? Discourse analysis and the triumph of managerialism’. Organization 13/4: 529–547. Hopkinson, Gillian C. 2003 ‘Stories from the frontline: How they construct the organization’. Journal of Management Studies 40/8: 1943–1969.
Iedema, Rick, Pieter Degeling, Jeffrey Braithwaite, and Les White 2003 ‘It’s an interesting conversation i’m hearing’: The doctor as manager’. Organization Studies 25/1: 15–33. Jarzabkowski, Paula 2004 ‘Strategy as practice: Recursiveness, adaptation and practices in use’. Organization Studies 25/4: 529–560. Knights, David, and Darren McCabe 2000 ‘Bewitched, bothered and bewildered: The meaning and experience of teamworking for employees in an automobile company’. Human Relations 53/11: 1481–1517. Kunda, Gideon 1992 Engineering culture: Control and commitment in a hi-tech company. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Lawrence, Thomas B., and Nelson Phillips 2004 ‘From Moby Dick to Free Willy: Macro-cultural discourse and institutional entrepreneurship in emerging institutional fields’. Organization 11/5: 689–711. Levinson, Stephen C. 2005 ‘Living with Manny’s dangerous idea’. Discourse Studies 7: 431–453. Llewellyn, Nick 2004 ‘In search of modernization: The negotiation of social identity in organizational reform’. Organization Studies 25/6: 947–968. Llewellyn, Nick, and Jon Hindmarsh, editors 2008 Organization, interaction and practice: Studies of real time work and organizing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (in preparation). Luff, Paul, Jon Hindmarsh, and Christian Heath, editors 2000 Workplace studies: Recovering work practice and informing system design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Maynard, Douglas W. 1991 ‘Interaction and asymmetry in clinical discourse’. American Journal of Sociology 97/2: 448–495. McHoul, Alec 1990 ‘The organization of repair in classrooms’. Language in Society 19: 249–277.
Downloaded from http://oss.sagepub.com at University of Warwick on June 24, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Symposium — Llewellyn: Organization in Actual Episodes of Work Meriläinen, Susan, Janne Tienari, Robyn Thomas, and Annette Davies 2004 ‘Management consultant talk: A cross-cultural comparison of normalizing discourse and resistance’. Organization 11/4: 539–564. Nicolini, Davide 2007 ‘Stretching out and expanding work practices in time and space: The case of telemedicine’. Human Relations 60/6: 889–920. Nicolini, Davide, Silvia Gherardi, and Dvora Yanow 2003 Knowing in practice. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharp. Oswick, Cliff, and John Montgomery 1999 ‘Images of an organization: The use of metaphor in a multinational organization’. Journal of Organizational Change Management 12/6: 501–523. Oswick, Cliff, Linda L. Putnam, and Tom Keenoy 2004 ‘Tropes, discourse and organizing’ in Organizational discourse. D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick and L. Putnam (eds), 105–127. London: Sage. Patriotta, Gerardo 2003 ‘Sensemaking on the shop floor: Narratives of knowledge in organization’. Journal of Management Studies 40/2: 349–375. Phillips, Nelson, Thomas B. Lawrence, and Cynthia Hardy 2004 ‘Discourse and institutions’. Academy of Management Review 29/4: 635–652. Pomerantz, Anita 1984 ‘Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes’ in Structures of social action. J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds), 370–410. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
789
Roy, Donald F. 1960 ‘Banana time: Job satisfaction and informal interaction’. Human Organization 18: 156–168. Ryave, Alan L., and James Schenkein 1974 ‘Notes on the art of walking’ in Ethnomethodology. R. Turner (ed.), 265–274. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin. Sacks, Harvey 1984 ‘Notes on methodology’ in Structures of social action. J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds), 21–27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sacks, Harvey 1992 Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Sacks, Harvey, and Emanuel A. Schegloff 1979 ‘Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction’ in Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology. G. Psathas (ed.). New York: Irvington. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson 1974 ‘A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation’. Language 50/4: 696–735. Samra-Fredericks, Dalvir 2003 ‘Strategizing as lived experience and strategists’ everyday efforts to shape strategic direction’. Journal of Management Studies 40/1: 141–174. Samra-Fredericks, Dalvir 2004 ‘Managerial elites making rhetorical and linguistic “moves” for a moving (emotional) display’. Human Relations 57/9: 1103–1143. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1968 ‘Sequencing in conversational openings’. American Anthropologist 70/6: 1075–1095.
Pratt, Michael G. 2000 ‘The good, the bad and the ambivalent: Managing identification among Amway distributors’. Administrative Science Quarterly 45: 456–493.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1991 ‘Reflections on talk and social structure’ in Talk and social structure. D. Boden and D. H. Zimmerman (eds), 44–70. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Psathas, George 1995 ‘Talk and social structure and studies of work’. Human Studies 18: 139–155.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1992a ‘Introduction’ in Lectures in conversation. H. Sacks, ix–lxii. Blackwell, Oxford.
Downloaded from http://oss.sagepub.com at University of Warwick on June 24, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
790
Organization Studies 29(05) Schegloff, Emanuel, A. 1992b ‘Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation’. American Journal of Sociology 97/5: 1295–1345. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996 ‘Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action’. American Journal of Sociology 102/1: 161–216. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1997 ‘Whose text? Whose context’? Discourse and Society 8/2: 165–187. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1999 ‘Discourse, pragmatics, conversation, analysis’. Discourse Studies 1/4: 405–435. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2000 ‘Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation’. Language in society 29/1: 1–63. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2001 ‘When “others” initiate repair’. Applied Linguistics 21/2: 205–43.
Suchman, Lucy 2000 ‘Organizing alignment: A case of bridge-building’. Organization 7/2: 311–327. Te Molder, Hedwig and Jonathan Potter, editors 2005 Conversation and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Trowler, Paul 2001 ‘Captured by the discourse? The socially constitutive power of new higher education discourse in the UK’. Organization 8/2: 183–201. Wakin, Michele A., and Don H. Zimmerman 1998 ‘Reduction and specialization in emergency and directory assistance calls’. Research on Language and Social Interaction 32/4: 409–437. Watson, Tony 1995 ‘Rhetoric, discourse and argument in organizational sense making: A reflexive tale’. Organization Studies 16/5: 805–821.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2005 ‘On integrity in inquiry ... of the investigated, not the investigator’. Discourse Studies 7/4–5: 455–480.
Whalen, Marilyn R., and Don H. Zimmerman 1987 ‘Sequential and institutional contexts in calls for help’. Social Psychology Quarterly 50/2: 172–185.
Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Harvey Sacks 1973 ‘Opening up closings’. Semiotica 8: 289–327.
Whalen, Jack, Don H. Zimmerman, and Marilyn R. Whalen 1988 ‘When words fail: A single case analysis’. Social Problems 35/4: 335–362.
Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks 1977 ‘The preference for self-correction in the organisation of repair in conversation’. Language 53: 361–382. Silverman, David 1998 Harvey Sacks: Social science and conversation analysis. Cambridge: Polity. Strauss, Anselm 1985 ‘Work and the division of labor’. Sociological Quarterly 26/1: 1–19.
Whittington, Richard 2006 ‘Completing the practice turn in strategy research’. Organization Studies 27/5: 613–634. Woodilla, Jill 1999 ‘Workplace conversations: The text of organising’ in Discourse and organization. D. Grant, T. Keenoy and C. Oswick (eds), 31–50. London: Sage.
Downloaded from http://oss.sagepub.com at University of Warwick on June 24, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Symposium — Llewellyn: Organization in Actual Episodes of Work
Nick Llewellyn
791
Nick Llewellyn is Associate Professor (Reader) in the Industrial Relations and Organizational Behaviour group within Warwick Business School, University of Warwick. In previous and ongoing research, he has explored: consultation in local government, recruitment and selection in a large multinational firm, the production and reception of corporate communication and the work of selling goods in public settings. Research articles based on these studies have been published in journals such as Human Relations, Organization Studies, Discourse Studies and Sociology. Further information is available from the author’s website (http://llewellyn.nick.googlepages.com/). Address: IROB Group, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK. Email:
[email protected]
Appendix: Transcription symbols
(.7) (.) = [] .hh hh (( )) : ! () °° CAPITALS >< <> ↑↓ Word Hap:py Hap:py
Length of a pause. Micro-pause. A latching between utterances. Between adjacent lines of concurrent speech indicates overlap. Inbreath. Outbreath. Non-verbal activity. Sharp cut-off. Stretching of a word. Denotes an animated tone. Unclear fragment. Quiet utterance. Noticeably louder. The talk in-between is quicker. The talk in-between is slower. Rising or fall intonation. Underline indicates speaker emphasis. Less marked fall in intonation. Less marked rise in intonation.
End of Symposium
Downloaded from http://oss.sagepub.com at University of Warwick on June 24, 2008 © 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
