Reenactments at Work: Demonstrating Conduct in Data Sessions

Abstract

Reenactments (introduced by Sidnell, 2006) are embodied demonstrations of past events or scenes. In this article we explore how reenactments are deployed in the course of, and indeed support work in, collaborative data analysis sessions among groups of social scientists (and primarily conversation analysts). The data used to build the analysis are drawn from audiovisual recordings of a range of data sessions involving formal and informal groupings of social scientists who themselves are analyzing video data. One way in which participants discuss and discriminate on-screen conduct is through imitating or enacting that conduct. This article examines how participants, having noticed something on-screen, set about having others see it (or see it in a particular way) through the use of reenactments, which are not a reproduction of the actions on-screen but a version of events that inevitably selects and often exaggerates certain features. In doing so we highlight some of the key differences in the design of reenactments in these data sessions, in comparison to those that feature in everyday conversational settings. These differences concern the relationship of the design of the reenactments to visible artifacts in the scene, the configuration of the interactional huddle, and the opportunities for coparticipants to progressively shape and reshape the reenactment. These all reveal the distinctive characteristics and demands of deploying reenactments in developing analytic claims.

Acknowledgments

This research was funded through the MiMeG ESRC e-Social Science Research Node (Award No. RES-149-25-0033). We are extremely grateful to the research groups who allowed us to film their working practices. We would also like to thank many of those participants for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article, and the reviewers and editor for their thoughtful comments and contributions. All names and identifiers have been anonymized. An early version of this article was presented in June 2007 at the International Society of Gesture Studies conference, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois (ISGS'07).

Notes

¹Key for transcript annotations:

o = onset of movement

a = acme/point of maximum extension

c = arm cocked for release

t = thrust or peak of energy

r = beginning or retraction of arm

… … = indicates extension in time from previously marked action

(---) = elapsed time of silence, each dash 1/10 second

²Time references cannot be accurately determined on this occasion due to the playback being operated (stopped and started, etc.) at the whim of the data session participants, although the key stages of the hand gesture discussed by Lucy and Ruth have been identified and captured in these stills.

³Interestingly, while dramatically (over)emphasizing certain features of the action, Lucy's use of the quotative—“he literally goes”—is, as Sidnell (2006, p. 406) observes, an attempt to negotiate the epistemic footing and authority (quashing Ruth's doubts) by purporting to show what actually happened.