Trying-out a walking help: Participation through situated learning in the adjustment and assessment of welfare technology

References

• Bergmann, J. R. (1985). Flüchtigkeit und methodische Fixierung sozialer Wirklichkeit. Aufzeichnungen als Daten der interpretativen Soziologie. In W. Bnoß & H. Hartmann (Eds.), Entzauberte Wissenschaft. Zur Relativität und Geltung soziologischer Forschung (pp. 299–320). Göttingen: Schwarz.
   Google Scholar
• Bloch, S., & Wilkinson, R. (2004). The understandability of AAC: A conversation analysis study of acquired dysarthria. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 20 (4), 272–282.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Collinson, J. A. (2006). Running-together: Some ethnomethodological considerations. Ethnographic Studies, 8, 17–29.
   Google Scholar
• Francis, D., & Hester, S. (2004). An invitation to ethnomethodology: Language, society and social interaction. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1981). Footing. In E. Goffman (Ed.), Forms of talk (pp. 124–59). Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2000a). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489–1522.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2000b). Gesture, aphasia and interaction. In D. McNeill (Ed.), Language and Gesture (pp. 84–98). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2003a). Pointing as situated practice. In S. Kita (Ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture and cognition meet (pp. 217–41). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2003b). Conversational frameworks for the accomplishment of meaning in aphasia. In C. Goodwin (Ed.), Conversation and brain damage (pp. 90–116). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2004). A competent speaker who can’t speak: the social life of aphasia. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 14 (2), 151–170.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (1992). Assessments and the construction of context. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context (pp. 147–89). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (2004). Participation. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 222–44). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, P. (2010). Video in qualitative research: Analysing social interaction in everyday life. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Heidegger, M. (1929/1996). Being and time. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heath, C., & Luff, P. (2000). Technology in action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and suboridnatin in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68 (1), 15–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutchby, I. (2001). Conversation and technology: From the telephone to the internet. Cambridge: Polity.
   Google Scholar
• Hutchins, E. (1996). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Keating, E., & Raudaskoski, P. (2012). Theoretical framework: Communicative technology for augmented interaction within the field of Science, Technology and Society (STS). In M. Egbert & A. Depperman (Eds.), Hearing aids communication: Intergrating social interaction, audiology and user centred design to improve communication with hearing loss and hearing technologies (pp. 35–39). Mannheim: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.
   Google Scholar
• Koole, T., & Mak, P. (2014). Using conversation analysis to improve an augmented communication tool. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 47(3), 280–291.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krummheuer, A. (2015a). Performing an action one cannot do: Participation, scaffolding and embodied interaction. The Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders, 6(2), 187–210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krummheuer, A. (2015b). Technical Agency in Practice: The enactment of artefacts as conversation partners, actants and opponents. PsychNology, 13 (2–3), 179–202.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Liberman, K. (2013). The local orderliness of crossing kincaid. In K. Liberman (Ed.), More studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 11–43). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
   Google Scholar
• Loe, M. (2010). Doing it my way: old women, technology and wellbeing. Sociology of Health & Illness, 32(2), 319–334.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McIlvenny, P., Broth, M., & Haddington, P. (2009). Communicating place, space and mobility. Journal of Pragmatics, 41 (10), 1879–1886.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McIlvenny, P., Broth, M., & Haddington, P. (2014). Moving together: Mobile formations in interaction. Space and Culture, 17(2), 104–106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mondada, L. (2009). The methodical organization of talking and eating: Assessments in dinner conversations. Food Quality and Preference, 20(8), 558–571.
   Google Scholar
• Nevile, M., Haddington, P., Heinemann, T., & Rauniomaa, M. (Eds.) (2014). Interacting with objects: Language, materiality, and social activity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Nishizaka, A. (2000). Seeing what one sees: Perception, emotion, and activity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7 (1 & 2), 105–23.
   Google Scholar
• Norén, N., & Pilesjö, M. S. (forthcoming). The emergence of a partner-focused question in aided interaction. A case study of participation in conversation. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetic.
   Google Scholar
• Norén, N., Samuelsson, C., & Plejert, C. (Eds.) (2013). Aided communication in everyday interaction. Guildford, UK: J & P Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pols, J. (2012). Care at a distance. On the closness of technology. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pols, J., & Moser, I. (2009). Cold technologies versus warm care? On affective and social relations with and through care technologies. European Journal of Disability Research, 3, 159–178.
   Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shape. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action. Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A. (1986). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies, 9, 219–229.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poulsen, J. (2003). Borgerinddragelse som metode i sundhedsfremme – i relation til kost og fysisk aktivitet. København: Sundhedsstyrelsen.
   Google Scholar
• Rammert, W. (2012). Distributed agency and advanced technology. Or: How to analyze constellations of collective inter-agency. In J.-H. Passoth, B. Peuker & M. Schillmeier (Eds.), Agency without actors? New approaches to collective action (pp. 89–112). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Raudaskoski, P. (2003). Users’ interpretations at a computer tutorial. Detecting (causes) of misunderstandings. In C. L. Prevignano & P. J. Thibault (Eds.), Discussing conversation analysis: The work of Emanuel A. Schegloff (pp. 109–139). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Raudaskoski, P. (2006). Situated learning and interacting with/through technologies: Enhancing research and design. In E. K. Sorensen & D. Ó Murchú (Eds.), Enhancing learning through technology (pp. 155–183). Hershey: Idea Group.
   Google Scholar
• Raudaskoski, P. (2012). Beyond words: Progressive design for/with people with severe brain injury. Design Philosophy Papers, 10(1), 53–61.
   Google Scholar
• Raudaskoski, P. (2013). From understanding to participation: A relational approach to embodied practices. In T. Keisanen, E. Kärkkäinen, M. Rauniomaa, P. Siitonen & M. Siromaa (Eds.), Multimodal discourses of participation (pp. 103–121). Jyväskylä: AFinLA.
   Google Scholar
• Ryave, L., & Schenkein, J. N. (1974). Notes on the art of walking. In R. Turner (Ed.), Ethnomethodology (pp. 265–274). Harmondswoth, Middlesex, UK: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1984). Notes on Methodology. In M. J. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action. Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 21–27). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn–taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289–327.
   Google Scholar
• Schillmeier, M., & Doménech, M. (2010). New technologies and emerging spaces of care – an introduction. In M. Schillmeier & M. Doménech (Eds.), New technologies and emerging spaces of care (pp. 1–17). Farnham, Surrey, GBR: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (2012). The handbook of conversation analysis: Blackwell handbooks in linguistics. Chicester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., & LeBaron, C. (Eds.). (2011). Embodied interaction – language and body in the material world. United States of America: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weilenmann, A., Normark, D., & Laurier, E. (2014). Managing walking together: The challenge of revolving doors. Space and Culture, 17(2), 122–136.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winance, M. (2006). Trying out the wheelchair. The mutual shaping of people and devices through adjustment. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 31(1), 52–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization (WHO). (2013). How to use the ICF: A practical manual for using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Exposure draft for comment. Geneva: WHO.
   Google Scholar