Due, Brian Lystgaard

English

Copenhagen University Research Information System

u n i ve r s i t y  o f  co pe n h ag e n  Københavns UniversitetIs surprise a clue?Due, Brian LystgaardPublication date:2018Document versionPeer reviewed versionDocument license:UnspecifiedCitation for published version (APA):Due, B. L. (2018). Is surprise a clue? The collaborative construction of insights about technology-in-use fromsemi- experimental testing settings. Abstract from International Conference of Conversation Analysis (ICCA2018), United Kingdom.Download date: 03. Feb. 2020Is surprise a clue?The collaborative construction of insights about technology-in-use from semi-experimental testing settings ICCA18, Loughborough UniversityBrian DueUniversity of CopenhagenInnovation involves developing (technological) prototypes that can be tested, evaluated, further developed, tested again, etc. 7/11/18 2• What are peoples methods for accomplishing this? • How are insights established in this process? Suggestion: Displaying surprise could mark an insight • “Learning”: through embodied practices, e.g. professional vision (Goodwin)• Psychologists about surprise: a basic emotion with a specific expression, e.g. raising ofthe upper eyelids (Ekman, 2005).• Interactional. Cognition on the ground (Maynard, 2006).• Non-lexicalized sounds. Goffman (1978) described these as ‘response cries’.• “Surprise tokens” (Wilkinson & Kitzinger, 2006): the unexpectedness of informationconveyed in a prior turn• The particle ‘oh’, as a locally accomplishment of a change-of-state of knowledgeproduced in response to an informing. (Heritage, 1984).• Epistemic status and stance: Going from K- à K+• Typically in a context of verbal informing (news delivery) and verbal responding.• Typically as an asymmetry between person A-B – focusing on individual actors.• My working definition of surprise in semi-experimental test settings:• A multimodal response to an unexpected “information” (being an action), that (may)display an insight (a change in epistemics).• Co-constructed through joint involvement with no (clear) prior asymmetry in knowledge• Directed towards a third: technology-in-use12/07/2018 3Between the Lab and the Wild: Semi-experimental settings (ecological experiments) for producing insights about technology-in-use. Ecology of test-persons, technology and participants7/11/18 42: Engaging with a prototype1: Engaging with a new product 3: Engaging with a robotParticipant getting acquainted with new tech.Participant experiencing human-robot possibilitiesParticipant testing functionalities • ‘naturally organized ordinary activities’ (Garfinkel, 1991): An ordering of activity that is spontaneous, local, autochthonous, temporal, embodied, endogenously produced and performed as a matter of course. Lynch, M. (2002). From naturally occurring data to naturally organized ordinary activities: comment on Speer. Discourse Studies, 4(4), 531–537. A three part sequential structure Initiating action Action (source) Surprise Account1 2 3Establishing insights?How is epistemic stance towards the action displayed? How is the orientation towards technology accomplished? How is the researcher engaged and made a co-producer? IRE = Initiating, Responding, Evaluation in educational contextsMehan, H. (1979). “What Time Is It, Denise?”: Asking Known Information Questions in Classroom Discourse. Theory into Practice, 18(4), 285–294.Repairs in third positions (not turns). Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Repair After Next Turn: The Last Structurally Provided Defense of Intersubjectivity in Conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97(5), 1295.In argueing: a) taking a proposition, b) give a concession and c) re-submit in a new version (reassertion).Antaki, C., & Wetherell, M. (2000). Show concessions. Communication Abstracts, 23(1), 3–149.Lindström, J. K., & Londen, A.-M. (2013). Concession and reassertion: on a dialogic discourse pattern in conversation: Test & Talk, Vol 33(3), 331–352.In proposing e.g. new ideas: a) proposal, b) critique, c) management     Due, B. L. (2015). Idéudviklingens trepartstruktur og den katalytiske funktion af kritik. Språk och interaktion, 4(2). 11/07/2018 61) Action (source): instructing in tech-use  Multimodal resources for producing instructions: - Body posture - Hand gestures- Linguistic descriptions  After instruction; he keeps head still and moves glasses instead  2) Surprise and 3) evaluation. Displayed by pitch11/07/2018 8Expressing surprise (change-of-state) through pitch (and “oh”)Minimal account by formulation (l. 6) and affiliation by high pitch (l. 8) Possible insight elevated to a general finding forinnovative purposesWhen using the device, the user should not turn the head or make rough movements, but gently adjust only the position of the glasses Recognizable as a surprisingly insight from the production of pitch, the use of “oh” and minimal account (okay, nodding).  7/11/18 911/07/2018 1011/07/2018 111) Action (source): Reporting on the experience (news delivery)  Minimal responseDescribing experience with tech. Extended turn; designed to deliver a point 11/07/201812o↗			[kay2) Surprise and 3) account. Question designed request for confirmationDisplaying surprise through facial expression and pitchMinimal account through confirmation, nodding and involvement   Using the device: It is possible to distinguish whether information comes from the sides or in front of the user. Recognizable as an surprisingly insight from the multimodal production of facial expression, pitch, the use of “okay” and embodied orientation to co-participant for (minimal) joint involvement. 7/12/18 13Possible insight elevated to a general finding forinnovative purposesInsights from interactions with a robot (Pepper) • Insights about sequential well-fitted robot-actions • Insights about sequential un-fitted robot-actions 7/11/18 1411/07/2018 151) Action (source) 2) surprise and 3) account (evaluation)11/07/2018 161) Question design. Positioned in F-formation2) Surprise through embodied laughter  3) Co-constructed evaluation Robot ”gaze” at human11/07/2018 1711/07/2018 181. Robot-human action (knuckles) (physical contact) (bodily adjusting to the robot in space) 1) Action (source) 2) surprise and 3) account2. Laughs (full body) 3. Orient to co-participants Possible insight elevated to a general finding for innovative purposes about sequential well-fitted robot-actions  The robot’s production of (self-ironical) jokes in social interaction with humans works well. The robots “head/gaze” orientation towards the human is mirrored by the human and establish an F-formation.     Humans adjust to the robot’s production of human-like “bodily” actions and engages without problems in tactile interactions with the robot Recognizable as an surprisingly insight from the multimodal production of laughter (sound/facial expression/whole body movement) and made accountable through orientation to the co-participant and the establishment of joint attention / common ground.  7/12/18 1911/07/2018 2011/07/2018 211) Action 2) surprise and 3) account1. Question design and (unfitted) response(bodily orientation with tilted head. F-formation) 2. Surprise through whole body laughs 3. Involving co-participants.Producing verbal account 11/07/2018 2211/07/2018 231) Action 2) surprise and 3) account1. Question design and reformulation (l. 3)2. Surprise through strong gestural action 3. Verbal account directed to co-participant (researcher) Possible insight elevated to a general finding for innovative purposes about sequential un-fitted robot-actions  The robot’s production of actions, that are inappropriately fitted to the sequential context, are treated as such. Unexpected ”physical” robot actions are misplaced.   Recognizable as surprisingly insights from the multimodal production of laughter (sound/facial expression/whole body movement) or gesturing actions. Made accountable through orientation to co-participant.7/12/18 24Displayed surprise may be a clue for the establishment of insights Surprise: A multimodal response to an ‘unexpected’ tech-oriented action.Insights: Collaboratively co-constructed change in epistemic status. An ecological epistemic community: An interactional achievement: Involving co—participants; producing joint attention / common ground. Multimodal resources for displaying surprise (epistemic stance): • Sequentially fitted as a second part response to a source action à projecting accounts in a third position. • In a context of ”Between the Lab and the Wild”: MAN+MACHINE = inter-corporeal-machine-ity• Use of prosodic resources and production of high pitch • Lexicalized tokens: oh, okay, • Non-lexicalized sounds: (joint) laughter • Whole body reactions: rapid gesturing (withdrawing); embodied laughs (backwards leaning)• Facial expressions; raised eyebrows 11/07/2018 26Thank you

Is surprise a clue?:The collaborative construction of insights about technology-in-use from semi- experimental testing settings

https://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/200532444/Is_surprise_a_clue_publ_.pdf

Is surprise a clue?:The collaborative construction of insights about technology-in-use from semi- experimental testing settings

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Copenhagen University Research Information System