- Helsinki, Southern Finland, Finland
- I am a post-doctoral researcher at the Finnish Centre of Excellence in Research on Intersubjectivity in Interaction, ... moreI am a post-doctoral researcher at the Finnish Centre of Excellence in Research on Intersubjectivity in Interaction, the University of Helsinki.
I am working in the FiDiPro project "Multimodality: Reconsidering language and action through embodiment" led by Professor Lorenza Mondada.
I am using conversation analysis to study service encounters and various supervision and counseling settings. I am particularly interested in the use of writing and material objects in interaction.edit
University students seek counseling to discuss concerns about their academic skills, motivation, time management, and well-being. This article examines the conversational activity of normalizing currently used by counselors to manage... more
University students seek counseling to discuss concerns about their academic skills, motivation, time management, and well-being. This article examines the conversational activity of normalizing currently used by counselors to manage students’ negative emotions and troubles-telling. Normalizing refers to an activity in which something in the interaction is made normal by labeling it “normal” or “commonplace” or by interpreting it in an ordinary way. Three uses for normalizing were identified in a sample of 16 videotaped counseling sessions: 1) supporting the student’s position, 2) challenging the student, and 3) presenting the student’s problem as workable. We argue that normalizing is a means of addressing students’ problematic emotions and offering support, yet in a way that maintains an orientation toward problem solving. Furthermore, while normalizing seems to serve affiliation, suggesting that the problems are not unique, it can be treated as either delicate or as problematic by the counselors and by the students.
Research Interests:
This article, introducing the special issue, aims at sketching the emerging field of studies on writing-in-interaction within an ethnomethodological (EM) and conversation analytic (CA) perspective. It does so by situating research carried... more
This article, introducing the special issue, aims at sketching the emerging field of studies on writing-in-interaction within an ethnomethodological (EM) and conversation analytic (CA) perspective. It does so by situating research carried out in this perspective within the existing literature and by offering some larger input on how the field could be developed. Writing-in-interaction is here approached by considering writing in social interaction as a multimodal phenomenon , with a special emphasis on handwriting. The paper presents current studies and further possible developments of writing in interaction, including the detailed analysis of video fragments. It shows how it is possible to finely analyze the moment-by-moment organization of writing as a multimodal social practice, demonstrating its embodied projectability, its material and multimodal graphic achievement, and its embeddedness in sequential organization and in multiactivity.
Research Interests:
The paper studies the activity of note-taking in interactions between a university student counselor and an undergraduate student. The study is based on authentic videotaped discussions recorded in a Finnish university. The study... more
The paper studies the activity of note-taking in interactions between a university student counselor and an undergraduate student. The study is based on authentic videotaped discussions recorded in a Finnish university. The study concentrates on sequences consisting of a question, an answer, and the taking of notes. The aim of the paper is to present a detailed multimodal analysis on how the note-taker moves from not writing to writing and how nodding is used in both receiving the answer and indicating the transition from listening to taking down notes. Listening and note-taking are seen as a dual involvement depending partially on the same embodied resources, especially the gaze and bodily orientation. The shift from listening to note-taking often is indicated with a pronounced writing initial nod.
Research Interests:
Studies conducted on seminar discussions reveal that the participants want active discussion, yet they often complain that this does not occur. Problems in seminar discussion have been explained by face concerns, frustration with various... more
Studies conducted on seminar discussions reveal that the participants want active discussion, yet they often complain that this does not occur. Problems in seminar discussion have been explained by face concerns, frustration with various seminar practices, or as a strategic response to conflicting identities. This study provides an alternative viewpoint: two factors that can inhibit discussion are rigid institutional roles and turn-taking and sequence organization of the seminar. The two participants who have significant roles in the interaction are the thesis author and the discussant. The role of the other students in the seminar is unclear. They also orient to the fact that there is something problematic or unexpected in their participation. The study is based on a corpus of 25 h of videotaped master's thesis seminar discussions in a Finnish university. The data were transcribed and analyzed using ethnomethodological conversation analysis.
Research Interests:
Despite a growing interest in the interaction in academic pedagogical settings, the role of texts in the actual interaction has not been systematically addressed. This article examines the practices and orientations through which written... more
Despite a growing interest in the interaction in academic pedagogical settings, the role of texts in the actual interaction has not been systematically addressed. This article examines the practices and orientations through which written documents have a significant role in the openings of supervision encounters. We use videotaped recordings of supervision encounters and adopt conversation-analytical methodology to analyze the data. The analysis consists of two main foci: (i) the initial moments of the encounter prior to the actual supervisory activity, and (ii) the launching of the supervisory activity and the negotiation of what that activity will entail. We analyze the orientations toward the document as the necessary object of the joint activity and the prominent bodily orientation toward the papers during the initial moments of the encounter. Furthermore, when the participants move from the initial moments of the encounter toward the main activity, the paper document plays a ma...
Research Interests:
This article examines the design of opponent feedback turns given as part of Master’s Thesis seminars. The material used in this research consists of twelve video-recorded seminar sessions encompassing four different humanities subjects.... more
This article examines the design of opponent feedback turns given as part of Master’s Thesis seminars. The material used in this research consists of twelve video-recorded seminar sessions encompassing four different humanities subjects. This article examines in greater detail feedback sequences, of which there were 101 in total, taken from three different seminar sessions. The present analysis concentrates on feedback turns in which the opponent points out problems arising from the thesis draft and suggests possible changes to the text. The research method employed in this article is ethno-methodological conversation analysis.
The opponent’s feedback progresses in a somewhat linear fashion, following the order of the text itself. This resembles a pattern that recurs in many other institutional settings. Common features of such routine progression from one stage to another are typically clear pauses and transitions between the feedback sequences.
Feedback turns involving some aspect of criticism typically feature a long introductory section and phrases such as mä jäin miettii ‘I was thinking’ or mulle tuli mieleen ‘it occurred to me’. In particular the initial parts of the feedback turn feature many elements denoting uncertainly, caution and reservation, such as pauses, self-correction and restarts.
The feedback itself is generally very carefully worded. Recurring linguistic elements in the opponent’s advice include modal verbs (generally voida ‘to be possible’), the zero subject, and the conditional, as well as a variety of modal adverbs (for instance, ehkä ‘perhaps’) and scalar elements (e.g. pikkasen ‘a little’ and lyhyesti ‘in brief’). In some instances, in phrases pointing out a problem with the text, the evaluating adjective is omitted altogether (e.g. tää on ehkä vähän ‘this is perhaps a little’).
One feature that recurs with great frequency is the rapid backing down from critical feedback, using a variety of concessionary terms and structures. This backing down often takes the form of highlighting the fact that the text is still incomplete or, indeed, by questioning the relevance of the feedback.
The various ways of constructing feedback turns outlined above will help opponents to rise to the institutional challenge of having to assess and comment upon a fellow student’s work. Moreover, the complicated construction of such feedback seems to represent an attempt to elicit some kind of response from the writer of the text, something of which there may otherwise be very little. On the other hand, the ability tentatively to present one’s opinions, bringing into question the relevance of one’s own comments and highlighting opposing points of view give the impression of a student competent of academic debate.
The opponent’s feedback progresses in a somewhat linear fashion, following the order of the text itself. This resembles a pattern that recurs in many other institutional settings. Common features of such routine progression from one stage to another are typically clear pauses and transitions between the feedback sequences.
Feedback turns involving some aspect of criticism typically feature a long introductory section and phrases such as mä jäin miettii ‘I was thinking’ or mulle tuli mieleen ‘it occurred to me’. In particular the initial parts of the feedback turn feature many elements denoting uncertainly, caution and reservation, such as pauses, self-correction and restarts.
The feedback itself is generally very carefully worded. Recurring linguistic elements in the opponent’s advice include modal verbs (generally voida ‘to be possible’), the zero subject, and the conditional, as well as a variety of modal adverbs (for instance, ehkä ‘perhaps’) and scalar elements (e.g. pikkasen ‘a little’ and lyhyesti ‘in brief’). In some instances, in phrases pointing out a problem with the text, the evaluating adjective is omitted altogether (e.g. tää on ehkä vähän ‘this is perhaps a little’).
One feature that recurs with great frequency is the rapid backing down from critical feedback, using a variety of concessionary terms and structures. This backing down often takes the form of highlighting the fact that the text is still incomplete or, indeed, by questioning the relevance of the feedback.
The various ways of constructing feedback turns outlined above will help opponents to rise to the institutional challenge of having to assess and comment upon a fellow student’s work. Moreover, the complicated construction of such feedback seems to represent an attempt to elicit some kind of response from the writer of the text, something of which there may otherwise be very little. On the other hand, the ability tentatively to present one’s opinions, bringing into question the relevance of one’s own comments and highlighting opposing points of view give the impression of a student competent of academic debate.