The question of where we obtain knowledge from and which knowledge we consider relevant and reliable is central to both our private and professional lives. In everyday interactions, sources of knowledge cannot always be substantiated with explicit references but often require other means of validation. This study examines how objects, primarily texts (Weilenmann & Lymer 2014; Lehtinen & Pälli 2016), are made relevant in situations where one party’s viewpoint conflicts with another’s. The study focuses on sequences in which one party attempts to assert the relevance of their perspective to persuade the other party. We demonstrate how, in conflict situations, speakers introduce texts and other tools as reliable sources into the interaction to support the trajectory of their argumentation.
The method used is conversation analysis (Sidnell & Stivers, 2013) and the data come from four different medical contexts granting us one institutional corpus of video- and audiotaped data.
We refer to Ryle’s (1949/2009) dichotomy between practical knowledge on how to perform a task (i.e., knowing how), and expert knowledge (i.e., knowing that), which is derived from the expert sources of knowledge (e.g., medical education). We argue that experts and non-experts evaluate knowledge types and (textual) objects differently in interaction: Objects and knowing how are considered relevant only if they conform to the basic principles of knowing that. Objects and knowing how are treated as irrelevant if they represent experiences without a clear link to expert knowledge.

Lehtinen, E. & Pälli, P. (2016) Osallistuminen näkökulmana tekstien ja keskustelujen suhteeseen. Kehityskeskustelulomake osana kehityskeskustelun vuorovaikutusta ja organisatorisia käytänteitä. Virittäjä 120(2), 164‒187.
Ryle, G. (1949). Knowing how and knowing that: The presidential address. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 46, 1‒16.
Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T. (Eds.) (2013). The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Weilenmann, A. & Lymer, G. (2014). Incidental and essential objects in interaction. Paper documents in journalistic work. In: M. Nevile, P. Haddington, T. Heinemann & M. Rauniomaa (eds.) Interacting with objects: Language, materiality, and social activity. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

As autonomous vehicles (AVs) become more common on public roads, “beta testers” of Tesla cars in fully autonomous mode play an important role in evaluating their performance. Recurrently, beta-testers intervene with the car’s driving to ensure that its driving is safe and aligning with the traffic code and social norms. Beta-testers interventions thus highlight the gap between machine competence and social driving norms in traffic. Some beta-testers share their experiences in video clips on YouTube, where they comment on its driving as it unfolds. Using such clips as data, we focus on beta-tester interventions to manage violations of the moral order of traffic. Prior research in conversation analysis and ethnomethodology has shown that deviations from expected behaviour may be morally accountable, and that this accountability is in part constituted by explanations (e.g., Antaki 1988). Through a multimodal analysis of 45 beta-tester interventions on AVs, documented in video clips from 12 beta-tester channels, we show how they justify, for their YouTube audience, their intervening action by reasoning aloud. Such reasoning identifies types of emerging moral problems that their interventions on the driving address, such as AVs unnecessarily slowing other road users down or blocking their way. By showing how, and on what stated grounds, beta-testers intervene to maintain “decent driving” in traffic, our study underscores the distinction between AV’s preprogrammed operations and human adaptability in making moral judgments in situ.


Reference

Antaki, C. (Ed.). (1988). Analysing everyday explanation: A casebook of methods. Sage.

Research on computer use in patient–provider interaction generally adopts one of two perspectives: either treating computer use during consultations as separate from the interaction, or examining it as an integral component of the interactional process. Studies aligned with the first perspective often rely on broad measurement tools - such as gaze direction, speaking time, or overall patient satisfaction - which can highlight general effects of computer use but fail to capture its nuanced integration into turn-by-turn interaction. In contrast, studies that view computer use as embedded in interaction have demonstrated that both patients and healthcare providers actively manage and coordinate moments of computer use within specific interactional activities, such as history-taking and patient education.

As shown in our recent scoping review, this interactional approach remains underexplored. Only a small number of studies have employed detailed analyses - some grounded in conversation analysis - to investigate how computer use is sequentially situated within the unfolding structure of medical interactions. Although research recognizes that moment of computer use are actively co-constructed within interaction, research on this topic is limited. Specifically, few studies have systematically examined how computer use is sequentially organized across different interaction activities in medical consultations.

Addressing this gap, the present study explores how computer use is interactionally managed and sequentially embedded in medical consultations. By analyzing ten geriatric intake consultations using conversation analysis, we aim to provide a fine-grained understanding of how doctors and patients collaboratively organize computer use as part of turns-at-talk.

Funerals in the Netherlands have become individualized in recent decades. For each funeral, there is a range of choices to be made for nearly each aspect of a funeral. These choices are typically discussed in funeral preparation interactions between funeral directors and families. This increasingly happens pre-death because people want a say in their own funeral, and want to support their next of kin (Mathijssen & Venhorst, 2019). Funeral directors generally conduct such pre-death preparation interactions free of charge, but hope that the funeral will be commissioned to them. Hence, these interactions are important to professionals.

Simultaneously, these interactions are complex. Drawing on conversation analysis and an audio-recorded pre-death funeral preparation interaction, I found that funeral directors may face e.g. advice resistance, indecisiveness, and off-topic elaborations. In this presentation, I discuss these complexities and explore how funeral directors navigate them, using strategies including postponing decisions and formulating. I also show how funeral directors foreground their experience to maintain an expert identity in the face of implicit challenges, thus displaying their competence as a professional.

The findings add a more commercial setting to literature on death-related talk in e.g. palliative care (Pino & Jenkins, 2023), suicide helplines (Iversen, 2021), and crisis negotiations (Sikveland, Kevoe-Feldman & Stokoe, 2022). The analyses also make professionals’ tacit ‘know how’ explicit, so it can be shared and enhance professionals’ interactional competence. Finally, it adds a new perspective to ritual and death studies by unraveling how funerary rituals are negotiated turn by turn (Wojtkowiak, 2022).

In institutional talk within social services, communicative projects and power asymmetries are managed through interaction. Professionals in social services employ a repertoire of conversational practices to navigate their institutional roles—at times assessing clients’ suitability for a particular outcome, and at other times facilitating clients’ participation and talk progression. Previous research has examined professionals’ use of question design in accomplishing institutional tasks and has highlighted the role of hypothetical talk in projecting future actions and preparing clients for uncertainty (e.g. Noordegraaf et al., 2008). However, the specific interactional resource of hypothetical active-voicing—where a professional enacts a hypothetical character in a hypothetical situation—has not yet been much studied in relation to other institutional objectives (but see Simmons & LeCouteur, 2011). Drawing on empirical data from two contexts—adoption assessment interviews and child welfare interviews—this study demonstrates how hypothetical active-voicing serves multiple institutional functions and enables professionals to navigate power asymmetries while simultaneously supporting clients’ participation in interviews. These findings contribute to a deeper understanding of interactional strategies used in institutional talk and their implications for professional-client dynamics.

References
Noordegraaf, M., van Nijnatten, C., & Elbers, E. (2008). Assessing suitability for adoptive parenthood: Hypothetical questions as part of ongoing conversation. Discourse Studies, 10(5), 655-672.

Simmons, K., & LeCouteur, A. (2011). ‘Hypothetical active-voicing’: Therapists ‘modelling’ of clients’ future conversations in CBT interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(13), 3177-3192.