ON TIME: THE MORAL ORDERING OF WORK TIME
Thesis proposal submitted by: Henrik Ladegaard Johannesen
PhD student, MA
Principal supervisor: Birte Asmuß
Associate Professor, PhD
Co-supervisor: Finn Frandsen
Professor, Doctorate
2
The present document was written with the old dictum ‘show it, don’t tell it’ in mind and focuses on
presenting actual empirical work. It consists of a short introduction to the project, some methodological
reflections, two sample analyses, and a short consideration of the implications of the study. The over-
view of the structure of the thesis in the last part of the introduction was written as if the entire thesis
was completed. Therefore, there are several references to chapters that are not included in the docu-
ment.
3
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 4
On time ................................................................................................................................................................ 4
The project ........................................................................................................................................................... 5
The structure of the thesis .................................................................................................................................... 7
Some methodological remarks .......................................................................................... 9
The site ................................................................................................................................................................. 9
Transcription practice ........................................................................................................................................ 10
Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 13
Accomplishing the right time to proceed ........................................................................................................... 13
Accomplishing the right time to answer a telephone call ................................................................................... 19
Some concluding remarks ............................................................................................... 25
Moving forward .................................................................................................................................................. 25
Implications ........................................................................................................................................................ 26
References .................................................................................................................... 27
Appendix 1: Transcript conventions ................................................................................. 30
Appendix 2: Screen grabs ................................................................................................ 31
Appendix 3: Hard time .................................................................................................... 34
Courses ............................................................................................................................................................... 34
Teaching ............................................................................................................................................................. 34
Conferences ........................................................................................................................................................ 35
4
Introduction
On time
A few years ago, a question concerning “quitting time” was posted on the social network reddit.com.
The poster wanted to know if anybody else felt ashamed of leaving work “on time” if the rest of the of-
fice stayed on. The question sparked considerable debate (with the typical candor of the internet), and
the responses ranged from principled rejections (“Staying late is for suckers”) to strategic considerations
(“Sometimes you have to put up a bit of the face time bullshit to get ahead”). However, just as the orig-
inal poster described himself as somebody who cannot be expected to work overtime (“And my
knowledge in the industry is limited, and I’m entry level, and I’m not even making a lot of money”),
most of the responses referred implicitly or explicitly to categorial incumbencies. “My scheduled shift is
8 to 5, I leave at 5 on the dot everyday,” one of the respondents answered, “I have a child at home who
misses me, and I’ll bust my ass if need be while I’m there.” “Most people in my office live very close to
work, so they leave the office pretty casually,” another respondent answered, “I live a lot farther, and a
few minutes can make a huge difference in the amount of traffic I deal with, so I will leave as soon as I
possibly can.” The legitimacy of leaving the office on time depended, then, not only on formal consid-
erations (e.g. contractual obligations), but also on moral considerations (e.g. the socially organized rights
and responsibilities of ‘entry level workers’, ‘mothers’, and ‘commuters’).
The discussion is indicative of a transformation in the organization of work time. The
dominant models of organization are widely considered to have shifted from ‘mechanical’, vertically
organized models to ‘holographic’, horizontally organized models. Employees are expected to be flexi-
ble, dynamic, and interactive and to participate actively in the organization of work (e.g. Boltanski &
Chiapello, 2005). Indeed, several scholars have included interactional processes in the definition of
work, e.g. Hardt’s (1999) notion of affective work, Lazzarato’s (1996) notion of immaterial work, and
Marazzi’s (2008) notion of communicative-relational work. Hence, whereas classical models of organi-
zation were designed to render subjectivity irrelevant for production – as envisioned by Frederick Wins-
low Taylor in his seminal work The Principles of Scientific Management (1911) – contemporary models of
organization depend on the utilization of subjectivity: “Work can thus be defined as the capacity to acti-
vate and manage productive cooperation.” (Lazzarato, 1996, p. 135)
5
The proliferation of information and communication technologies (ICTs) is, in particular,
considered to have impacted the organization of work time. Several scholars hold that the temporal log-
ic of the network has replaced the temporal logic of the clock as the dominant temporal logic of western
capitalist societies. The term ‘network time’ was coined by Castells (2009), but it is similar to Nowotny’s
(1994) “extended present”, Urry’s (2000) “instantaneous time”, and Virilio’s (1997) “real time”. In or-
ganizational settings, the transformation from clock time to network time is reflected in such phenome-
na as the increased disposability of products, skills, and images, the widespread use of short-term and
part-time contracts (or what is called the just-in-time workforce), the individualization of the organiza-
tion of work time, and the gradual corrosion of the distinction between home and work (Adam, 2004;
Boltanski & Chiapello, 2005; Castells, 2009; Hassard, 2002; Lash & Urry, 2013; Urry, 2000).
The organization of work time as it is conventionally perceived has, then, become a hori-
zontally distributed phenomenon. Using the classical distinction between chronos and kairos, the organization of
work time is characterized by a shift from predominantly chronos to predominantly kairos. Chronos ex-
presses objective, quantitative, successive time, and kairos expresses subjective, qualitative, situational
time (Rämö, 2002; Smith, 1969). Moreover, originally the name of the Greek god of opportunity, kairos
has what can be seen as the fundamentally moral meaning of the right time for performing some action.
The project
The aim of the project is to investigate how the moral ordering (Jayyusi, 1984) of work time unfolds in
naturally occurring workplace interaction. A number of studies have explored the moral aspects of
work time in contemporary organizational settings, e.g. gendered expectations to work-life balance and
flexible working (Smithson & Stokoe, 2005) and worker discourses about clock time, work time, and
family time (Perrucci & MacDermid, 2007). However, the majority of studies draw primarily on post
hoc materials (e.g. interviews and surveys), and the moral aspects of work time are seldom described, to
borrow a term from Llewellyn and Hindmarsh (2010), “in real time”. What is missing is, in other
words, the actual moral ordering of work time.
The project is inspired by the phenomenological and ethnomethodological tradition
within practice-based studies of organization (see Nicolini, 2012 for an overview). Specifically, the pro-
ject draws on ethnomethodological conversation analysis (EM/CA) (see Heritage, 1984 for a discussion
6
of the ethnomethodological roots of conversation analysis). EM/CA offers a theoretically sophisticated
and empirically elaborate perspective on social interaction, and it affords a strong perspective on organ-
izational practice (Nicolini, 2012). Hence, instead of glossing organizational phenomena as expressions
of culture, gender, power, or whatever current fashions dictate, EM/CA shows how organizing is actu-
ally done (Llewellyn, 2008).
The empirical site for the project is a temporary project office from the public-private
sector. The organization of work at the project office is typical for contemporary organizational set-
tings. However, instead of entering the site with a specific set of problems in mind, I was concerned
with the participants’ problems regarding the organization of work time. A number of problems
emerged from my preliminary observations. The first problem concerned the overall planning of the par-
ticipants’ work. The participants were divided into multiple teams and worked flexible hours. There-
fore, the participants in collaborative activities did not necessarily have a single schedule, but several
individual schedules covering both professional and personal responsibilities. Deciding the right time
for stopping the current day’s work and beginning the next day’s work was, then, a practical problem
for the participants. The second problem concerned the organization of individual tasks. The participants
worked with general deadlines, but did not have predefined standards for the completion of individual
tasks. Moreover, the knowledge-intensive character of the participants’ work was likely to stimulate pro-
longed discussions of minute details. Deciding when to move on from individual tasks was, then, a prac-
tical problem for the participants. The third problem concerned the phenomenon of digital interconnectiv-
ity. The participants were able, and to some extent expected, to follow developments at home and at
work, but answering telephone calls was potentially disruptive for collaborative activities. Deciding when
it was morally justifiable to answer telephone calls was, then, a practical problem for the participants.
The project is informed by the following empirical questions: (1) How do participants in
collaborative work activities accomplish ‘the right time’ for stopping the current day’s work and begin-
ning the next day’s work? (2) How do the participants in collaborative work activities accomplish ‘the
right time’ for moving on with a task? (3) How do the participants in collaborative work activities ac-
complish ‘the right time’ for answering telephone calls?
7
The structure of the thesis
The thesis is structured as follows. Chapter 1 serves to introduce existing work on the morality of work
time. The chapter is divided into three major parts. Firstly, I introduce major sociological work on the
organization of time. I am primarily concerned with the sociomaterial transformations that are consid-
ered to have impacted the organization of work time, e.g. the informatization of work (Hardt & Negri,
2000) and the development of network time (Castells, 2009). Secondly, I look specifically at the under-
standing of work time within studies of organization, e.g. the shift from vertical, ‘mechanistic’ models of
organization to horizontal, ‘holographic’ models of organization (Boltanski & Chiapello, 2005). Finally, I
provide an overview of empirical studies of the moral aspects of work time in contemporary organiza-
tional settings.
Chapter 2 is devoted to a discussion of work time as social practice. Practice-based stud-
ies of organizational phenomena have become widespread. There is, however, not a single, authorita-
tive perspective on social practice, but a multitude of conflicting perspectives (Feldman & Orlikowski,
2008; Nicolini, 2012). Indeed, the intellectual heritage of scholars as different as Garfinkel, Foucault,
and Bourdieu are connected with the practice turn, and the notion of practice has become a catch-all
phrase for empirically grounded studies of organizational phenomena (Nicolini, 2012). Firstly, I intro-
duce the project’s ethnomethodological perspective on social practice, and I position the project within
the larger practice turn (Schatzki, 2001). I am primarily concerned with the moral aspects of social or-
ganization as described within the ethnomethodological tradition. Secondly, I present the project’s eth-
nomethodological understanding of time, and I compare the project’s understanding of time with the
dominant understandings of time within the practice tradition, e.g. Adam’s (2004) notion of timescapes
and Schatzki’s (2010) notion of timespace. Finally, bringing together the first and the second part, I pre-
sent the project’s understanding of work time as a practically accomplished, morally implicative phenomenon.
Chapter 3 serves to introduce the project’s methodological framework. Firstly, I introduce
the notion of methods as members’ methods (Garfinkel, 1967; Have, 2004; Heritage, 1984). Secondly, I pre-
sent the fundamental principles of conversation analysis and membership categorization analysis. Both
conversation analysis and membership categorization analysis emerged from Sacks’ ethnomethodologi-
cally informed work in the 60s and 70s (e.g. Sacks, 1995), but developed in different directions. Thirdly,
I examine the relationship between sequential and categorial analysis, and I position the project within
the current debate on the subject (e.g. Carlin, 2010; Fitzgerald, 2012; Gardner, 2012; Rapley, 2012;
8
Schegloff, 2007a; Silverman, 2012; Stokoe, 2012a, 2012b; Watson, 1997, 2015; Whitehead, 2012).
Specifically, I position the project in line with Watson (1997, 2015) who understands sequential and
categorial analysis as interdependent aspects of social ordering. Finally, I draw a line of ethnomethodologi-
cal work on the moral ordering of social interaction. I am primarily concerned with Jayyusi’s (1984) ex-
pansion of Sacks’ work on membership categorization, but I incorporate subsequent developments
within EM/CA scholarship.
Chapter 4 describes the empirical site for the project. Firstly, I provide an overview of the
empirical site and the kind of data I have collected for the project. Secondly, I explicate my considera-
tions before and during the data collection stage. In line with Silverman (2013), I have chosen a natural
history format to capture the reflexive and processual character of the data collection stage. Thirdly, I
consider questions of validity, reliability, and generalizability. Finally, I deal with the ethical aspects of
the project, and I make a case for a context-dependent perspective on ethical questions.
Chapter 5 comprises the empirical analyses. In line with the project’s empirical questions,
the chapter is divided into three strands. In the first strand, I investigate how the participants in collabora-
tive work activities accomplish ‘the right time’ for stopping the current day’s work and beginning the
next day’s work. In the second strand, I investigate how the participants in collaborative work activities ac-
complish ‘the right time’ for moving on with a task. In the third strand, I investigate how the participants
in collaborative work activities accomplish ‘the right time’ for answering telephone calls.
Chapter 6 discusses the implications of the project for the understanding of the morality
of work time.
9
Some methodological remarks
The site
The empirical data for the project consist of 35-40 hours of video recordings. I recorded the data in the
spring of 2014 in a project office devoted to a larger infrastructure project in the Copenhagen area.
The infrastructure project began in 2012 and is set to terminate in 2018. It is divided into several indi-
vidual projects or tender packages (TPs). Specifically, I observed and recorded the finalization of the
special work description for one of the tender packages (TP20). Along with the general work descrip-
tion, the special work description provides the official guidelines for the winning subcontractor’s work,
and it is subject to careful scrutiny both before and after the bid. The finalization of the special work
description spanned six editing sessions, and it involved two primary participants, Svend and Pil, and a
number of changing participants who were included for longer or shorter periods to work on specific
areas, e.g. environmental questions.1 One of the participants, Svend, worked directly for the public con-
tractor, and his primary role was to supervise the work on the entire infrastructure project. The rest of
the participants worked for a private company commissioned to work on specific areas of the project,
including the tender phase of TP20.
The participants sat together in a meeting room during the editing sessions, and any revi-
sions to the document were made on the spot on a laptop computer connected to an external monitor.
The participants planned the sessions a week or so in advance, but changed the schedule on an ad hoc
basis to accommodate to individual schedules. During one of the visits to the office, I spent the entire
morning waiting for a session that was ultimately cancelled. I observed and recorded 2/3 of the ses-
sions, and the participants recorded 1/3 themselves. I kept a notebook during my visits at the office,
and I conducted informal interviews with the participants during lunch and coffee breaks. The observa-
tions and interviews are not intended as empirical data, but merely a help for me to understand and
remember the work at the office. Moreover, the camera did not necessarily capture everything in the
interaction due to the physical setup and the limited angle of the camera (e.g. somebody standing in the
door), and I recorded in the notebook when something was happening off camera.
1 I do not use the participants’ real names.
10
The specialized character of the site deserves a few comments. Ethnomethodologists are
expected to have practical knowledge of, and be competent practitioners of, the phenomenon under
investigation. According to Rawls (2002), the description of a mundane social practice like ‘having a
chat’ demands limited immersion in the social setting since researchers as well as non-researchers can
be expected to be competent practitioners of ‘chatting’. The description of a specialized social practice
like ‘surgery’ or ‘witchcraft’, in contrast, demands deep immersion in the social setting. I am not a com-
petent practitioner of ‘construction engineering’, and the ethnographic work that I did at the site has
lead me nowhere near the expected level of immersion. However, the aim of the project is not to inves-
tigate how construction engineers do construction engineering, but how the members of the project of-
fice deal with the moral aspects of work time organization. Hence, whereas the site for the project is ex-
tremely specialized, the phenomenon under investigation is commonplace.
Transcription practice
I have transcribed the video recordings according to a modernized version of Jefferson’s transcription
conventions (e.g. Jefferson, 2004). Transcribing spoken Danish is challenging, however, since it tends to
differ from written Danish. I follow Steensig’s (2012) recommendations for transcribing spoken Danish.
The overarching principle in Steensig’s recommendations is to use the standard spelling if the pronun-
ciation of the word is relatively uniform, and to use marked spelling if the pronunciation of the word
differs systematically, e.g. ‘kan’, ‘og’, and ‘skal’.
Orthographic Pronunciation Transcription
kan [ka] ka’ [kan] [kanʔ] kan
og [ʌ] å [ʌw] og
skal [sga] ska’ [sgal] [sgalʔ] skal
(Adapted from Steensig, 2012)
I have transcribed verbal as well as visual conduct. However, as Hepburn and Bolden (2013) note, tran-
scriptions of visual conduct are necessarily selective, and I have excluded some parts of the participants’
visual conduct to reduce clutter. I have included a screen grab catalogue in the appendix to capture
visual conduct that is of particular significance for the analysis. References to the screen grab catalogue
11
are marked with a hashtag and a number in the written analysis as well as in the transcription. The po-
sition of the hashtag in the transcription marks precisely where in the interaction the image was
‘grabbed’.
In line with the standard practice for presenting non-English data to English speaking re-
cipients (Hepburn & Bolden, 2013), I have made a multi-linear transcription with the original Danish
in the first line, a word by word translation into English in the second line, and a translation into idio-
matic English in the third line:
1 SVD: å det ska' derover and that must there and that goes there
2 JNS: ja yes yes
Using a multi-linear translation preserves the organization of the talk (e.g. the construction of the turn),
and it preserves the meaning of the individual words as well as the entire turn (e.g. the literal meaning
of ‘skal’ (must) and the contextual meaning of ‘skal’ (goes) in the example above). Even so, what is pre-
sented in a multi-linear translation is not a perfect, one to one rendition of the Danish original, but an
interpretation of the original (Hepburn & Bolden, 2013). Accordingly, I consult existing work on spoken
interaction in Danish as well as English, and I continue to revise the translations as the analyses pro-
gresses.
However, regarding the organization of the transcription, I have departed somewhat
from the Jeffersonian conventions. A conventional Jeffersonian transcription is divided into two primary
slots. The participant is identified in the first slot, and the participant’s conduct is described in the se-
cond slot. Only human participants are included in the first slot, however, and non-human participants are
assigned to metacommunication in the second slot. Hence, conventional transcription conventions in-
troduce a hidden ontological distinction between the human and the non-human. However, as described
in the preceding chapters, most strands within the practice turn are informed by a relational ontology,
and most strands are challenging conventional dichotomies, e.g. subject/object, social/material, etc.
Ethnomethodology is indifferent to ontological questions (Garfinkel, 1967, 2002), but in practice ethno-
methodology explores the world as if it was informed by a relational ontology. That is, ethnomethodo-
logical inquiries provide an ontologically ‘flat’ description of the organizational characteristics of the
phenomenon in question, but are indifferent to the question of whether the phenomenon’s organiza-
tional characteristics reveal how it really is (Garfinkel, 1967, p. 33; Sharrock & Anderson, 1991, p. 54).
12
Recent developments within EM/CA specifically are characterized by a strong emphasis on the embod-
ied and material aspects of organization (see Deppermann, 2013 for an overview), and the multimodal
turn within EM/CA necessarily calls for new transcription conventions. Hence, to challenge the implic-
it distinction between the social and the material in the Jeffersonian conventions, I have transcribed
some material entities as participants in the first slot of the transcription instead of inserting meta-
comments in the second slot. The following example shows the ringing of a telephone (TEL) during
Svend’s turn (SVD):
5 SVD: å så kommer vi [ti'] and then we come to and then we have
6 TEL: [zzz]zzz
13
Analysis
The chapter comprises two sample analyses. The sample analyses deal with questions related to two of
the major strands. The first analysis deals with the question: How do the participants in collaborative
work activities accomplish the right time for moving on with a task? The second analysis deals with the
question: How do the participants in collaborative work activities accomplish the right time for answer-
ing incoming telephone calls?
Accomplishing the right time to proceed
Introduction
The revision of the special work description resembled ordinary editing work. One of the participants,
who holds a master’s degree from a Danish university, compared the revision of the special work de-
scription with the revision of a university project in the final weeks before submission. The participants
went through the document from paragraph to paragraph and decided whether to keep, revise, or delete
the work that had been done in advance. The decision to keep the current version was seldom the sub-
ject of explicit deliberation, but was decided by skipping past the paragraph in question. The decision
to revise or delete something demanded explicit deliberation among the participants. Most of the revi-
sions were conclusive, but some were marked as provisional with yellow highlighting. For example:
1 PIL: nu har jeg ska' jeg gøre gøre dette gult jeg har skrevet nu now have i shall i make make this yellow i have written now now i have should i highlight what i have written now with yellow
2 (0.6)
3 SVD: ja yes yes
4 (0.2)
5 PIL: det hele all of it all of it
6 (0.4)
7 SVD: °ja° yes yes
14
The participants were working under a deadline for the completion of the entire document, but did not
have a predefined deadline for the individual revisions. Deciding when to move on with a question was,
then, a practical problem for the participants. The participants had to ensure that moving on was justifi-
able. However, since it was possible for the participants to suspend the decision to a future session by
marking the revisions with yellow, the question of whether to move on was not necessarily whether the
suggested revisions were likely to work, but also whether a sufficient amount of time had been devoted to the prob-
lem.
Sample analysis
The analysis shows how the right time for moving on is accomplished. The two participants, Svend and
Pil, are defining the geotechnical conditions at the beginning of the construction phase of TP20. The
condition at the site depends on the progression of another project, TP21, since the work site for TP20
(“earth”) overlaps with the work site for TP21 (“bridges”). Hence, for the beginning of the construction
of TP20, the participants must explicate where TP21 is under construction, when the TP21 contractor
will have left the specified areas, and whether the TP20 contractor is able to work in the specified areas
in the intervening period. According to the original timeline for the project, the construction phase of
TP21 was scheduled to terminate late 2014, and the construction phase of TP20 was scheduled to
begin mid 2014. The construction of TP21 is behind schedule, however, and Svend and Pil are discuss-
ing how to deal with the problem.
The analysis consists of two extracts. Both extracts are proposal sequences concerning the
cut-off date for TP21. There are no significant differences between the suggested wordings, but in the
first extract, the proposal is designed to elicit further discussion, and in the second extract, the proposal
is designed resist further discussion. The proposal is included in the document and marked with yellow
in the subsequent interaction.
Extract 1
1 PIL: [mm de hvorfor er] mm they why are mm they why are
com: [((Svend leans back in his seat and raises his right hand to his mouth))
2 SVD: [fordi hva fanden] hva fanden gør vi (0.4) hvad gør vi (.) [øh because what the devil what the devil do we hvad do we ahm because what the hell what the hell do we do what do we do
scr: [#1
15
3 (s)ka vi ikk' bare her skrive .h at alle arbejder (0.7) ø:hm shall we not just here write that all works ahm can’t we just write here that any work
4 PIL: i de om[råder] in those areas in those areas
5 SVD: [hvor=] where where
6 SVD: [=øh ja uhm yes uhm yes
com: [((Svend gestures with his left hand))
7 PIL: er utilgængelige are inaccessable is inaccessable
8 SVD: [ja yes yes
com: [((Svend extends both both arms outwards))
9 (0.6)
10 SVD: indti' (0.4) første i tredje (0.3) [næste år until first in third next year until the first of march next year
com: [((Svend nods))
scr: [#2
11 (2.4)
12 PIL: £ka' vi så håbe på de: færdige der£ can we then hope on they’re done there can we then hope that they’re done then
13 (0.8)
14 SVD: ja: medmindre han driller yes unless he teases yes unless he’s teasing
Svend proposes the first part of the addition to the document in li. 3 (‘alle arbejder’/‘any work’), but
instead of delivering it directly, he prefigures it with the conjunction ‘fordi’/‘because’ and two interrog-
ative sentences with strong language (li. 2). Svend’s first ‘hva fanden’/‘what the hell’ overlaps with Pil’s
abandoned turn in li. 1, and the fact that he includes ‘what the hell’ in his restart underscores the signif-
icance of the exclamation. Moreover, during the delivery of li. 2, Svend leans back in his seat and raises
his hand to his mouth in a pose indicative of out-louds (Schegloff, 1988, p. 117, 2007b, p. 143). Accord-
ingly, the two interrogatives in the beginning of Svend’s turn only equivocally project an answer as the
relevant next, and the turn is not designed to elicit a definitive answer, but rather to display the difficul-
ty of the situation and invite collaborative problem-solving. Svend continues in li. 3 by producing a po-
lar interrogative with a negative particle (‘ska vi ikk’ bare’/‘can’t we just’) and the first part of the revi-
sion (‘alle arbejder’/‘any work’). The interrogative format projects a confirmation as the preferred next,
16
and the reversed polarity enhances the structural preference for a confirming answer. However, where-
as the question format projects a confirmation as the preferred next action, the modal particle
‘bare’/‘just’ (li. 3) and the epistemic marker ‘øhm’/‘uhm’ (li. 3) display that the suggested addition –
and hence the projected confirmation – are merely provisional. Svend pauses before finishing the pro-
posal, and Pil proceeds in li. 4 by providing a candidate continuation. The pause and the ‘uhm’ in li. 3
indicate that Svend is searching for the next words, and it is possible that he is inviting Pil to proceed.
The last part of Pil’s ‘områder’/‘areas’ in li. 4 overlaps with Svend’s ‘hvor’/‘where’ in li. 5, and instead
of restarting his own continuation, Svend accepts the one put forward by Pil by producing a minimal
response (‘ja’/‘yes’) and a waving gesture with his left hand. Pil proceeds in li. 6 by adding another con-
tinuation, and Svend accepts in li. 7 by producing a minimal response (‘ja’/‘yes’) and extending both
arms outwards. After a short pause, Svend proposes to set the cut-off date for March 1st 2015 (li. 10).
He closes his turn in li. 10 with downwards intonation and a slight nod with the head which projects
acceptance or rejection of not only the last addition but the entire sentence as the relevant next. How-
ever, instead of closing the sequence by confirming the solution, Pil suspends the decision by asking
whether the TP21 contractor is likely to be done at the date in question (li. 12), and the construction of
her question exhibits that further deliberation is warranted. For one, whereas the question format pro-
jects a confirmation as the preferred next action, Pil projects a dispreferred answer as the likely next ac-
tion by delivering the question with a smiling expression and by using the modal phrase ‘ka' vi så’/‘can
we then’ (li. 12). Moreover, she phrases the question as a matter of hoping that the contractor will be
done, not knowing or expecting that it will be so. No matter what the answer is, the wording of her
question presupposes that it is impossible to know for sure whether the timeline will hold. Svend con-
firms in li. 14 with a minimal response (‘ja’/‘yes’), but at the same time he aligns with the need for fur-
ther deliberation. In particular, Svend hedges his answer by stretching the ‘yes’ and by invoking the
TP21 contractor’s inclination to keep the date in question (‘medmindre han driller’/‘unless he is teasing’)
(li. 14).
Extract 2
1 PIL: .hh så står der >så hvis vi så skriver< a- a- tp enogtyve entreprenøren then stands there so if we then write a- a- the tp twenty-one contractor then is says so if we then write s- s- the tp twenty-one contractor
2 ska' ha adgang ti' de [ovenstående bygværker frem til første i must have access to the above-mentioned constructions until first in must have access to the above-mentioned constructions until the first of
com: [((Pil places her hands on the keyboard))
17
3 tredje totusind og femten third two-thousand and fifteen march two-thousand and fifteen
scr: #1
4 (2.1)
scr: [#2
com: [((Pil raises her eyebrows))
5 (0.7)
6 SVD: jamen [jamen ] det gør jo ikk' at han har adgang ti' dem (.) osse= yes but yes but that does PRT not that he has access to them also yes but yes but that doesn’t mean that he has access to them as well
7 PIL: [.hh hh]
scr: #3
8 SVD: =det er det that is that that’s the problem
9 PIL: >nej å det så skriver vi< (0.9) og ø- (0.5) tyve har ikke i den i no and it then write we and u- twenty has not in the in no and it then we’ll write and u- twenty doesn’t have
10 den mellemværende periode ingen [adgang (.) adgang i området ] the intervening period no access access in the area access access to the area in the intervening period
11 SVD: [ikke ingen adgang til arbejds] not no access to the work not no access to the work
12 området fra station det til station [det area from station that to station that area from that station to that station
scr: [#4
com: [((Svend slams his left hand into the table as he finishes the turn))
13 PIL: ja yes yes
14 SVD: det [det der skal stå that’s what there has to stand that’s what it has to say
com: [((Svend nods))
The second extract occurs after considerable deliberation of the problem. Pil opens the sequence by
proposing yet another version of the addition to the document. She constructs the proposal as the out-
come of the preceding interaction by prefiguring it with the conjunction ‘så’/‘so’. Indeed, she phrases it
initially as if the revision has already been made (‘så står der’/‘then it says’), but then she self-corrects by
inserting the conjunction ‘så’/‘so’ and the conditional phrase ‘hvis vi så skriver’/‘if we then write’ (li. 1).
During the delivery of the turn, she adopts a waiting pose by placing her hands on the keyboard and
shifting her gaze to Svend, and she keeps the pose for the rest of the turn (#1). By exhibiting that she is
poised to make the addition, she projects the acceptance of the proposal as the expected next turn.
18
However, despite the fact that she has indicated that she is waiting for Svend’s acceptance, Pil gets no
immediate uptake. The lack of uptake from Svend projects a dispreferred next turn (Heritage, 1984,
pp. 273–277) which in turn projects additional deliberation of the timeline. However, instead of antici-
pating the projected objection, Pil stresses the lack of response by raising her eyebrows assertively (#2),
and by skipping the sequential slot for adjusting the initial proposal (Heritage, 1984, p. 274), she exhib-
its that the projected obligation is unwarranted, and that further deliberation of the timeline is unneces-
sary. Svend responds with a disaligning turn in li. 6 by objecting that the suggested wording only speci-
fies the conditions for the TP21 contractor, not the TP20 contractor. He prefigures the objection with a
simple ‘yes but’ construction (Steensig & Asmuß, 2005) and adds the modal particle ‘jo’/‘well’ (li. 6) and
the clause ‘det er det’/‘that is that’ (li. 8) which constructs the problem as shared knowledge, that is, as
something that has been covered in the preceding discussion. During the delivery of Svend’s objection,
Pil keeps her hands on the keyboard (#3), and thereby she exhibits that she is unwilling to accept the
objection just yet. She responds verbally in li. 9-10 with a specification of the conditions for the TP20
contractor. She prefigures the specification with the exclamation ‘nej’ /‘no’ and the clause ‘å det så
skriver vi’/‘and then we write’ (li. 9) with a somewhat rushed delivery. The use of ‘no’ projects an align-
ing turn, but Pil is not aligning with Svend’s objection, but rather with his display of shared knowledge.
That is, she constructs the subsequent specification of the conditions for the TP20 contractor as some-
thing that follows from the preceding discussion and hence as something that was already resolved. After
a short second pause, she proposes the actual wording of the projected specification (li. 9-10), and dur-
ing the production of the proposal, Svend jumps in with a partially overlapping candidate formulation
(li. 11-12). He exhibits strong modality by stressing the last word prosodically and gesturally (li. 12)
which aligns with the preceding construction of the question as resolved. Pil accepts the formulation
with a minimal response (‘ja’ /‘yes’) in li. 13, and Svend provides the final confirmation by adding the
clause ‘det er det der skal stå’/‘that’s what it has to say’ in li. 14 and a nod with the head.
Summary
The analysis shows how the participants use discursive, embodied, and material resources to accom-
plish the right time to move forward with the task. Specifically, the proposal in Extract 1 is designed to
elicit further discussion of the cut-off date, and the proposal in Extract 2 is designed to resist further dis-
cussion of the cut-off date. The question of moving forward is, therefore, not discussed explicitly, but
rather displayed.
19
Accomplishing the right time to answer a telephone call
Introduction
The deadline for the special work description was pending, and the participants typically set aside the
entire day to work on the revisions. Therefore, interconnectivity became a social problem. Answering
incoming calls was likely to disrupt the flow of work and was potentially morally sanctionable. Howev-
er, not answering incoming telephone calls was potentially morally sanctionable as well since the use of
ICTs allowed the participants to follow developments at home and at work in principle.
Sample analysis
The following extract was recorded in the first week of the editing stage. Svend is working on the doc-
ument in the physical workspace in front of him, and Pil and Jonas are monitoring his revisions (#1)
when Pil’s husband, Sebastian, calls (#2). The analysis spans the interaction before, during, and after
the telephone call. However, since the call is rather long, I have decided to focus on the beginning
(Extract 3) and the conclusion (Extract 4) of the call. The telephone conversation is shaded in the tran-
script.
Extract 3
1 SVD: å det ska' derover and that must there and that goes there
2 JNS: ja yes yes
3 (1.6)
scr: #1
4 TEL: zzz[zzz
scr: [#2
5 SVD: å så kommer vi [ti'] and then we come to and then we have
6 TEL: [zzz]zzz
scr: [#3
7 (1.4)
8 TEL: zzzzzz
9 (1.1)
10 PIL: ja yes yes
11 (2.1)
20
scr: #4
12 PIL: >er du der< are you there are you there
13 (0.8)
14 SEB: ja
15 (0.4)
16 PIL: >°hva' så°< what then what’s up
During the pause in li. 3, one of Pil’s telephones rings. She responds to the call by leaning to the side
and picking up the telephone. As she picks up the telephone, she appears to check who is calling by
slowing down the reaching motion and directing her gaze at the display (#3). After she has performed
the check, she swipes the display and answers the call with a “ja”/“yes” in li. 6. By skipping the first slot
for introducing herself, Pil also skips the first slot for inducing an introduction from the caller. Thereby,
she exhibits not just for the person who is calling but also for anybody who is co-present to the call that she
knows the person who is calling, and that they have the kind of relationship where it is unnecessary to
introduce oneself. This sequential structure is common for closer relationships, but not for distant rela-
tionships, and for her co-participants she has therefore gone on record as having answered what is most
likely a personal call. After she has produced the “ja”, Pil withdraws physically from the shared work-
space by gazing down and leaning to the side (#4), and she preserves a slanted, downward gazing pose
during the entire conversation.
By displaying some level of intimacy and by withdrawing from the shared workspace, Pil
suspends her membership of the category ‘participant to a meeting’ for a hitherto unspecified category.
One can imagine how the membership of a range of membership categories affords the responsibility of
answering a telephone call during work (e.g. ‘emergency contact person’), but Pil’s subsequent turns
display that the invoked category only provisionally affords her withdrawal from the shared work activity.
After the opening sequence, she proceeds in li. 10 by asking in a somewhat rushed fashion why the per-
son is calling (“hva’ så/“what’s up”). The slot after the opening sequence is typically deployed for pre-
liminary sequences like asking how things are (Hopper, 1989), and by pushing the conversation forward
at the first possible sequential position, Pil exhibits for the caller that the call is ill-timed, and that she is
pressed for time. In addition, she exhibits for her co-participants that she is aware of the disturbance,
and that she moving towards a swift conclusion of the call.
21
The caller responds to Pil’s opening question by asking whether she has seen his email. I
cannot tell from the recording whether Pil reads the email, or the caller tells why he is calling, but she is
notified somehow, and the matter is resolved. However, instead of moving towards the conclusion of
the conversation by introducing closing markers (Sacks & Schegloff, 1974), Pil proceeds with what is
recognizably casual conversation. Specifically, the delivery of her responses changes from the com-
pressed, somewhat rushed delivery in li. 10 to a smiling, almost playful delivery, and she keeps the cas-
ual tone for the rest of the conversation. Pil’s co-participants keep working during the call, and after
some deliberation they decide to delete two sentences. Jonas deletes the sentences from the shared doc-
ument on the monitor, but has to do so from an awkward position since Pil is sitting by the computer,
and he explicitly (but perhaps jokingly) remarks that it is difficult.
Extract 4
1 PIL: nå men ve' du hva så der ingen hastværk fordi at ø:h han bliver well but know you what then there no rush because that uhm he stays well guess what then there’s no rush because he will stay
2 hjemme hele dagen manden så home all day the husband so home all day the husband so
3 (0.7)
scr: #1
4 (0.7)
5 PIL: det super that super that’s super
6 (0.3)
7 PIL: fh je' sku' bare lige [huske] å printe nogen ting for ham i had simply just remember and print some things for him i just had to remember to print some things for him
8 SVD: [å her] and here and here
9 (0.3)
10 JNS: °mhm° mhm mhm
11 (1.6)
12 SVD: de:t vel hunden der ikk' ka' undvære ham it’s PRT the dog there not can do without him i suppose the dog can’t do without him
13 (0.4)
14 PIL: nej men de:t fordi vi har håndværkere derhjemme det jo derfor no but it’s because we have workmen at home it PRT therefore no but it’s because we are having work done at home that’s why
15 (0.8)
22
scr: #2
16 (1.0)
scr: #3
17 (0.7)
18 PIL: så meningen var at vi sku' ha delt så'n så han havde taget so the meaning was that we should have shared such that he had taken so we were supposed to share in that he was going to take
19 formiddagen og je' havde taget eftermiddagen the morning and i had taken the afternoon the morning and i was going to take the afternoon
20 SVD: okay h okay okay
scr: #4
21 PIL: men han har fået byttet rundt på nogen møder så nu ka' je' bliv but he has had exchanged around on some meetings so now i can stay but he has rearranged some meetings so now i can stay
22 herude ↓hele dagen↓ out here all day out here all day
23 (0.4)
24 PIL: nu har je' så bare ikk' nogen madpakke me' [men ø:h now have i so just not any lunch with but uhm then must we PRT now it just so happens that i haven’t brought any lunch but
scr: [#5
25 (0.7)
26 så må vi jo lige løbe på [tanken then must we PRT just run on the service station then we’ll just have to drop by the service station
scr: [#6
27 (2.3)
28 PIL: det overlever vi nok that survive we probably i’m sure we’ll manage
After she has finished the call, Pil returns to the shared workspace by putting the telephone aside and
adjusting her pose (#1). As she repositions herself, Pil tells her co-participants that there is no rush, and
that her husband will stay home the entire day (li. 1-2). She constructs the turn as reporting ‘good news’
by prefiguring it with the interrogative clause “nå men ve’ du hva”/“well guess what” in li. 1. By invok-
ing the relationally organized category ‘husband’, Pil ascribes to the category ‘wife’ which retrospective-
ly casts the telephone call as personal. In addition, however, she justifies the personal nature of the call
by redefining the temporal demands on the day’s work (“der ingen hastværk”/“there’s no rush”) and by
rendering the personal category ‘wife’ and the professional category ‘participant to a meeting’ co-
dependent. Specifically, she constructs her ability to stay at work (and thus meet the responsibilities of
23
the ‘participant’ category) as dependent on her husband’s ability to stay at home (and thus revoke the
responsibilities of the ‘wife’ category).
Despite her work to make the call relevant for the shared activity, Pil’s co-participants do
not respond verbally, and after a substantial pause (li. 3-4), she adds the positive evaluation “det su-
per”/“that’s super” (li. 5). After yet another pause with no verbal uptake, Pil extends her turn by adding
in li. 7 that she has to remember to print something for her husband in exchange for his staying at
home. Svend begins a new, overlapping turn (“å her”/“and here”) in li. 8, but abandons it after the first
few words. Svend’s abandoned turn is not produced at a transition relevance place, and the awkward
timing of his turn exhibits disinterest in Pil’s topicalization of the telephone call. Jonas responds to Pil’s
extended turn with an “mhm” in li. 10, but he appears to be aligning with Svend’s display of disinterest.
The sharing of what is described as “super” news calls for strong positive evaluation, and Jonas’ use of a
delayed minimal response is strikingly underwhelmed.
After another pause, Svend responds in li. 12 by suggesting that the dog cannot do with-
out the husband. Thereby, Svend ascribes Pil and her husband to the membership category ‘dog own-
er’ and the predicate ‘having to look after the dog’. In addition, he appears to question the significance
of the ‘having to look after the dog’ predicate by invoking the dog’s emotions. That is, by anthropomor-
phizing the relationship between the husband and the dog, he appears to construct the predicate as hav-
ing to do with the husband’s emotions, not the dog’s needs. The most likely hearing of Svend’s remark is,
therefore, that he is making a joke concerning the husband’s relationship with the dog, and by making a
joke concerning the justification for Pil’s leaving at noon, he indirectly questions whatever justification
she does have for having to leave and, by extension, the work she has done to legitimize the telephone
call.
Pil responds to Svend’s remark by explaining that they are having work done at home (li.
14). She delivers the explanation as shared knowledge by prefiguring it with the complex preface “nej
men”/“no but” and by adding the modal particle “jo” in the extended turn. In addition, she casts her-
self and her husband in the membership category ‘home owner’. Thereby, she resists the interactional
relevance of the ‘dog owner’ category, and she reframes the ‘having to stay at home’ predicate from an
internally imposed emotional obligation to an externally imposed practical obligation. By redefining the
obligation, she refutes the categorial basis for Svend’s potential delegitimization of her having to leave
and her answering the call. After she has completed her turn, Pil pauses to have a sip of water (li. 15-
16), and during the pause she carefully monitors Svend’s response (#2). However, instead of responding
24
verbally, Svend looks to the side (#3), and after a short pause in li. 17, Pil extends her turn by providing
additional details on her and her husband’s planning (li. 18-19). Svend responds with an “okay” and a
hearable exhalation in li. 20, but instead of shifting his gaze back to Pil, he looks down at his hands and
begins to fidget with something (#4). Hence, by providing a delayed response and by adopting a dis-
tracted pose, Svend exhibits disinterest in Pil’s personal obligations, and thereby he questions once more
the topical relevance of the telephone call. Pil extends the topicalization of the telephone call with sev-
eral turns in li. 21-28, but she gets no additional uptake despite a downward shift in pitch toward the
end of the turn in li. 21-22 (which projects the completion of the current turn) and noticable pauses in
li. 23, 25 and 27. Svend glances at Pil during her turn in li. 24 (#5), but quickly looks back at the docu-
ments in front of him (#6).
Summary
The analysis shows how the participants manage the answering of a telephone call during collaborative
activities practically and morally. Firstly, Pil withdraws from and returns to the shared activity though
embodied displays. The duration of the call is, then, not merely given by the occurrence and comple-
tion of the actual telephone call, but interactionally accomplished. Secondly, the participants use discur-
sive, embodied, and material resources to negotiate the morality of answering the call. The morality of
answering the call is not accomplished definitely, but continually. That is, Pil’s display of entitlement
shifts from possible entitlement at the beginning of the call to definite entitlement during the call, and
her display of entitlement is challenged by Svend and Jonas.
25
Some concluding remarks
Moving forward
The analysis of Extracts 1 and 2 shows how the right time for moving forward with a work task is ac-
complished. Specifically, the analysis shows how discursive, embodied, and material resources are uti-
lized to elicit or resist further discussion of the solution at hand. However, until now I have primarily
worked with interaction with two participants, and moving forward I will look at interaction with sever-
al participants. Specifically, I investigate whether the interactional resources for accomplishing the right
time to move forward differ when several participants are involved. Moreover, I will investigate wheth-
er the participants are likely to proceed at different speeds (i.e. if the conversation has split into multiple
conversations (Egbert, 1997), and one of the conversations has lead to the decision to move on), and
how the participants deal with such problems.
The analysis of Extracts 3 and 4 shows how the legitimacy of answering a telephone call
during collaborative work activities is accomplished. Specifically, the analysis shows that the recipient of
the call draws on embodied resources to withdraw from and return to the shared activity, and that the
participants use discursive, embodied, and material resources to legitimize (and deligitimize) the an-
swering of call. The legitimacy of answering the call is, moreover, accomplished continually, not definite-
ly. The telephone conversation is, then, not suspended in a “communicative elsewhere” (Virilio, 1997),
but unfolding in a co-present here and now. However, until now I have worked primarily with the be-
ginning and the conclusion of the telephone call, and moving forward I will investigate how the morali-
ty of answering a telephone call is accomplished during the conversation. Building on some of the find-
ings in the analysis of Extract 3 and Extract 4, I am especially concerned with the use of discursive, em-
bodied, and material resources to project the normatively expected duration of the telephone conversa-
tion.
Finally, I will develop the last empirical strand. That is, as described in the introduction, I
will explore how the participants accomplish the right time to complete the current day’s work and
begin the next day’s work.
26
Implications
I am only one year into the project, and I have spent the majority of the first year working on the anal-
yses. However, to complete the presentation of the project, I will sketch the implications of the project’s
preliminary findings. Empirically, the project’s preliminary findings have implications for the under-
standing of the moral aspects of work time. The project shows that the morality of work time is a practi-
cal problem for organizational members. That is, the moral aspects of increased flexibility, independence,
and interconnectivity are not overarching conditions for interaction, but something that must be resolved
in interaction. Moreover, the project’s preliminary findings have implications for the understanding of the
organization of work time. Existing studies of work time (and social time on a larger scale) tends to em-
phasize the overarching technological infrastructure and reproduce conventional dichotomies between
subject/object, social/material, etc. Such dichotomies cannot be upheld, however, when the organiza-
tion of social time is described in naturally occurring interaction.
Methodologically, the project’s preliminary findings have implications for the investigation
of organizational time. As a number of social theorists have stressed, time is not simply the abstract
numbers of the mechanical clock, but a multidimensional phenomenon embedded in sociomaterial
practice (e.g. Adam, 2004; Gosden, 1994; Schatzki, 2010). Therefore, organizational scholars are call-
ing for a perspective on time that can capture the intersecting temporalities of organizational life, e.g.
Sabelis’ (2008) call for an increased temporal sensivitity and Hernes et al.’s (2013) call for an extended
temporal vocabulary. The analyses show how a “real time” perspective can contribute to the explora-
tion of organizational time. That is, instead of simply moving from monotemporal to polytemporal de-
scriptions where predefined temporal categories are placed within a predefined temporal scheme, a real
time perspective shows just how time is accomplished just now from the materials at hand.
27
References
Adam, B. (2004). Time. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Boltanski, L., & Chiapello, È. (2005). The New Spirit of Capitalism. London: Verso.
Carlin, A. P. (2010). Reading “A tutorial on membership categorization” by Emanuel Schegloff. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(1), 257–261. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.06.007
Castells, M. (2009). The Rise of the Network Society, With a New Preface: The Information Age. Hoboken: Wiley.
Deppermann, A. (2013). Multimodal interaction from a conversation analytic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 1–7. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.014
Egbert, M. M. (1997). Schisming: The collaborative transformation from a single conversation to multiple conversations. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 30(1), 1–51. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3001_1
Feldman, M. S., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2008). Theorizing Practice and Practicing Theory, (January 2016), 1–40. http://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0136
Fitzgerald, R. (2012). Membership categorization analysis: Wild and promiscuous or simply the joy of Sacks? Discourse Studies, 14(3), 305–311. http://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612440776
Gardner, R. (2012). Enriching CA through MCA? Stokoe’s MCA keys. Discourse Studies, 14(3), 313–319. http://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612440772
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s Program: Working Out Durkheim's Aphorism. (A. W. Rawls, Ed.). Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Gosden, C. (1994). Social being and time. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Hardt, M. (1999). Affective labor. Boundary 2, 26(2), 89. http://doi.org/10.2307/303793
Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2000). Empire. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Hassard, J. (2002). Essai: Organizational Time: Modern, Symbolic and Postmodern Reflections. Organization Studies, 23(6), 885–892.
Have, P. ten. (2004). Understanding Qualitative Research and Ethnomethodology. London: Sage Publications.
Hepburn, A., & Bolden, G. B. (2013). The Conversation Analytic Approach to Transcription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 57–76). Chichester: Blackwell Publishing.
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hernes, T., Simpson, B., & Söderlund, J. (2013). Managing and temporality. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 29(1), 1–6. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2012.11.008
Hopper, R. (1989). Sequential ambiguity in telephone openings: “What are you doin.” Communication Monographs, 56(3), 240–252. http://doi.org/10.1080/03637758909390262
Jayyusi, L. (1984). Categorization and the Moral Order. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Lash, S., & Urry, J. (2013). Economies of Signs and Space (Online). London: Sage Publications. http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446280539
Lazzarato, M. (1996). Immaterial Labor. In P. Virno & M. Hardt (Eds.), Radical Thought in Italy: A
28
Potential Politics (pp. 133–150). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Llewellyn, N. (2008). Organization in Actual Episodes of Work: Harvey Sacks and Organization Studies. Organization Studies, 29(5), 763–791. http://doi.org/10.1177/0170840608088766
Llewellyn, N., & Hindmarsh, J. (2010). Work and organisation in real time: an introduction. In Organisation, Interaction, and Practice: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (pp. 3–23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marazzi, C. (2008). Capital and Language: From the New Economy to the War Economy. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e).
Nicolini, D. (2012). Practice Theory, Work, and Organization: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nowotny, H. (1994). Time: The Modern and Postmodern Experience. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Perrucci, R., & MacDermid, S. (2007). Time and Control in a 24/7 Environment: Clock Time, Work Time, Family Time. In B. A. Rubin (Ed.), Workplace Temporalities (pp. 343–368). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.
Rämö, H. (2002). Doing things right and doing the right things: Time and timing in projects. International Journal of Project Management, 20(7), 569–574. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00015-7
Rapley, T. (2012). Order, order: A “modest” response to Stokoe. Discourse Studies, 14(3), 321–328. http://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612440775
Rawls, A. W. (2002). Editor’s Introduction. In Ethnomethodology’s Program: Working Out Durkheim's Aphorism (pp. 1–74). Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Sabelis, I. (2008). Time sensitivity: a delicate and crucial starting point of reflexive methods for studying time in management and organization. In R. A. Roe, M. J. Waller, & S. R. Clegg (Eds.), Time in Organizational Research (pp. 167–185). London: Routledge.
Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures on Conversation. Volumes I & II. (G. Jefferson, Ed.). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. (1974). Opening up closings. In Ethnomethodology: Selected Readings (pp. 233–264). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Schatzki, T. R. (2001). Introduction: practice theory. In T. R. Schatzki, K. K. Cetina, & E. von Savigny (Eds.), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory (pp. 10–23). London: Routledge.
Schatzki, T. R. (2010). The Timespace of Human Activity: On Performance, Society, and History as Indeterminate Teleological Events. Plymouth: Lexington Books.
Schegloff, E. A. (1988). Goffman and the Analysis of Conversation. In P. Drew & A. Wootton (Eds.), Erving Goffman: Exporing the Interaction Order (pp. 89–135). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007a). A tutorial on membership categorization. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(3), 462–482. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.007
Schegloff, E. A. (2007b). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer In Conversation Analysis I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sharrock, W., & Anderson, B. (1991). Epistemology: professional scepticism. In G. Button (Ed.), Ethnomethodology and the Human Sciences (pp. 51–76). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Silverman, D. (2012). Beyond armed camps: A response to Stokoe. Discourse Studies, 14(3), 329–336. http://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612440769
Silverman, D. (2013). Doing Qualitative Research (4th ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Smith, J. E. (1969). Time, Times, and the “Right Time”; Chronos and Kairos. Retrieved from http://philpapers.org/rec/SMITTA-4
29
Smithson, J., & Stokoe, E. H. (2005). Discourses of work-life balance: Negotiating “genderblind” terms in organizations. Gender, Work and Organization, 12(2), 147–168. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2005.00267.x
Steensig, J. (2012). Overvejelse om særlige problemer ved transskription af dansk talesprog.
Steensig, J., & Asmuß, B. (2005). Notes on disaligning “yes but” initiated utterances in German and Danish conversations. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the Use of Linguistic Resources in Talk-in-Interaction (pp. 349–373). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Stokoe, E. (2012a). Categorial systematics. Discourse Studies, 14(3), 345–354. http://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612441543
Stokoe, E. (2012b). Moving forward with membership categorization analysis: Methods for systematic analysis. Discourse Studies, 14(3), 277–303. http://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612441534
Urry, J. (2000). Sociology beyond Societies: Mobilities for the twenty-first century. London: Routledge.
Virilio, P. (1997). Open Sky. London: Verso.
Watson, R. (1997). Some General Reflections on “Categorization” and “Sequence” in the Analysis of Conversation. In S. Hester & P. Eglin (Eds.), Culture in Action: Studies in Membership Categorization Analysis (pp. 49–75). Washington, D.C.: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis & University Press of America.
Watson, R. (2015). De-Reifying Categories. In R. Fitzgerald & W. Housley (Eds.), Advances in Membership Categorisation Analysis (pp. 23–49). London: Sage Publications.
Whitehead, K. A. (2012). Moving forward by doing analysis. Discourse Studies, 14(3), 337–343. http://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612440779
30
Appendix 1: Transcript conventions
Symbol Description
[ ] Overlapping talk.
= Latched talk.
( ) Uncertain hearings.
(( )) Descriptions of physical conduct.
> < Compressed or rushed talk.
° ° Soft or quiet talk.
£ £ Smiling voice.
Underlining Stressed words or syllables.
: Prolonged or stretched sound.
h Hearable out-breath.
.h Hearable in-breath.
PRT Untranslatable modal particle.
I have only included symbols that are actually used in the present document. See Hepburn and Bolden (2013) for an exhaustive overview of the transcription symbols.
31
Appendix 2: Screen grabs
Extract 1
#1: Svend leans back in his seat and raises his hand to his mouth.
#2: Svend nods as he finishes the last part of the proposal.
Extract 2
#1: As she has placed her hands on the keyboard, Pil looks at Svend.
#2: After a pause with no uptake from Svend, Pil raises her eyebrows.
#3: Pil keeps her hands on the keyboard during the delivery of Svend’s objection.
#4: Svend slams his left hand into the table as he finishes the turn.
32
Extract 3
#1: Svend is working on the document in the physical workspace in front of him, and Pil and Jonas are monitoring his revisions.
#2: One of Pil’s telephones rings, and she shifts her gaze from the physical workspace in front of her to her right-hand side.
#3: Pil picks up the telephone on her right-hand side and appears to check the display before she answers it.
#4: As she answers the telephone, Pil withdraws physically from the shared workspace by gazing down and leaning to the side.
Extract 4
#1: After she has completed the telephone call, Pil returns to the shared workspace by adjusting her pose.
#2: Pil pauses to take a sip of water, and she care-fully monitors Svend’s response during the pause.
33
#3: Instead of responding verbally to Pil’s expla-nation regarding her obligations at home, Svend looks to the side.
#4: Instead of shifting his gaze back to Pil, Svend looks down at his hands and begins to fidget with something.
#5: Svend glances at Pil during her extended turn in li. 24-25.
#6: After having glanced at Pil, Svend looks back at the documents in front of him.
34
Appendix 3: Hard time
Courses
Completed PhD courses
Name School Time ECTS
Introducing the Philosophy of Science: A Multi-Perspective Approach
Business and Social Sciences (AU)
26.01.15- 29.01.15 5
5/20 completed
Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method: Organizations and Professional Settings
Discourse and Contemporary Culture (AAU)
18.08.14- 22.08.14 5
Talk, text, and organizational practices
Language and Communication (SDU) 04.03.15 1
Towards ‘Material Pragmatism’? Design, Em-bodiment, and Affordances
Centre for Mobilities and Urban Studies (AAU)
02.06.15-04.06.15 3
Reflexive Methodology
Interdisciplinary Discourse Studies (AAU) 18.08.15 1
10/10 completed
Planned PhD courses
Name School Time ECTS
Research Design Business and Social Sciences (AU) Fall 2016 5
Advanced Qualitative Methods Business and Social Sciences (AU) Spring 2017 5
Teaching
Completed teaching
Description Semester Hours
Evaluation, Analyse af virksomhedskommunikation Fall 2014 34
Evaluation, Videnskabsteori og metode Spring 2015 14
Evaluation, Strategi og ledelse Spring 2015 8
Evaluation, Analyse af virksomhedskommunikation Fall 2015 70
126 600 - 126 = 474
35
Scheduled teaching
Description Semester Hours
Teaching, Communication in a management perspective Spring 2016 64,5
Supervision, Communication in a management perspective Spring 2016 15
Evaluation, Communication in a management perspective Spring 2016 45
Supervision, BA-projects Spring 2016 142,5
Evaluation, BA-projects Spring 2016 45
312 474 - 312 = 162
I will complete the remaining 162 hours in the first half of 2017. I plan on teaching Communication in a
management perspective (approx. 124,5 hours) and supervising BA-projects (approx. 37,5 hours). If it is not
possible for me to teach Communication in a management perspective, I plan on evaluating Analyse af virksomhed-
skommunikation (approx. 70 hours) and supervising BA-projects (approx. 92 hours).
Conferences
Completed conferences
Paper Conference Time Place
On time: The interactional accomplishment of a project
schedule
The International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis Conference 2015:
Living the Material World (IIEMCA)
04.08.15-07.08.15
Kolding, Denmark
(SDU)
Interconnectivity at work
1st Interdisciplinary Conference on Discourse and Communication in Professional Contexts: From
Academic and Practical Perspectives (ICDC)
19.08.15- 21.08.15
Aalborg, Denmark
(AAU)
Planned conferences
Paper Conference Time Place
‘I’m picking up the kids.’ The morality of work time
organization
The 4th Nordic Interdisciplinary Conference on Discourse and Interaction (NORDISCO)
23.11.16- 25.11.16
Oslo, Norway
(OU)
