Social Interaction

1. Introduction

With ethnomethodological conversation analysis (EMCA) as my framework, in this article I study data from civilian crisis management training and examine members' practices for progressing teamwork and displaying orientation to the tasks at hand. The practice that I have identified and will discuss is smartphone showings. My analysis demonstrates the complexity and fluidity of smartphone showings in the multiparty co-present setting of civilian crisis management training, also illustrating the collaborative nature of the practice. I aim to show that the participants' smartphone use is a participatory practice, as they carry it out to search for task-related information, and they make public their smartphone use through a shared showing. I analyze the beginning, middle, and end stages of the practice. The first stage examines the verbalizations produced by the participants to display orientation to the accountability of their private smartphone use that occurs prior to the showing. I employ the term "verbalization", grounded in what the analysis shows, to refer to the participants speaking aloud something of their doing that may otherwise be unnoticed or unseen by co-participants. The middle stage considers the smartphone showing itself, and the third stage studies participants' evaluations regarding the relevance or implications of the gained information (through the showings).

Civilian crisis management training prepares experts from various fields before they deploy to conflict areas to help establish peace, stability, and sustainable development after crises (Ministry of the Interior, n.d.-b). Crucial aspects of the experts' work include effective communication, active participation, and successful teamwork. In the training course, participants are instructed to limit their off-topic smartphone use. This establishes an intriguing nuance for the participants' interaction, since co-participants cannot tell what is being done on a smartphone privately. In other words, the participants have "asymmetric access to each other's activities" (Heath & Luff, 2000, p. 86). Participants must manage, in recognizable ways, between interaction with their co-participants and their own smartphone. Balaman and Pekarek-Doehler (2021) note that while the use of technology may be crucial for the accomplishment of the team task, the private activity may cause interactional trouble due to the suspension of talk.

2. Background

In this section, I first discuss my analytical and theoretical framework for this study, EMCA. Then, I provide an overview of previous relevant studies, focusing on smartphone-based interaction in multiparty settings and smartphone showings.

2.1 Analytical and theoretical framework

EMCA informs and guides this study. I investigate, through fine-grained analysis, the practically accomplished and situated methods used by participants of civilian crisis management training to participate in and progress their work. I am interested in making visible the details of the participants' moment-by-moment interaction and how they orient to each other and their shared tasks. This article focuses on one observable practice used by the participants in which they use smartphones to search for information and show their device to their team members.

2.2 Smartphone use and showings in multiparty interaction: Earlier research

In face-to-face multiparty settings, smartphone users must simultaneously manage multiple involvements (see DiDomenico & Boase, 2013; Oloff, 2019 for related studies). Greer (2016) notes how the effect of smartphones on the quality of interaction depends on how and when they are used. The role of the participant during the interaction also affects how and when they orient to their device (DiDomenico et al., 2018). The inclusion of smartphone use during face-to-face interaction requires participants to utilize multimodal resources, such as body position and gaze, to manage their device use and their engagement in the ongoing interaction (DiDomenico et al., 2018). When taking up their private activity, the smartphone user's attention shifts from their co-participants to their smartphone. Avgustis and Oloff (2023) state that the private smartphone search leads to a "visual disengagement" with co-participants (p. 327).

Other studies show how participants balance co-present conversation and sending and receiving text messages as separate involvements (DiDomenico & Boase, 2013). Other data demonstrate the convergent use (see Mondada, 2012 for convergent and divergent action) of smartphones, wherein participants share their device content with their co-participants to invite assessments (Raclaw et al., 2016). Bradford (2020) identifies ways in which participants signal to others that they will employ their smartphones. These ways include proposing to share media content, offering to confirm information, and asking for permission (ibid, p. 139). Collaborative smartphone searches feature participants jointly searching for information referenced in talk (Brown et al., 2015). Brown et al. (2013) study smartphone use as a standard element of social interaction, investigating smartphone map use and internet searches during face-to-face interaction. They analyze how participants focus their attention on the smartphone while continuing their involvement in the conversation (ibid). In my data, the participants' task-oriented interaction is not dependent on one participant's actions at a time. When one participant takes up their private smartphone use, this activity does not hinder the ongoing interaction. The use of the smartphone is part of the same activity as the ongoing talk; for example, a participant can search for information to benefit the face-to-face discussion (e.g. Mantere, 2022).

This article will illustrate the impact of the smartphone's affordances on the participants' smartphone use. The size of a smartphone creates certain demands for interaction with the device. In a smartphone showing, the user must present the smartphone so that the viewer can inspect the display from an adequate proximity and angle (Avgustis & Oloff, 2023). Thus, the smartphone showing requires recipient design and awareness of co-participants' physical arrangement. The smartphone user can utilize the affordances of the device and their co-participants' physicality during a showing, as the smartphone enables its user to effectively provide recipients with visual access to the showable, for example through a sweeping motion or during a joint inspection in close proximity (ibid).

Showings are characterized by Licoppe (2017) in that the showing participant manually brings the showable into a position that surpasses the recipients' prior limitations of visual access, and that the recipient(s) shifts focus to the showable. In my analysis, I find that the practice of the participants in my data fit this characterization. The showable features as the focus of the interaction, with the showing participant's talk prefacing, describing, or complementing the showing (ibid). Raclaw et al. (2016) have found that participants coordinate multiple actions to project a public showing, for example, naming whatever it is that they will show on their smartphone and reaching for their smartphone. In other cases, the showing participant may produce deictic structures, instructions to look, or other prefaces that build a joint orientation toward the showable (Licoppe, 2017; Avgustis & Oloff, 2023).

Recipients of the showing can orient to the showing and treat the showable as relevant through gaze, gestures, body posture, and talk (Licoppe, 2017; Avgustis & Oloff, 2023), also being able to shift the trajectory of the showing from one recipient to multiple. The showing participant must also adjust their conduct accordingly to meet the needs of the recipient(s) (Avgustis & Oloff, 2023). The recipients' conduct following their inspection displays their understanding of the showable. Licoppe (2017) describes that a jointly achieved showing features responses from the recipients. Smartphone showings are collaborative and embodied productions that demand work from both the showing participant and co-participants (Avgustis & Oloff, 2023). The retraction and completion of a showing commonly occurs following audible responses from recipients (Avgustis & Oloff, 2023).

3. Data and Method

This section includes a brief description of the context of my data, civilian crisis management and the specific course from which my data is collected. I will provide a description of my data and the collection process. Lastly, I further elaborate upon my methodology, building on the earlier analytical and theoretical framework overview.

3.1 Civilian crisis management

The article studies data from civilian crisis management training (Puputti et al., 2024). Civilian crisis management experts work in conflict- and crisis-affected areas to build stability and peace (Ministry of the Interior Finland, n.d.-a). The experts come from different fields of expertise, including police, judicial administration, and human rights issues. In their deployment, they carry out various responsibilities, such as advising authorities and monitoring peace agreements (Ministry of the Interior Finland, n.d.-a). All experts undergo basic training before their deployment, and those leaving to work in high-risk areas must complete an intensive safety course, Hostile Environment Awareness Training (HEAT). The HEAT course prepares experts to effectively manage high-risk and emergency situations in hostile areas (CMC Finland, 2023). The course trains the experts on various security issues, such as safety procedures in vehicles, risk assessment and mission security planning, emergency medical care, and navigation and communication.

Strong and effective teamwork is a fundamental part of civilian crisis management. The HEAT course "is expected to improve participants' understanding of the minimum behavioural field requirements when working as a team member [emphasis added] of an international field operation" (CMC Finland, 2023). Civilian crisis management needs personnel who support each other and learn and work together (Penttinen, 2010). HEAT instructors urge participants to work as a team, support each other's learning, and pay attention to team cohesion. The first full day of the course features classroom lectures and the teams working on various tasks, and this article provides insight into the teamwork of civilian crisis management experts undergoing training in the HEAT course.

3.2 Data collection

The data for this article was collected from two HEAT courses, the first taking place in winter 2022, the second in spring 2023 (Puputti et al., 2024). The course lasts five days, and the data collection spanned the course's entirety from the first opening moments to the last day of field exercises. The data consists of video- and audio recordings from multiple recording devices, as well as observations and ethnographic data gathered by the researchers who followed along in the course. The researchers aimed to be as unobtrusive as possible, and they were provided with orange "invisibility" vests to indicate that they were not to be paid attention to during the exercises, although the trainees were fully aware of the researchers' presence and were able to initiate contact.

This article introduces data from the second day of the course, which consists of classroom lectures and team tasks. The duration of the tasks ranged approximately from three to ten minutes. The data features recordings of eight teams in total (four teams during each course). During the classroom activities, video- and audio recording devices were placed near teams, and the researchers were able to observe freely. All the participants have given their informed consent to participate in the study. In the excerpts, participants are given pseudonyms to protect their real names. Participants in the course come from various nationalities, fields of expertise, and levels of experience. The course language is English, and its use is emphasized throughout the course.

3.3 Method

This study is rooted in a wholly empirical and inductive analysis of naturally occurring, face-to-face interaction. With EMCA as my framework, my analysis rests on how participants themselves, in the moment-to-moment verbal and bodily interaction, display to each other their comprehension of what they are doing, and of the current interaction as it occurs (Garfinkel, 1984[1967]; Sacks, 1992; Schegloff, 2007; Sidnell & Stivers, 2013). This interactional approach is exceptional for focusing on the particular multimodal practices that participants utilize to produce social actions (Raymond & Lerner, 2014). The unfolding of the showings highlights, above all, how actions are "shaped or projected by events or actions that preceded it, while simultaneously shaping, projecting, and making relevant what may follow" (ibid., 2014, p. 9). This is seen in how the participants time their actions. My analysis is rooted in the emic perspective, in how the participants make sense of and respond to each other's conduct (Cekaite, 2020), and how this is displayed (Sidnell & Stivers, 2013). I have transcribed and studied the data systematically to explore the impact and role of smartphones in social interaction. I also utilize my ethnographic observations as a non-trainee participant in the course. This refers to me being present in the training in a similar manner as the trainees, without participating in the exact same way (see Kamunen et al., 2023). The analysis features transcripts guided by Jeffersonian conventions (Jefferson, 2004), also utilizing Mondada's (2018) conventions to illustrate multimodal interaction.

4. Analysis

I have identified three stages of the smartphone showings. Section 4.1 focuses on the beginning stage, in which I study how participants orient to the accountability of private smartphone use through talk. I also examine how the participants coordinate their verbalizations with the physical uptake of their device. Section 4.2 demonstrates how smartphone users initiate and transition into a showing, and how all participants engage in the showing. I analyze the turns that the showing participant takes to preface or announce their showing. I also study the embodied conduct of the participants at the time of the showing. The practice is highly collaborative, which I aim to highlight. Lastly, Section 4.3 focuses on the end stage of the showing. I examine how participants acknowledge the showing, evaluate what they have seen, assess the information, and (dis)affiliate with it.

4.1. Verbalizations displaying accountability for private smartphone use

In this section, I discuss three interactional episodes where participants self-initiate smartphone use and produce verbalizations that display their orientation to the accountability of their smartphone use. The analysis also considers the multimodal actions around these verbalizations, and the co-participants' orientations to the verbalizations. In all the cases in my collection, the team is uncertain about some aspect of their task, which is stated aloud. This uncertainty relates to something that requires solving or additional information. In all cases, the smartphone user launches the smartphone use in the service of the team's shared task.

In Excerpt 1, Varpu, Atte, Piers, Anssi, and Tinja are working on a grab bag task in which they must list down items to include in their emergency bag for quick departures. The focus is on how Varpu accounts for her smartphone use. Prior to the transcript, Varpu has attempted to describe a hand-crank radio to her co-participants, suggesting that they add it to the list. Varpu's co-participants display confusion over the item, and Piers questions its necessity.

Excerpt 1. [let me see; 00:01:30]

During Piers' question at line 01, Varpu pulls out her smartphone from her pocket onto the table (fig. 1). This action indicates Varpu's orientation to her smartphone as a potential source of information needed in the present task. In her ensuing turn, she proceeds to give two reasons for why the item is needed. Piers persists in his questioning (l. 05), and during his turn Varpu shifts her gaze to her smartphone. This signals Varpu's new focus of attention. Varpu produces a turn that alerts co-participants to a potential suspension of talk: "let me see (.) let me see". These formulations have been studied by Balaman and Pekarek-Doehler (2021), who found participants deploying expressions such as "let me X" along with other resources to alert co-participants of suspensions of talk while they begin screen-based activities. During her turn, Varpu simultaneously picks her smartphone up and begins to tap the display with her finger (fig. 2). The timing and coordination of both her verbalization and her embodied actions link her ensuing private activity to the present talk. Her turn serves as a bridge between the topic in question and her smartphone use, which she takes up to look for information that she is trying to convey to her co-participants. By using the pronoun "me" instead of, for example, "us", Varpu orients to the privacy of her smartphone use. Varpu also indicates the privacy of the activity in the physical position of her smartphone. She does not lift the display up nor make it visually available to her co-participants. The interactional work of Varpu, her verbal turn and embodied actions, weaves her smartphone use with the ongoing conversation, orienting to the accountable and private nature of the device use. After Varpu's turn and her uptake of her device, Piers repeats part of his question and expands it at line 08. Varpu proceeds to further explain the need for the hand-crank radio while using her smartphone.

The second example features Arto, Leevi, Veronica, Peetu, and Leila working on a task in which they must plan their safe travel from Nairobi to Mombasa. They must consider whether their team can make their travel by car in one day. The analysis focuses on Arto's smartphone use and how he accounts for it. The team is discussing how many days they should reserve for their journey. Peetu directs a question to Arto, asking what he would do. Arto replies that he does not know about the road conditions, indicating that to be a factor in the planning.

Excerpt 2. [ that's the road; 00:01:57]

Leila suggests that the team should plan to do their travel in one day (l. 01). Arto has been holding his smartphone in his hands already prior to the transcript (fig. 3), and during Leila's turn (l. 02) he repositions his device and swipes and taps on the display (fig. 4). Excerpt 1 showed Varpu verbalizing her smartphone use at the same time as she began to manipulate her device. Here, Arto first proceeds to take up his smartphone, before producing his verbalization later on. During Leila's turn (l. 02), Arto also shifts his gaze from his co-participants to his smartphone (fig. 4). After this follows a brief pause, followed by the continuation of Leila's turn (l. 04) and another brief silence. Following this, Arto produces a turn of self-talk at line 06: "how is the road". The turn is spoken in a quieter voice than the surrounding talk, and it is also quieter than Arto's previous turns at talk (see Saville-Troike, 1988 and Lantolf and Yañes-Prieto, 2003 for audial qualities found in self-talk). His level intonation and lower voice imply that no uptake is expected from co-participants. The interrogative form reflects the inquiring nature of Arto's smartphone use. The content of his verbalization links his smartphone use to the prior topic of the road condition, a key issue in the team's task. Arto's gaze direction toward his smartphone further strengthens the nature of self-talk. Arto does not draw attention to himself, although as Smith (2007) notes, "all speech uttered aloud in the presence of another person has the potential to be perceived as an intermental act, even if one's intention is primarily private" (p. 354). Arto utters his turn while Leila is holding her turn, and nobody orients to Arto's utterance. This shows that Arto's co-participants treat it as self-talk. The ensuing turns produced by Leevi and Veronica respond to Leila. Although Arto's self-talk is informative, as it relates to the team's task, Arto's co-participants do not react to it (see Goffman, 1981, p. 74 for related discussion). None of the participants gaze at Arto, but rather, they look toward Leila or down at the table. Arto clearly orients to his smartphone activity as a private one while also orienting to the accountability of the activity by producing the self-talk turn that by implication verbalizes his change of focus to the private activity of smartphone use.

In Excerpt 3, Tinja, Anssi, Piers, Atte, and Varpu are working on the same safe travel planning task as in Excerpt 2. The analysis focuses on Tinja's smartphone use and her verbalization of it. The turn is produced following a co-participant's introduction of a new topic. Tinja's turn references previously acquired knowledge, and she conducts her smartphone use presumably to search for additional information. Prior to the excerpt, the team has been discussing different aspects of the travel that they must consider.

Excerpt 3. [but like here you can see; 00:00:43]

Anssi introduces a new topic for consideration through an interrogative turn regarding gasoline (l. 01), after which Varpu aligns and affiliates with Anssi's turn (l. 03, fig. 5). Varpu validates and specifies the content of Anssi's turn (fig. 5). These turns create the context for and lead to Tinja's smartphone use. She begins to search for information that may answer Anssi's turn. At lines 04-05, Tinja responds to Anssi and Varpu by stating "a:h at least there were like shopping centers along the way". Prior to the start of the task, when the instructor had stated the instructions for the exercise, Tinja had used her smartphone privately, presumably to search for information beforehand. The content of her turn refers to that smartphone use, as she recalls noticing shopping centers along the travel route. Tinja refers to Anssi's original turn and offers her knowledge on the topic with her turn. She bases her information on her prior smartphone use. Her rising intonation at the end of her verbalization, however, indicates some level of uncertainty. Tinja appears to use her smartphone to seek for additional information. Anssi produces a turn in overlap with Tinja's, attempting to state the length of the travel. Anssi reformulates and repeats this turn at line 08. None of Tinja's co-participants orient to her turn - they do not respond verbally nor gaze at her. Instead, they discuss the length of the travel, among other related questions. Tinja's co-participants orient to the private nature of her smartphone use by not including themselves in the activity. Midway through her verbalization, Tinja shifts her gaze from Varpu to her smartphone. Toward the end of her verbalization, Tinja picks up her device (fig. 6) and begins tapping the display with her thumbs (fig. 7). This excerpt differs from the previous two excerpts, as Tinja begins her verbalization before picking up her device toward the end of her turn. Her verbalization and embodied action strongly link her ensuing private activity to the present talk, as seen in the prior examples as well.

The analysis has demonstrated variation in the temporal organization of the smartphone user's verbalization and embodied smartphone uptake. In Excerpt 1, the participant prepares their smartphone use as they pick up their device during a co-participant's previous turn. Then, they employ a "let me see" turn to alert the co-participants of a suspension of talk while beginning the manipulation of their smartphone. In Excerpt 2, the smartphone user takes up their device before producing a verbalization. In Excerpt 3, the smartphone user has already begun their account before taking up their device midway through. In all the excerpts, the smartphone user directs their gaze to their device either before or during their smartphone use. I have also demonstrated variation in the verbalizations produced by the smartphone users. As mentioned, Excerpt 1 showcases the "let me see" -expression that signals suspension of talk. In Excerpt 2, the participant produces an interrogative self-talk turn. Excerpt 3 features a response to a co-participant's introduction of a new topic in which the smartphone user recalls an earlier private activity and indicates a new search for additional information. All these turns account for the switch to the private smartphone activity.

4.2 Transition into showing and conduct during showing

In this subsection, I focus on the transition from the private smartphone use to the shared smartphone showing. I examine how the showing is announced, how it is carried out, and how the smartphone user's co-participants orient to and take part in the showing. The analysis demonstrates the collaborative nature of the smartphone showings, in that co-participation is invited to varying degrees with the actions related to the showings. Both the smartphone user and their co-participants put in work to carry out and take part in the showing.

Excerpt 4 demonstrates a showing where the smartphone user announces the item that is visible on the smartphone display and proceeds to manually hold out their smartphone to multiple co-participants. In the excerpt, Kimmo, Katariina, Pasi, Suvi, Touko, and Janek are working on the emergency grab bag task. Kimmo has previously tried to explain a paracord to his teammates as a necessary item for their grab bag. He conducts a smartphone search to find additional information that could help describe the paracord. The transcript continues following Kimmo's uptake of his smartphone.

Excerpt 4. [paracord 2; 00:00:52]

Figure 8 illustrates the positions of the whole team, for the sake of showing how the participants are seated. Kimmo transitions from his private smartphone use (fig. 9) to a public showing by lifting his smartphone toward Katariina (fig. 10). While doing this, Kimmo leans in toward the center of the table (fig. 10), orienting to the visibility of the smartphone display, as he attempts to shorten the distance between his recipient and the display. Kimmo holds his smartphone at an angle that offers Pasi and Suvi visual access to the display, indicating that others may also engage with the showing in addition to Katariina. Kimmo's verbalization of the showing takes the form of an announcement of what can be seen on the screen, a "paracord" (l. 09), without any prefacing. As he is holding the device, Kimmo gazes at Katariina, which indicates that she is the primary recipient of his turn. The video angle does not reveal Katariina's face or body posture; however, she acknowledges the smartphone verbally (l. 10). The "oh" in her turn functions as a change-of-state token, which indicates that she has noticed something, possibly new to her, on Kimmo's screen. Kimmo's other co-participants take part in the showing as well. Pasi, who has been looking at his own smartphone, shifts his gaze to Kimmo's device during Kimmo's announcement (fig. 11). Pasi leans in toward the smartphone to gain better visual access (fig. 11), orienting to the showing as a public and shared activity. Suvi, who has had partial yet sufficient visual access to the smartphone, produces an assessment of the image being shown (l. 11). Pasi and Suvi showcase their involvement in the unfolding activity through gaze, body posture, and talk (see Avgustis & Oloff, 2023 for non-recipients' involvement). Kimmo responds to and reinforces his co-participants' involvement by turning his smartphone toward Pasi and Suvi (fig. 12).

Excerpt 5 continues with Tinja's smartphone use (see Excerpt 3). Following the start of Tinja's private activity, a minute of discussion ensues in the team, with topic ranging from road conditions to traffic rules. Tinja monitors her co-participants' discussion while waiting for an opportunity to take a turn. Varpu asks Piers whether it would be possible to get maintenance for their vehicle during the journey.

Excerpt 5. [but like here you can see; 00:01:54]

Figure 13 shows the team prior to the showing, while Tinja is still tapping on her device. Tinja prepares the showing of her smartphone through multiple steps: gaze, the placement of her smartphone, and a verbal instruction to look. Following Piers' turn, Tinja takes a turn at this point and begins her showing. Tinja starts by stating her opinion of a potential danger involved in their travel (l. 49-52). During the beginning of her turn (l. 49), Tinja shifts her gaze from Piers down to her smartphone, orienting to her device as a relevant object in her talk. Anssi proceeds to also gaze toward Tinja's smartphone. Tinja glances at her co-participants and then looks down at her device (fig. 14). She places her smartphone down on the table (l. 51, fig. 14). Tinja's utterance at line 52 is particularly significant for her showing. As she states: "when you look at from the google view", Tinja turns her smartphone on the table toward the direction of Varpu (fig. 15). Her verbal turn invites her co-participants to shift their visual attention toward the smartphone. This offers all her co-participants with better visual access to the device. Tinja utilizes the affordances of her smartphone as it is large enough so that recipients of the showing are able to view it from the new position and angle. Tinja also orients to her co-participants' physical arrangement as she turns her smartphone to face them. The smartphone must be placed so that it is viewed from the right direction. The content of line 52 invites her co-participants to physically look at her smartphone screen. Atte, Piers, and Varpu shift their gazes toward Tinja's smartphone, displaying their orientation to the showing and aligning with the activity. During her turn (l. 52), Tinja makes a twirling motion with her finger above her smartphone screen (fig. 16), drawing attention to a particular area. Piers displays his orientation to the showing by pointing at Tinja's smartphone as he begins to produce a turn (l. 54, fig. 17).

Tinja carries out a second showing in the same interaction. Thirty lines are omitted during which the team discusses their travel. At line 96, Tinja initiates another showing with her turn, "but like here you can see", again drawing the joint focus to what can be viewed on her smartphone (fig. 18). She orients to the participatory nature of her showing through her posture shift, as she turns her body to the right and leans in toward the center of the table, holding her smartphone visible to the others (fig. 18). Tinja further draws attention to her smartphone by pointing at and tracing the display (fig. 19). This time, Varpu shows her orientation by turning her head and gaze toward Tinja's smartphone, putting on her eyeglasses, and leaning in toward the smartphone (fig. 19). With these actions, Varpu displays her orientation to the relevance of the showing and the necessary physical act of looking.

Excerpt 6 continues with Varpu's smartphone showing. This example differs from the previous cases in that Varpu's primary recipient is unavailable to view the smartphone and disaligns with the showing. The verbalization of the showing is produced differently as well. The example highlights how Varpu acknowledges the receptiveness of other potential recipients. Additional interactional work is therefore needed to involve co-participants in the showing.

Excerpt 6. [let me see; 00:02:43]

Varpu initiates her new, public activity by announcing it with a deictic presentative structure: "ta da here it is" (l. 51). With her turn, Varpu refers to the prior topic of talk, the elusive hand-crank radio. The attention-seeking utterance "ta da" that prefaces the announcement, shows that Varpu is referring to a previous topic. Along with her turn, Varpu simultaneously leans forward and lifts her device toward the center of the table (fig. 20). The smartphone is angled so that the screen faces the direction of Anssi and Piers, which indicates that they are the primary recipients of the showing. Varpu monitors her co-participants' responses as she first glances toward Anssi, then toward Piers, and then back to Anssi. She draws focus to the smartphone as a domain of joint attention by pointing at the screen. Varpu's showing receives a glance from Anssi and Tinja (fig. 21), but they are apparently not the primary recipients of the showing, as Varpu continues with an attention-seeking token (l. 53). Piers is occupied with his conversation with Atte and does not orient to Varpu's showing. Atte's body partially blocks Piers' visual access to Varpu and her smartphone. It must be mentioned that Piers suffers from poor hearing, which could potentially affect his actions. Anssi and Tinja display orientation to Varpu's showing through their gaze. Varpu responds to their orientation by turning her smartphone toward them to offer them better visual access (fig. 22). Varpu produces multiple verbal and embodied attempts at directing joint attention to the showable. While Piers disaligns with the showing, Varpu orients to the involvement of her other co-participants and adjusts her showing accordingly.

I have shown how the smartphone user prepares their showing, how they announce it, how they physically carry out the showing, and how co-participants orient to and take part in the showing. The analysis has illustrated the collaborative nature of the showing, and how participants put in interactional work to accomplish the showing. In some cases, however, participants can also resist the showing, as seen in Excerpt 6. Smartphone users transition from their private activity to a public showing by physically moving their smartphone toward their recipient or an otherwise accessible position and by shifting their posture. Often they shift their gaze from their smartphone to their primary recipient. The showing participant employs verbal utterances to preface the showing, or they merely announce the showing. They may verbally instruct co-participants to look at the device. Co-participants engage with the showing through posture, gaze, gesture, actions such as placing eyeglasses on, and verbal turns. The smartphone user adjusts their showing according to their co-participants' orientations.

4.3 Assessments and (dis)affiliative actions following the showing

In this final subsection, I examine what follows the showings. Throughout my collection, recipients of showings verbalize their viewing, evaluate the gained information, and produce assessments and (dis)affiliative actions. In the cases, the smartphone showings progress the teams' tasks, and this is evident in the ways in which the participants interact. Participants' actions show whether they treat the showings and gained information as relevant or irrelevant. I demonstrate that the showings and what follows them are important episodes in teamwork for making decisions about various matters.

Excerpt 7 continues from Arto's showing to Leevi, Peetu, Veronica, and Leila. Excerpt 2 showed the beginning of Arto's smartphone use.

Excerpt 7. [that's the road; 00:03:06]

The transcript continues following Arto's turning of the smartphone toward his co-participants. Having visual access to the smartphone, (fig. 23) Leevi determines the road (shown as image on the smartphone screen) to be asphalt and verbalizes this: "asphalt" (l. 64). Veronica makes an assessment of the road as well: "oh (.) nice (--)" (l. 65). Her turn consists of an acknowledgement token "oh", and a positive assessment "nice". Leevi takes another turn and continues with an assessment: "a:h it's a very good (.) then you c- definitely can make one in a one day" (l. 67). He states that the road is "very good", displaying a positive stance toward the information conveyed in the image. Leevi assesses that based on the road condition shown, in his view, the team can definitely make their travel in one day. Both Leevi and Veronica show positive stances in their assessments to the showing and affiliate with the new information. As seen in Leevi's second turn, Arto's smartphone use and showing provide the team with new knowledge that progresses their decision-making.

Excerpt 8 continues from Tinja's showing to her co-participants, which was seen in Excerpt 5. This example demonstrates how participants display affiliation with a showing through embodied actions and talk.

Excerpt 8. [but like here you can see; 00:03:09]

The transcript continues from Tinja's showing, as the activity is still ongoing. Piers' turn at line 101, "exactly" displays affiliation with the showing, as he agrees with the information shown on Tinja's smartphone screen. Varpu shows that her viewing is complete as she straightens her posture and takes off her eyeglasses (fig. 24). Simultaneously, she produces the token "so" to signal her upcoming assessment. Varpu makes her assessment at lines 104-106, stating, based off the showing, that the local people do not obey international traffic rules. During this assessment, she makes an up and down pointing gesture toward Tinja's smartphone (fig. 25), linking her turn to the device as the source of information. Varpu's actions show her affiliation with Tinja's smartphone showing. Piers' turn at line 108 repeats Varpu's turn, as Piers emphasizes that the people "don't follow traffic rules". By doing so, Piers affiliates both with Varpu's assessment and Tinja's showing.

Lastly, Excerpt 9 continues from Varpu's smartphone showing (continuing from Excerpt 6). Here, I show how a recipient aligns with a showing but disaffiliates with the information conveyed through the smartphone.

Excerpt 9. [but like here you can see; 00:03:09]

The transcript follows Varpu's showing to her co-participants. Varpu has put in additional work to get Piers' attention toward her smartphone and align with the showing. Figure 26 shows Piers' engagement with Atte. After Piers turns his head toward Varpu's smartphone (fig. 27) and Varpu's final attempt at getting Piers' attention, Piers produces a turn: "no no I know what it is" (l. 78). With the turning of his head toward the smartphone, Piers appears to finally align with the showing. However, his turn disaffiliates with the conveyed information. Piers appears to already know what the item in question is, but Varpu has oriented toward Piers as unknowledgeable regarding the hand-crank radio. Piers knows the item, but he is unsure why the team should have it in their emergency grab bag. His turn at line 79, "I'm just," potentially refers to this query. The interaction continues with Varpu asking her teammates what the item is called in English. Then, all the teams are instructed to have a short break.

In this subsection, I have shown how participants produce various actions following the showings. The actions of the smartphone user show that they expect some kind of response from co-participants. Recipients of the showings produce utterances that convey that they have viewed the smartphone. They further evaluate, assess and (dis)affiliate with the information shown to them. The recipients produce these actions with talk and embodied resources. The subsection has illustrated how these post-showing episodes are prerequisites for and preparatory work prior to decision-making.

5. Conclusions

In this article, I have shown how participants accomplish smartphone showings together in a collaborative manner. With the novel setting of civilian crisis management training, I have examined a practice of the participants that progresses their taskwork. I analyzed the beginning, middle, and end stages of the smartphone showing.

In the first stage, I focused on smartphone users' verbalizations prior to their smartphone use. These verbalizations display orientation toward the accountability of the activity. I found that participants may produce interrogative self-talk, tokens alerting a suspension of talk, and responses to co-participants' introductions of new topics as they begin their smartphone use. The analysis showed variation in the temporal organization of the smartphone user's verbalization and their embodied smartphone uptake. This variation reflects how participants utilize multimodal resources in situ, tailoring their actions depending on the unfolding interaction.

The second stage highlighted the smartphone user's transition into a showing and the participants' conduct during the showing. My analysis showed how the smartphone user initiates their showing with the physical movement of their smartphone toward a visually accessible position for recipients. They also adjust their own posture and shift their gaze toward the primary recipient. The smartphone users may preface their showing with an attention-seeking token and deictic presentative structure, by instructing co-participants to look, or announcing what is seen on the screen. Co-participants orient to the showing through verbal turns, posture, gaze, gesture, and physical actions such as putting on eyeglasses. My analysis demonstrated the collaborative nature of the showing, as the recipients put in work to engage in the showing, and the smartphone user adjusts their actions to meet the needs of their recipients.

In the end stage of the showings I examined how participants orient to the relevance and implications of the showing. I found that recipients verbally acknowledge what they have seen, evaluate, assess, and (dis)affiliate with the information conveyed through the smartphone. The cases indicate that the interaction following the showings are crucial prerequisites and preparatory work that are part of decision-making during tasks.

The ways in which the participants use smartphones showcases their interactional awareness and competence. Firstly, the smartphone user picks up on cues in the team's interaction regarding some topic that requires additional information. Secondly, the smartphone user and their co-participants carry out the showing in collaboration, adjusting their own behaviour in situ according to the interaction. Furthermore, this study has demonstrated interaction that features effective use of technological devices. Recent discussions (e.g., Kuznekoff et al. 2015; Amez & Baert, 2020) have evaluated the effects and possible consequences of smartphone use in interaction. Morandin et al. (2018) describe how the omnipresent nature of smartphones can endanger social interactions. In my data, the participants make use of their smartphones as semiotic resources in service of the team's task. They orient to the accountability of the smartphone use and do interactional work that displays this orientation and awareness of their co-participants' presence. The showing itself is conducted as a collective effort. These aspects echo the findings in Avgustis and Oloff (2023), in how the smartphone user and the recipient both coordinate their conduct to construct the showing. For civilian crisis management training, this article has illustrated a concrete and effective teamwork practice that furthers the teams' progress. The emergent phenomena are significant in that they are not designed into the training - the course emphasizes active interaction but does not explain how the teams are to accomplish this. This article has identified and examined one practice of such participation.