Participant status through touch-in-interaction in a residential home for people with acquired brain injury


  • Pirkko Raudaskoski



Touch, Affect, Acquired brain injury, Agency


The focus of this paper is twofold. It first analyzes the types of touch-in-interaction in occupational therapy in an acquired brain injury residential home, and then looks more closely at the participant status of one specific resident in the context of the touches received and given. Touches are primarily initiated by staff members or researchers, and rarely by residents. In addition to those touches necessary for the practical help that the residents need in their care, touches are also part of greeting and leaving, getting attention, making requests or refusals, and commenting on or teasing others. Taps on the shoulder are considered firstly as a type of fleeting haptic sociality and, secondly, as a type of touch that only one of the residents seemed to be receiving. The taps the resident received suggest he is treated differently from the other residents and more like able-bodied participants. Therefore, his agency, his how-ability (vs. disability) in interactions, will be examined more closely in two examples. A close multimodal interaction analysis of the complexity of interactional situations reveals how the taps were accomplished as a lamination of the material, linguistic and embodied resources (the communicative resources of the resident and the embodied conduct made possible by the affordances of the setting) in the unfolding situation.


Andrén, M. (2017). Children’s expressive handling of objects in a shared world. In C. Meyer, J. Streeck & S. Jordan (Eds.) Intercorporeality (pp. 105-141). Oxford: OUP.

Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Barad, K. (2012). On touching -- the inhuman that therefore I am. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 23(3), 206-223.

Bergnehr, D. & Cekaite, A. (2018). Adult-initiated touch and its functions at a Swedish preschool: controlling, affectionate, assisting and educative haptic conduct. International Journal of Early Years Education, 26(3), 312-331

Black, S. (2018). The ethics and aesthetics of care. Annual Review of Anthropolgy, 47, 79-95.

Blackman, L. (2008). The Body. London: Sage.

Blackman, L., and Venn, C. (2010). Affect. Body & Society, 16(1), 7-28.

Cekaite, A. (2015). The coordination of talk and touch in adults’ directives to children: Touch and social control. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(2), 1-24.

Cekaite, A. & Kvist Holm, M. (2017). The comforting touch: Tactile intimacy and talk in managing children’s distress. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50(2), 109-127.

Clarke, A. (2005). Situational Analysis. Grounded Theory after the postmodern turn. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

de Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life. London: University of California Press.

Denman, A. & Wilkinson, R. (2011). Applying conversation analysis to traumatic brain injury: investigating touching another person in everyday social interaction. Disability and Rehabilitation, 33(3), 243-262.

Edwards, D. & Potter, J. (2017). Some uses of subject side assessments. Discourse & Society, 19(5), 497-514.

Enfield, N. & Kockelman, P. (Eds.) (2017). Distributed agency. Oxford: OUP.

Fox, N. & Allred, P. (2017). Sociology and the New Materialism. Theory, research, action. London: Sage.

Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s program. Working out Durkheim’s aphorism. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

Gee, J. P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. Critical perspectives on literacy and education. London: Falmer Press.

Glenberg, A. (1997). What is memory for. Behavioral and brain sciences, 20, 1-55.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual. New York: Doubleday.

Goffman, E. (1971) Relations in public. Harmondsworth: Penguin

Goffman, E. (1972). Encounters. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Goffman, E. (1983). The Interaction Order. American Sociological Review, 48, 1-17.

Goode, D. (1994). A world without words: The social construction of children born deaf and blind. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Goode, D. (2007). Playing with my dog Katie: An ethnomethodological study of dog-human interaction. West Lafayette: Purdue University Press.

Goodwin, C. (1979). The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in Ethnomethodology (pp. 97-121). New York: Irvington Publishers.

Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489-1522.

Goodwin, C. (2006). Human sociality and mutual orientation in rich interactive environment: Multimodal utterances and pointing in aphasia. In N. Enfield & S. Levinson (Eds.) Roots of human sociality (pp. 96-125). London: Berg Press.

Goodwin, C. (2013). The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 46, 8-23.

Goodwin, M.H. (2017). Haptic sociality: The embodied interactive constitution of intimacy through touch. In C. Meyer, J. Streeck & S. Jordan (Eds.) Intercorporeality (pp. 73-102). Oxford: OUP.

Goodwin, M.H. & Cekaite, A. (2018). Embodied family choreography. Practices of control, care, and mundane creativity. New York: Routledge.

Haddington, P., Keisanen, T., Mondada, L. & Nevile, M. (2014). Multiactivity in social interaction: Beyond multitasking. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Haraway, D. (1997). Modest_Witness@Second_Millenium. FemaleMan_Meets_OncoMouse. New York: Routledge.

Heritage, J. (2009). Conversation Analysis as social theory. In B. Turner (Ed.) The new Blackwell companion to social theory (pp. 300-320). Oxford, Blackwell.

Hutchins, E. (2010). Enaction, imagination, and insight. In J. Stewart, O. Gapenne & E.A. DiPaolo (Eds.) Enaction: Toward a new paradigm for Cognitive Science (pp. 425-450). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Ingold, T. (2014). That’s enough about ethnography! HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 4(1), 383-395.

Ingold, T. (2018). Anthropology and/as education. London: Routledge.

Latour, B. (2004). Why has critique run of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry, 30, 225-248.

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social. An introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Laurier, E. (2014). The graphic transcript: Poaching comic book grammar for inscribing the visual, spatial and temporal aspects of action. Geography Compass, 8(4), 235-248.

McIlvenny, P., Broth, M. & Haddington, P. (2009). Communicating place, space and mobility. Editorial. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1879-1886.

Meyer, C., Streeck, J. & Scott, J. (Eds.) (2017). Intercorporeality: Emerging socialities in interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Middleton, D. & Brown, B. (2005). The Social Psychology of experience. Studies in remembering and forgetting. London: Sage.

Mononen, K. (2019). Embodied care: affective touch as a facilitating resource for interaction between caregivers and residents in a care home for older adults. Linguistic Vanguard, 5(s2).

Paasch, B. (2016). Care and calls. A nexus and multimodal interaction analysis of mobile telephony in nurse-patient encounters. Aalborg: Aalborg University Press.

Peräkylä, A. & Sorjonen, M.-L. (Eds.) (2012). Emotion in interaction. Oxford: OUP.

Raudaskoski, P. (2013). From understanding to participation: A relational approach to embodied practices. In Keisanen, T., Kärkkäinen, E., Rauniomaa, M., Siitonen, P., and Siromaa, M. (Eds.). Multimodal discourses of participation, AfinLA Yearbook, 71 (pp. 103-121). Jyväskylä: AFinLA.

Raudaskoski, P. & Klemmensen, C. (2019). The entanglements of affect and participation. Frontiers in Psychology, 10:2815. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02815

Schatzki, T.E., Knorr Cetina, K., von Savigny, E. (Eds.) (2001). The Practice turn in contemporary theory. New York: Routledge.

Schegloff, E. (2007). A tutorial on membership categorization. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 462-482.

Scollon, R. (2005). The rhythmic integration of action and discourse: work, the body and the earth. In S. Norris & R. Jones (Eds.), Discourse in action. Introducing Mediated Discourse Analysis (pp. 20-31). New York: Routledge.

St Pierre, E.A., Jackson, A.Y. & Mazzei, L.A. (2016). New Empiricisms and New Materialisms: Conditions for New Inquiry. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 16(2), 99-110.

Streeck, J. (2013). Interaction and the living body. Journal of Pragmatics, 46, 69-90.

Streeck, J. & Jordan, S. (2009). Communication as a dynamical self-sustaining system: The importance of time-scales and nested context. Communication Theory, 19, 445-464.

Wetherell, M. (2013). Affect and discourse – what’s the problem? From affect as excess to affective/discursive practice. Subjectivity, 6(4), 349-368.

Wetherell, M. (2015). Trends in the turn to affect. A social psychological critique. Body & Society, 21(2), 139-166.




How to Cite

Raudaskoski, P. (2020). Participant status through touch-in-interaction in a residential home for people with acquired brain injury. Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, 3(1).