“Difficult to assess in this manner”: An “ineffective” showing sequence in post-surgery video consultation

  • Wyke Stommel Radboud University
  • Christian Licoppe Telecom Paristech
  • Martijn Stommel Radboud University
Keywords: video-mediated interaction, multimodal interaction, telecare, conversation analysis, showing

Abstract

There is a growing interest in telecare, particularly in the kind of “invisible work” involved in teleconsultations (Oudshoorn, 2011). One dimension of this work is the “sensory work” in support of clinical examination at a distance (Lupton & Maslen, 2017). More research is needed to understand how such sensory work is done in and as multimodal interaction (Mondada, 2019). Recent work has shown the extent to which such sensory work could be re-mediated, despite challenges due to the technology, in particular the asymmetry of sensory access (Seuren et al., 2020; Stommel, Van Goor, & Stommel, 2020). In earlier research, we found that showings occurred less frequently in post-surgery consultations conducted through video rather than face-to-face (Stommel et al., 2020). Moreover, in spite of the apparent relevance of visual access, it seemed as if showings were even being evaded. In this article, we use a conversation analytical perspective to examine one case of emergent showing sequences in a video-mediated post-surgery consultation, in order to track its sequential organisation, which develops towards an eventually inadequate showing. The case comes from a set of post-surgery consultations with patients who had undergone tumour resection (abdominal surgery) two weeks earlier. We first present a case from an in-person consultation, in which a showing sequence is inserted smoothly and closed with mutual assessments. Next, we focus on the VMC-showing, which is also inserted in the context of a patient question concerning the surgery scars. We analyse the context leading up to the showing, the showing itself and the abandonment of the showing sequence. We found that, first, the showing is not initiated at the earliest sequential opportunity, but is requested with an orientation to potential barriers. Second, screen-based evidential boundaries emerge, as the surgeon has no visual access to what is shown, in response to which the surgeon employs remedial action. Third, the surgeon moves out of the showing to an instructed touch-sequence – in other words, displays of visual appreciation are neither produced nor pursued. Upon the surgeon’s closing formulation that it was “difficult to assess in this manner”, the contextual factor of visibility is eventually explicitly claimed to be “ineffective” for medical assessment. These findings might explain the scarcity of showing sequences in our data. More generally, they raise questions about (the limits of) sensory work in video consultations.

References

Atherton, H., Brant, H., Ziebland, S., Bikker, A., Campbell, J., Gibson, A., . . . Salisbury, C. (2018). Alternatives to the face-to-face consultation in general practice: Focused ethnographic case study. British Journal of General Practice, 68(669), e293-e300. doi:10.3399/bjgp18X694853

Curl, T., & Drew, P. (2008). Contingencey and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Reseach on Language and Social Interaction, 41, 1-25.

Donaghy, E., Atherton, H., Hammersley, V., McNeilly, H., Bikker, A., Robbins, L., & al., e. (2019). Acceptability, benefits, and challenges of video consulting: a qualitative study in primary care. British Journal of General Practice, 69(686), e586-e594.

Due, B. L., Lange, S. B., Nielsen, M. F., & Jarlskov, C. (2019). Mimicable embodied demonstration in a decomposed sequence: Two aspects of recipient design in professionals' video-mediated encounters. Journal of Pragmatics, 152, 13-27. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2019.07.015

Fasulo, A., & Monzoni, C. (2009). Assessing mutable objects: a multimodal analysis. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42(4), 362-376.

Gardner, R. (2001). When listerners talk. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Garfinkel, H., Lynch, M., & Livingstone, E. (1981). The work of a discovering science construed with materials from the optically discovered pulsar. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 11, 131-158.

Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606-633. doi:https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1994.96.3.02a00100

Goodwin, C. (2007). Environmentally coupled gestures. In S. D. Duncan, J. Cassel, & E. T. Levy (Eds.), Gesture and the Dynamic Dimension of Language: Essays in Honor of David McNeill (pp. 195-212). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Goodwin, C. (2013). The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 8-23.

Greenhalgh, T., Shaw, S., Wherton, J., Vijayaraghavan, S., Morris, J., Bhattacharya, S., . . . Hodkinson, I. (2018). Real-World Implementation of Video Outpatient Consultations at Macro, Meso and Micro Levels: Mixed Methods Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 20(4), e150.

Heritage, J. (2017). Online commentary in primary care and emergency room setting. Acute Medicine & Surgery, 4(12-18). doi:10.1002/ams2.229

Heritage, J., & Watson, D. (1979). Formulations as conversational objects. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language (pp. 123-162). Hillsday, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Hutchby, I. (2001). Conversation and technology: From the telephone to the internet. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Licoppe, C. (2017). Showing objects in Skype video-mediated conversations. From showing gestures to showing sequences. Journal of Pragmatics, 110, 63-82. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.01.007

Licoppe, C., & Tuncer, S. (forthcoming). The initiation of showing sequences in video-mediated communication. Discourse and Conversation Analysis.

Lopriore, S., LeCouteur, A., Ekberg, K., & Ekberg, S. (2019). 'You'll have to be my eyes and ears': a conversation analytic study of physical examination on a health helpline. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 28(1-2), 330-339.

Lupton, D., & Maslen, S. (2017). Telemedicine and the sense: A review. Sociology of Health & Illness, 39(8), 1557-1571. doi:10.1111/1467-9566.12617

Mondada, L. (2014). The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 65, 137-156.

Mondada, L. (2018). Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction: Challenges for transcribing multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 85-106. doi:10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878

Mondada, L. (2019). Contemporary issues in conversation analysis: Embodiment and materiality, multimodality and multisensoriality in social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 47–62.

Mondada, L. (forthcoming). Participants’ orientations to material and sensorial features of objects: looking, touching, smelling and tasting while requesting products in shops. Discourse and Conversation Analysis.

Oshima, S., & Streeck, J. (2015). Coordinating talk and practical action. The case of hairdressing salon service assessment. Pragmatics & Society, 6(4), 538-564.

Oudshoorn, N. E. J. (2011). Telecare Technologies and the Transformation of Healthcare. Houndmills, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.

Peräkylä, A. (1998). Authority and accountability: The delivery of diagnosis in primary health care. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61(4), 301-320.

Pols, J. (2012). Care at a Distance; On the Closeness of Technology. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Raclaw, J., Robles, J., & Didomenico, S. (2016). Upgrading epistemic access through mobile devices in face-to-face interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(4), 362-379.

Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (Vol. 1,2). Oxford: Blackwell.

Schegloff, E. (1988). Goffman and the analysis of conversation. In P. Drew & A. Wootton (Eds.), Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order (pp. 89-135). Cambridge: Polity Press.

Schegloff, E. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schegloff, E., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289-327.

Searles, D. (2018). ‘Look it Daddy’ Shows in family Facetime calls. Research on Children and Social Interaction, 2(1), 98-119.

Seuren, L., Wherton, J., Greenhalgh, T., Cameron, D., A’Court, C., & Shaw, S. (2020). Physical examinations via video? Qualitative study of video examinations in heart failure, using conversation analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(2), e16694. doi:10.2196/16694

Stivers, T., & Sidnell, J. (2005). Introduction: Multimodal Interaction. Semiotica, 156-1/4, 1-20.

Stommel, W., Van Goor, H., & Stommel, M. (2019). Other-attentiveness in video consultation openings: A conversation analysis of video-mediated versus face-to-face consultations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, zmz015. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmz015

Stommel, W., Van Goor, H., & Stommel, M. (2020). The impact of video-mediated communication on closed wound assessments in postoperative consultations: conversation analytical study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(5), e17791. doi:10.2196/17791

Ten Have, P. (1991). Talk and institution: a reconsideration of the 'asymmetry' of doctor-patient interaction. In D. Boden & D. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis (pp. 138-163). Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press.

Tuncer, S., & Haddington, P. (2020). Object transfers: An embodied resource to progress joint activities and build relative agency. Language in Society, 49(1), 61-87. doi:10.1017/S004740451900071X

Tuncer, S., Licoppe, C., & Haddington, P. (forthcoming). When objects become the focus of human action and activity: Object-centred sequences in social interaction. Discourse and Conversation Analysis.

Published
2020-10-21
How to Cite
Stommel, W., Licoppe, C., & Stommel, M. (2020). “Difficult to assess in this manner”: An “ineffective” showing sequence in post-surgery video consultation. Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, 3(3). https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v3i3.122581