Capturing the nurse’s kinesthetic experience of wearing an exoskeleton
The benefits of using intercorporeal perspective to video analysis
Keywords:cyborg, exoskeleton, nursing, video-analysis, intercorporeality, kinesthesia
In this study, we introduce a video-ethnographic study of a research process in which nursing students try on exoskeletons—wearable forms of technology that are meant to decrease lower back strain when lifting something. We adopt microanalysis of video-recorded interaction to analyze moments in which a nurse tests how her body feels with the exoskeleton. Moreover, we explore how the nurse simultaneously makes accountable—observable and reportable (Garfinkel, 1967, p. vii)—to others how her body feels “inside,” i.e. her experience of kinaesthesia, or the ability of the human body to perceive its own movements and states as a ”body-in-motion” (Sheets-Johnstone, 2002, p. 138). We reflect on how the fact that we video recorded the whole process of testing the exoskeleton with three cameras and complemented our video analysis with observations and post-questionnaires enabled us to capture some of the kinesthetic, interactive, and context-specific aspects of trying on the exoskeleton.
Behnke, Elizabeth A. (1997). Ghost gestures: Phenomenological investigations of bodily micromovements and their intercorporeal implications. Human Studies, 20(2), 181–201.
Behnke, Elizabeth A. (2008). Interkinaesthetic affectivity: A phenomenological approach. Continental Philosophy Review, 41(2), 143–161.
Crossley, Nick (1995). Merleau-Ponty, the elusive body and carnal sociology. Body & Society, 1(1), 43–63.
Cuffari, Elena & Streeck, Jürgen (2017). Taking the world by hand. In C. Meyer, J. Streeck, & J.S. Jordan (Eds.), Intercorporeality: Beyond the body (pp. 173–201). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Garfinkel, Harold (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Gibson, James J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Gibson, James J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale (N.J.): Erlbaum, 1986. Print.
Goffman, Erving (1956). Embarrassment and social organization. The American Journal of Sociology, 62(3), 264–271.
Goffman, Erving (1959). Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday Anchor.
Goffman, Erving (1963). Behaviour in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings. New York: Free Press.
Goffman, Erving (1978). Response Cries. Language, 54, 787–815.
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness & Cekaite, Asta (2018). Embodied family choreography: Practices of control, care, and mundane creativity. New York: Routledge.
Haraway, Donna (2006). A cyborg manifesto: Science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late 20th century. In J. Weiss, J. Nolan, J. Hunsinger, & P. Trifonas (Eds.), The international handbook of virtual learning environments (pp. 117–158). Dordrecht: Springer.
Harkness, Nicholas (2015). The pragmatics of qualia in practice. Annual Review of Anthropology, 44, 573–89.
Heath, Christian (2002). Demonstrative suffering: the gestural (re)embodiment of symptoms. Journal of Communication, 52(3), 597–617.
Howes, David (2005). Introduction: Empires of the senses. In D. Howes (Ed.), Empire of the senses: The sensual culture reader (pp. 1–20). Oxford: Berg.
Ingold, Tim (2011). Being alive: Essays on movement, knowledge and description. London & New York: Routledge.
Jefferson, Gail (2004). A sketch of some orderly aspects of overlap in conversation. In G. Lerner (ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 43–59). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Jefferson, Gail; Sacks, Harvey & Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1987). Notes on laughter in the pursuit of intimacy. In G. Button & J.R.E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (pp. 152–205). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Jochum, Elizabeth A.; Demers, Louis-Philippe; Vorn, Bill; Vlachos, Evgenios; McIlvenny, Paul B. & Raudaskoski, Pirkko L. (2018). Becoming Cyborg: Interdisciplinary approaches for exoskeleton research. In EVA Copenhagen 2018 – Politics of the Machines – Art and After (pp. 1–9).
Katila, Julia (2018). Tactile intercorporeality in a group of mothers and their children: a micro study of practices for intimacy and participation. Tampere: Tampere University Press. Doctoral dissertation.
Katila, Julia & Raudaskoski, Sanna (2020). Interaction Analysis as an Embodied and Interactive Process: Multimodal, Co-operative, and Intercorporeal Ways of Seeing Video Data as Complementary Professional Visions. Human Studies, 43, 445–470.
Mauss, Marcel (1973). Techniques of the body. Economy and Society, 2, 70–88.
McArthur, Amanda (2018). Getting pain on the table in primary care physical exams. Social Science & Medicine, 200, 190–198.
Mendoza-Denton, Norma (1999). Style. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 9(l-2), 238 -42.
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice (1962). Phenomenology of perception. London and Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice (1963). The relations of the soul and the body and the problem of perceptual consciousness. In A. Fisher (trans.), The structure of behavior (pp. 185-224). Boston: Beacon Press.
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice (1968). The visible and the invisible: Followed by working notes. Northwestern University Press.
Meyer, Christian; Streeck, Jürgen & Jordan, J. Scott, (Eds.) (2017). Introduction. In Intercorporeality: Emerging socialities in interaction (pp. xiv–xlix). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mondada, Lorenza (2020). Audible sniffs: Smelling-in-interaction. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 53(1), 140–163.
Papadimitriou, Christina (2008). Becoming en‐wheeled: The situated accomplishment of re‐embodiment as a wheelchair user after spinal cord injury. Disability & Society, 23(7), 691-704.
Pomerantz, Anita (1986). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies, 9, 219–229.
Raia, Federica (2018). Identity, tools and existential spaces. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 19, 74–95.
Reynolds, Dee & Reason, Matthew, (Eds.) (2012). Introduction. In D. Kinesthetic empathy in creative and cultural practices (pp. 17–25). Bristol: Intellect.
ROSE project (2017). Robotics in Care Services: A Finnish Roadmap. http://roseproject.aalto.fi/Figures/publications/Roadmap-final02062017.pdf
Ryave, A. Lincoln & Schenkein, James N. (1974). Notes on the art of walking. In R. Turner (Ed.), Ethnomethodology (pp. 265–274). Harmondsworth: Penguin
Sheets-Johnstone, Maxine (2002). Relationality and caring: An ontogenetic and phylogenetic perspective. Journal of Philosophy of Sport, 29, 136–148.
Søraa, Roger Andre & Fosch-Villaronga, Eduard (2020). Exoskeletons for all: The interplay between exoskeletons, inclusion, gender, and intersectionality. Journal of Behavioral Robotics, 11(1), 217–227.
Stokoe, Elizabeth (2013). The (in)authenticity of simulated talk: Comparing role-played and actual interaction and the implications for communication training. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 46(2), 165–185.
Streeck, Jürgen (2013). Interaction and the living body. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 69–90.
Streeck, Jürgen (2017). Self-making man: A day of action, life, and language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Streeck, Jürgen (2018). Times of rest: Temporalities of some communicative postures. In A. Deppermann and J. Streeck (Eds.), Time in embodied interaction synchronicity and sequentiality of multimodal resources (pp. 325–350). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Turja, Tuuli; Saurio, Riika; Katila, Julia; Hennala, Lea; Pekkarinen, Satu & Melkas, Helina (2020). Intention to use exoskeletons in geriatric care work: Need for ergonomic and social design. Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications, 1–4.
Turja, Tuuli; Van Aerschot, Lina; Särkikoski, Tuomo & Oksanen, Atte (2018). Finnish healthcare professionals’ attitudes toward robots: Reflections on a population sample. Nursing Open, 5, 300–309.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2021 Author and Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
We follow the Budapest Open Access Initiative's definition of Open Access.
The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions.
The journal allows software/spiders to automatically crawl the journal content (also known as text mining)
The journal provides article level metadata to DOAJ
The journal allows readers to read, download, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of its articles and allow readers to use them for any other lawful purpose.