Professional knowledge in talk: reasoning and categorising in institutional practices

1
Professional knowledge in talkreasoning and
categorising in institutional practices

• Åsa Mäkitalo
• Department of Education
• Göteborg university, Sweden
• asa.makitalo_at_ped.gu.se

The Linnaeus Centre for Research on Learning,
Interaction and Mediated Communication in
Contemporary Society (LiNCS)
2
Institutional communication

• Interdisciplinary research community
• (sociology, psychology, social psychology,
  anthropology, linguistics, communication studies,
  organisation studies)
• Theoretical orientations
• (ethnomethodology/conversation analysis,
  microsociology, ethnography of communication,
  pragmatics, dialogism, sociocultural)
• Empirical settings
• Health care settings, Social welfare offices,
  Counselling/therapy, Courts of law, Educational
  settings, Employment agencies

3
Earlier studies

• The question of how to analytically account for
• stable features of institutions and yet
• maintain the integrity of interactional phenomena

Mäkitalo, Å. (2002). Categorizing work Knowing,
arguing, and social dilemmas in vocational
guidance. Göteborg ACTA Universitatis
Gothoburgensis. Mäkitalo, Å., Säljö, R.
(2002b). Talk in institutional context and
institutional context in talk Categories as
situated practices. TEXT, 22(1), 57-82.
4
Institutional categorisation

• Institutionalisation as processes of
  categorisation
• Analytically I focussed on three dimensions
• Organising
• Socialising
• Knowledge producing

Mäkitalo, Å., Säljö, R. (2002a). Invisible
people Institutional reasoning and reflexivity
in the production of services and 'social
facts' in public employment agencies. Mind,
Culture, and Activity, 9(3), 160-178. Mäkitalo,
Å. (2003). Accounting practices as situated
knowing Dilemmas and dynamics in institutional
categorization. Discourse Studies, 5(4),
495-516.
5
Categories as analytical devices

• Categories are used to share perspectives, make
  sense of events and they imply social action
  (Edwards, 1992) Discursive psychology
• Categories are co-ordinating and organising
  devices, often materialised in classification
  tools (Bowker Star, 2000) Sociology of
  technology
• Categories are rich in cultural knowledge (Sacks,
  1992) and are tied to certain entitlements and
  obligations (Jayyusi, 1984) Ethnomethodology
• Categories are argumentative, i.e. inherently
  dynamic and contestable (Billig, 1996) Rhetorical
  analysis

6
Sociocultural perspective

• sociogenesis of institutional practices
• externalisation of cultural knowledge
• mediating tools, material and discursive
• meaning (snacenie) - situated sense (smysl)
• enculturation (communicative and cognitive)
• appropriation (becoming a legitimate knower)

7
Institutional categories are

• dialogical both in the contexts of in situ
  interaction and within the sociocultural
  practices established over long traditions of
  indulging in such interactions. (Linell, 1998)
• We use the words of others to serve our needs,
  and pass them on in new combinations for further
  appropriation. It is by invoking these discursive
  scripts that institutions speak through
  individuals (Mehan, 1996)

Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue. Talk,
interaction and contexts in dialogical
perspectives. Amsterdam, The Netherlands John
Benjamins Publishing Company. Mehan, H. (1997).
The discourse of the illegal immigration debate
A case study in the politics of representation.
Discourse and Society, 8(2), 249-270.
8
Institutional reasoning

• As newcomers in institutional settings we need to
  learn and deal with
• A pre-understood reality, a reality already
  seen as a reality of a particular kind by the
  social actors involved in it

Shotter, J. (1984). Social accountability and
selfhood. Oxford, UK Basil Blackwell.
9
Sociogenesis

• Institutional categories have been generated
  historically
• The motives for how to deal with tasks and
  problems in the institution is part of an
  argumentative tradition

10
Mediating tools

• Institutional categories mediate the concerns and
  perspectives of others to whom the institution
  is accountable
• Stakeholders in schools
• Children, parents, politicians, citizens, labour
  unions/colleagues etc

11
Categories in reasoning

• People argue about categories and their
  particulars, about what
• something is, i.e. the essence of a matter.
• Such arguments are intrinsically part of the
  character of wider
• social dilemmas, and the oscillating between
  categorization and
• particularization of these social issues
  constitutes the form used in
• elaborating and negotiating content in talk.
• We find ourselves arguing about the location of
  the heart of the issue
• (Billig, 1996, p. 168).

Billig, M. (1996). Arguing and thinking A
rhetorical view of social psychology (2 ed.).
Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press.
12
Example

• -If you study you will increase your chances of
  getting a job
• (categorised as an educational issue - as an
  issue of the supply of labour)
• -I know many immigrants who studied at Chalmers,
  they do not get any jobs (particularises,
  deviant examples, challenges applicability of
  category)
• -But you need to find out what the labour market
  demands
• (categorised as an issue of the demand of
  labour, imply the examples may not be relevant)
• - They have a good education,speak perfect
  Swedish and theyre ten years younger than me,
  still they dont get any jobs
• (uses categorisation of demand of labour to
  argue that the referred cases should be included
  if that categorisation was applicable - contests
  the relevance of category)

Mäkitalo, Å. (2003). Accounting practices as
situated knowing Dilemmas and dynamics in
institutional categorization. Discourse
Studies, 5(4), 495-516.
13
Reasoning in dialogical approaches

• In every question there are (at least) two sides
  to the argument exactly opposite to one another
• There is always a possibility of contestation
• - We thus need to position ourselves as we speak
  
• - We need to be able to account for our claims

14
Dialogicality in in situ talk

• it responds to a previous utterance, i.e.
  shapes the situated sense of what was said
• An utterance needs to be crafted to fit the
  unique circumstances of its performance
• while simultaneously it anticipates a response
  in return

15
Enculturationprocess

• We are expected to be comprehensible and
  accountable in action.
• Gaps in interaction need to be bridged by an
  accounting procedure (an explanation,
  clarification, excuse etc)
• In interaction we learn how to respond to others
  and what responses to anticipate

Mäkitalo, Å. (2006). Effort on display
Unemployment and the interactional management of
moral accountability. Symbolic Interaction,
29(4), 531-556. Mäkitalo, Å. (2003). Accounting
practices as situated knowing Dilemmas and
dynamics in institutional categorization.
Discourse Studies, 5(4), 495-516.
16
Becoming a legitimate knower

• Use before meaning and then meaning for use
• Use of terms and objects
• Mastery of tools and vocabularies of motive
• Appropriation reasoning and arguing in situated
  activities

Mills, C. W. (1940). Situated actions and
vocabularies of motive. American Sociological
Review, 5(6), 904-913.
17
Appropriation of tools

• Categorisations and classifications are
  externalised
• tools mediating collective professional knowing
• We need to learn
• - local language use and argumentative traditions
• - how categories are materialised
• - what they imply in terms of actions and
  consequences
• Examples
• - Grade 3, well beyond average, linguistic
  ability
• - Stroke at 52, weak on the right side,
  afasia

18
Reasoning in situated activities-discussing the
problem of unemployment

• The empirical example
• Material
• Audiorecorded work meeting among eight
  employment officers who discuss their work and
  everyday concerns

Mäkitalo, Å, Säljö, R. (2004). Mechanismes
socio-cognitifs et communication. Les categories
technique dans le discours. In V. Paul J.
Perriault (Eds.), Hermès 39, Cognition,
communication, politique. Critique de la raison
numerique. (Vol. 39, pp. 116-123).
19
Excerpt 1

• 1. Birgit the problem is that they
• 2. Jenny (inaudible)
• 3. Birgit are included in the long-term
  enrolled, that were
• supposed to reduce, were suppose to
  reduce those
• numbers
• 4. Jenny yes, but its not every single-
• 5. Birgit theyre fourteens, many of them
• 6. Jenny yeah, sure
  
• 7. Birgit are fourteens right?, or theyre ALU
• 8. Jenny sure
• 9. Birgit or API cause theyre part of this
  group, it- its
• unemployment insurance, and then they
  want
• to be- and then the-
• 10.Karin number fourteen doesnt count, does
  it?
• 11.Jenny but-
• 12.Birgit oh yes they belong to the long-term
  enrolled, but
• not to the long-term unemployed
• 13.Karin is that so?
• 14.Birgit so that- and if we are supposed to
  reduce, and

20
Excerpt 1

• 1. Birgit the problem is that they
• 2. Jenny (inaudible)
• 3. Birgit are included in the long-term
  enrolled, that were
• supposed to reduce, were suppose to
  reduce those
• numbers
• 4. Jenny yes, but its not every single-
• 5. Birgit theyre fourteens, many of them
• 6. Jenny yeah, sure
  
• 7. Birgit are fourteens right?, or theyre ALU
• 8. Jenny sure
• 9. Birgit or API cause theyre part of this
  group, it- its
• unemployment insurance, and then they
  want
• to be- and then the-
• 10.Karin number fourteen doesnt count, does
  it?
• 11.Jenny but-
• 12.Birgit oh yes they belong to the long-term
  enrolled, but
• not to the long-term unemployed
• 13.Karin is that so?
• 14.Birgit so that- and if we are supposed to
  reduce, and

Categorises the problem
particularises
clarifies category boundary
local relevance accountability for action
21
Main applicant categories and statistical
indicators

• Applicant category
• 11 can take a job right away
• 12 vocationally undetermined
• 13 pending participation in program
• 14 the rest

• Statistical indicator
• Unemployed Long term
  unemployed
• Rest of the enrolled Long term enrolled

22
Excerpt 2

• 1. Jenny when I looked at Suburbia we have 950
  applicants..
• who come from that area, and I looked
  at applicant
• categories twelve to fourteen
• 2. Cindy yeah
• 3. Jenny twelve, thirteen, fourteen 206
  applicants yesterday
• 4. Mari how do you get?
• 5. Jenny who are in them
• 6. Mari but how do you see that they are
  geogr-? there you had
• 7. Jenny 532
• 8. Eva postcodes
• 9. Some postcode 532 (inaudible)
• 10.Mari oh yeah okey, mhm
• 11.Jenny so we have about 200 applicants that
  we see as guidance
• or impossible.
• 12.Olle yes

23
The bridging role of institutional categories

• Institutional categories are inference rich in
  terms of the specific argumentative history of a
  social practice.
• The rationality, premises and arguments valid for
  a specific practice is couched in terms of
  institutional categories
• In that sense they serve as tools for
  contextualisation, sense-making and coordination
  of perspectives in the daily practices of
  defining problems and solving everyday tasks

24

• Institutional categories are used for
  coordinating collective activities
• They are used in reporting and accounting for
  institutional activities to outside stakeholders
  i.e. statistical production
• They are embedded in material artefacts and
  technological tools that organise everyday work
• Bowker, G., Star, S. L. (2000). Sorting things
  out. Classification and its consequences.
  Cambridge, MA The MIT Press.
• Smith, D. (1984). Textually mediated social
  organization. International Social Science
  Journal, 36(1), 59-75.
• Mäkitalo, Å., Säljö, R. (2002). Invisible
  people Institutional reasoning and reflexivity
  in the production of services and 'social facts'
  in public employment agencies. Mind, Culture, and
  Activity, 9(3), 160-178.

25
Conclusions

• Categories seamlessly connect people technologies
  and practices.
• They bridge between individuals and collectives
  and between people and artefacts
• Categories are not passive, they are instructive
  and directive
• Categories often function as black boxes i.e.
  they are taken for granted with respect to their
  meaning, but yet flexible enough to use as
  argumentative resources in situated action

26
Continuation..

• Changes in the premises for institutional
  reasoning
• Study argumentation and learning in institutional
  settings among accountable actors faced with new
  dilemmas
• Heteroglossia, mix of genres in institutional
  settings