Analyzing in Community: The Generous and Generative Nature of Lab Relationships

• In Event: Video Interaction Analysis Lab: Working Processes as Relation Building in Times of Unrest

Abstract

While collaborative work is not novel in social sciences or STEM, we have iteratively developed practices to respond to the precarities of the contemporary educational research environment, aiming at inclusivity of historically marginalized researchers and perspectives at a micro level. Here we share some specifics of how our group functions: sustained intergenerationality; norming multiple channels of communication; and intentional generosity.

Our IA lab is its own community of practice (Wenger, 1998), “sustain[ing] dense relations of mutual engagement organized around what [we] are there to do” (p. 74). Importantly, the goals of the lab are not only analysis, but self-sustenance. We explicitly view lab attendance as a form of professional development. Though the ultimate product (research paper or analysis) is often an aim, the process of enhancing analytic skills around IA by practicing together (e.g. via analysis of foraged data, discussion of foundational texts) allows the space to be generative, for the presenters, the participants, and the broader community. The intergenerationality of this type of lab allows for a kind of apprenticeship in analysis. Newcomers learn not only by watching old-timers, but by participating in the analysis itself. This relationship, however, is not only one of mentorship, it is mutual. Seasoned analysts benefit from fresh perspectives and stances offered by burgeoning participants.

Our community fosters an ethos of commitment to one another, encouraging one another to see the “lab” as more than a space to complete individual analysis projects, but to generously contribute within a collective. In addition to the professional development orientation, a rhythm in our lab involves cultivating care via gift-giving (Author 3, 2024), where the session concludes with each participant offering a noticing or wondering that supports the presenter’s continuing analysis. Positioning final thoughts as “gifts” emphasizes both the relationality and indebtedness of the practice.

Furthermore, our lab intentionally cultivates a space that values multiple modes of communication. For every meeting, we invite participants to convene remotely, utilizing recording, video-sharing, and chat features to allow flexible geographic participation. This practice enables multimodal, time-indexed contributions to the social production of IA, destabilizing traditional norms that privilege spoken turn-taking as the primary mode of participation. Additionally, hybrid structures support the aforementioned multi-generational collaboration, as members of the lab who begin as doctoral students often continue participating after graduating.

Although there is flexibility and understanding that individuals participate within their capacity, the credibility of this group’s camaraderie is validated by their generous investment of time. Participating in, sustaining, and managing a Video Interaction Analysis Lab is an unpaid labor, but a worthy investment. This highlights the underlying value of interaction analysis, not only as a method, but as a community of practice. Our ability to support multiple channels of communication at once, with equal respect given to each, to accommodate different levels of participation while also focusing on a generosity of purpose, is predicated in part on the depth of our history and anticipation of its future—in short, the strength and prioritization of our relationships.

Authors

• Erica Lee Payne, Vanderbilt University

• Tessaly Jen, Vanderbilt University