Expanding Multiplicities as Warrants for Claims in Interaction Analysis

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

Abstract

Interaction Analysis (IA) (Jordan & Henderson, 1995) has been widely used in the Learning Sciences to explain how specific interactions, captured on video, are accomplished on a micro-scale. IA aligns with theories of learning that emphasize participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991) and its deep ties to identity (e.g., Nasir, 2002). In this paper, I argue that the collective methods of working we are continually developing in our lab are not only beneficial to the scholarly community, they may be epistemologically necessary for capturing multiple truths as a method for warranting broader claims.

Early IA studies prioritized interpretations of activity that participants themselves made observably relevant (e.g., McDermott et al., 1978). However, this focus becomes insufficient when considered alongside theoretical lenses that demonstrate how, for example, race is always relevant even when not explicitly named (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). So, if race is visually observable on film, but our analysis lacks tools to describe its tacit operation in interaction, we risk failing those most marginalized—those never granted racial neutrality in the real world (Gholson & Ma, under review). It becomes imperative to re-conceptualize what constitutes a warrant for interactional claims.

Traditional warrants in IA rely on two aspects of multiplicity: viewing the same interaction multiple times, and/or comparing similar episodes across a dataset to support interactional claims (Jordan & Henderson, 1995, p. 46). These remain valuable, yet insufficient. I argue that both positionality and collectivity can advance more robust and responsible interaction analyses.

Positionality
In education research, positionality statements often list analysts’ identities to acknowledge their privileges or other identities (Boveda & Annamma, 2023). Yet, these statements rarely extend to how those identities intersect with the analysis itself. Doing so aligns more closely with positionality statements’ true intent. As Milner (2007) explains:
“...who conducts the research, particularly what they know, and the nature of their critical racial and cultural consciousness—their views, perspectives, and biases—may also be essential to how those in education research come to know and know what is known.” (emphasis added, pg. 397).

Examples of scholarship that integrates positionality into analysis include Keifert’s (2021) work on family culture and learning, and Carrillo & Martinez’s (2024) research on Latino male identity in basketball.

Collectivity
Group work has also been central to the method since the beginning (Jordan & Henderson, 1995). Historically, this was seen as an opportunity to control for personal biases. However, considering how a group comes to know based on the partial standpoints of each lab member (Bowell, n.d.), can also offer a rich resource for building warrants for claims that are tacitly on the record.

Unfortunately, there are very few examples of how a given interaction analysis session was done. Most pieces briefly cite Jordan and Henderson, even though this piece is descriptive not prescriptive of IA practices. In order to develop a more holistic view of an IA collective, future scholarship must engage with questions of how and with whom analysts came to know a record using IA, especially regarding the tacit record.

Author

• Candice Love, University of Maryland