Digital Ethnography and the Social Dimension of

Digital Ethnography and the Social Dimension of Introspection: An Empirical Study in Two Colombian Schools Johannes Rieken, Efraín Garcia-Sanchez, Mónica Pérez Trujillo & Daniel Bear

Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science ISSN 1932-4502 Integr. psych. behav. DOI 10.1007/s12124-015-9299-1

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by Springer Science +Business Media New York. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be selfarchived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your article, please use the accepted manuscript version for posting on your own website. You may further deposit the accepted manuscript version in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later and provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer's website. The link must be accompanied by the following text: "The final publication is available at link.springer.com”.

1 23

Author's personal copy Integr Psych Behav DOI 10.1007/s12124-015-9299-1 R E G U L A R A RT I C L E

Digital Ethnography and the Social Dimension of Introspection: An Empirical Study in Two Colombian Schools Johannes Rieken & Efraín Garcia-Sanchez & Mónica Pérez Trujillo & Daniel Bear

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Abstract We developed a teaching-led research project to empirically ground methodological reflection about digital ethnography. Drawing on Cordelois’ collective ethnographic observation approach, fifteen emerging professionals (from a private general education university and a Police Academy in Bogota) collaborated in a method seminar on digital ethnography. They worked in cross-institutional research teams, each carrying SenseCams for 3 days. Students had a dual role as both participants and observers during self-confrontation interviews. The research design enabled emerging professionals to introspect about what it is to be a member of their institution. The SenseCam provided an additional opportunity for observation as it elicited different reactions in the two institutions. The fact that SenseCams produce sequential accounts of activity as well as its situated nature made apparent the autonomy to study and solve daily issues (e.g. transport, security, commitments) by students from the university, while students in the police academy are more focused on responding to unforeseen activities (e.g. police services, unexpected requests). Finally, our research The author was supported by the Economics and Social Research Council funded project ‘Strategic governance of Science and Technology Pathways to Security’ when conducting the research for this paper. J. Rieken Civil Society and Human Security Research Unit, London School of Economics, London, UK e-mail: [email protected] E. Garcia-Sanchez (*) Escuela de Cadetes de Policía General Francisco de Paula Santander and Institute of Psychology, Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia e-mail: [email protected] M. P. Trujillo Department of Psychology, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia e-mail: [email protected] D. Bear School of Public Safety, Sheridan College, Oakville, Canada e-mail: [email protected]

Author's personal copy Integr Psych Behav

highlights the relevance of the social dimension of introspection for digital ethnography. How digital data that captures an individual perspective is negotiated in a group becomes a key methodological question. Keywords Introspection . Self-confrontation . Digital ethnography . SenseCam . Professionalisation

Introduction and Literature Review How do we become professionals, learn to make judgments, appreciate context, and conform to the relevant rules but ignore other less relevant rules? Such questions help us to continuously improve professional practices by counteracting ingrained but possibly counter-productive practices. To better understand how emerging professionals master their fields we require introspective access to their daily learning and sense making (Weick 1995) processes. Here the growing field of digital ethnography, as practiced by Lahlou (2011); Ochs and Solomon (2010), Pink (2013), Doherty et al. (2013), Kerr et al. (2013) and Kelly et al. (2013) provides exciting possibilities but also poses theoretical and practical questions that need to be explored in order to effectively employ this new methodology. The focus of this paper is largely methodological. We explore how introspection is enriched by digital ethnographic data by asking two groups of emerging professionals to introspect using the recorded material to explain their routines to each other. We contrast the digital material collected by our two groups of participants and then expand upon by the interpretations of such material derived through participant-led introspection. The discussion situates our research within the field of digital ethnography by comparing it to that of Cordelois (2010) and argues that digital ethnography requires us to focus on the social dimension of introspection that emerges when the first-person perspective captured by SenseCams is negotiated within a group. Based on developments in the use of digital ethnography, we can conceptualize it as following the goals of classical ethnography (understanding knowledge a community holds by obtaining an inside perspective) and adds to the pursuit of these goals through exploring digital artifacts. For all these types of digital ethnography, digital artifacts come from a variety of sources. These include, but are not limited to browser histories, body worn video, geoanalysis of mobile phone movements, and other automatically or manually logged digital information. These artifacts can be naturally occurring or produced for research purposes (think selfie vs SenseCam). Such data can then support the researcher in their analysis (seamless information capturing and better recall capabilities) (Bear 2013), be analyzed solely by the researcher (classical qualitative and quantitative analysis) (Doherty et al. 2013), or in partnership with research participants to explain, share, and make explicit ingroup knowledge held by the community (Rieken 2013). In this paper we focus on this latter use of partnered digital ethnography. In order to focus on introspective access to professional knowledge, we must first identify how we conceptualize such knowledge. We understand expertise to be situated (Suchman 1987) and distributed (Hutchins 1995) amongst a body of professionals and their working environment, not solely contained within an individual. In other words, it


is important to explore how experts master their environment and act upon it with purpose. We thus understand knowledge as the ability to Bdraw distinctions, within a domain of action, based on an appreciation of context^ (Tsoukas and Vladimirou 2001 p. 973). Using this interpretive approach to knowledge, one of the main challenges is to identify those context dependent everyday practices of a community that create social reality and render it meaningful (Garfinkel 1991; Latour 2005). To this end, ethnography provides an useful method because it allows the development of an intricate understanding of social practices and knowledge held by a community (Hammersley and Atkinson 1983). However readers of ethnographic studies become heavily reliant on the ethnographer. Ultimately it is the ethnographer’s account and not that of the native community members that is reported. It is also the case that empirical material to sustain claims about community knowledge, such as field notes and artifacts, are also mediated by the ethnographer and may subtly skew the first-hand account of a community member’s knowledge. First person perspective digital ethnography can in part be understood as an attempt to address these methodological challenges. By highlighting introspection as opposed to remembering, we bring to the forefront the analytical capacity the participants themselves perform in order to relate their past inner states to the knowledge of their communities. Such efforts to improve introspection based methodology speak to a long lasting debate in psychology. For the purposes of this paper, we will adhere to the concept of introspection as begun by James (1890), and developed in progression by Boring (1953), Nisbett and Wilson (1977), and Howe (1991). While introspection is often seen as egocentric activity (looking into our own mind), in this paper we highlight the social components of introspection (reporting what we there discover) as they are utilized for the sharing of professional practices. For James, introspection is Blooking into our own minds and reporting what we there discover^ (James 1890, p. 185). This process is differentiated from remembering in that introspection contains a specific analytical component. While it is rarely made explicit, ungrounded introspection is at the basis of many research methodologies (Boring 1953). For example, surveys that ask for personal opinions can be argued to be introspective because they require the individual to reflect on and report on their inner state towards the topic at hand. Nisbett and Wilson, based on a review of several studies of their time, to conclude that, Bthere may be little or no direct introspective access to higher order cognitive processes^ (Nisbett and Wilson 1977, p. 231). Critical of this position, Howe (1991) argued that behaviouristic models are given preference over introspection not only because of their explanatory power but that rather, explanations of behavior using supposedly objective external categories are preferred because they affirm the scientific self-understanding of psychology. Also, whilst experiments may provide important heuristic models for understanding cognitive processes, their potential to inform policy and practice are considerably increased when field studies of real-life situations, involving the detailed capture of naturally occurring activity, complement them. Therefore Smith and Millers (1978) advise a focus on the conditions that allow research to obtain valid introspective data rather than to either reject it completely or embrace it uncritically - our research aim is to contribute to this effort. Equipping emerging professionals with digital devices in order to capture how they practice their knowledge in everyday activity provides empirical material capable of capturing micro-level detail. Such substantial levels of detail do not automatically


confer an objective perspective. Just as the presence of a researcher can affect respondents’ actions (Wickström and Bendix 2000), so might the presence of the recording device change the behavior of recording and recorded individuals. Finally, our own subjective bias cannot be eliminated simply because we have made a digital record from another’s perspective. Therefore we maintain our premise that knowledge is context dependent and subjective. The advantage of the digital material does not lie in its perceived objectivity, but rather in its potential to allow more detailed and grounded interpretation of practice, in conjunction with the individual who recorded the data. What can be more easily evaded in discussions becomes difficult to escape when data is brought to the exchange. It is precisely with this interpretation process, a process of exchanging possible explanation and gaining a joint understanding of activity, that introspection becomes a social activity. Goodwin (1994) illustrated that experts acquire a professional vision that allows them to code, highlight, and represent objects and practices in the context of their respective professional expertise. Further the data produced by digital ethnography is what Knoblauch et al. (2006) describes as a real-time sequential medium; i.e. such data captures not only what participants have done and who they interacted with but also the lengths of these acts and in what order they took place. As has been demonstrated by conversation analysis (Sacks, Scheglof, and Jefferson 1974; Schegloff 1968) capturing these timing and sequencing related qualities of practice can be essential to explore how social organization, a key element of professional expertise, is accomplished dynamically. Digitally capturing first person perspectives in ethnography allows access to realtime sequential analysis and self-confrontation, along with the ensuing implications for introspection. A detailed digital account of professional activity from the perspective of the expert allows that person to externalize their practice through self-confrontation (LeBellu, under submission). Such self-confrontation elicits introspective accounts. Normally, reporting consciousness is not an easy task as it constantly changes in response to stimuli from our environment. Also, since we are all inherently limited to only ever experience our own consciousness directly, reporting our awareness, or in our case more precisely the professional perception of context, requires translating a subjective internal experience into a communicable format. This is essentially why any reported introspection has a social dimension. However, self-confrontation in digital ethnography calls for drawing out this social component even further. Introspection in digital ethnography does not rely upon a mental representation of events but instead on shareable digital account of events. This gives both the participating introspecting subject and the inquiring interviewer equal access to the first-person perspective digital representations (SenseCam images), limiting the asymmetry of professional experience. Arguably it is both the participant and researcher together that introspect about digitally captured practices during self-confrontation. The participant is able to point to practices that are otherwise difficult to articulate, s/he is not consciously aware of, or takes for granted; while the interviewer sees elements of expert knowledge in action that s/he would otherwise not had thought to enquire about. This is possible precisely because knowledge is situated and distributed in context i.e. in an individual acting upon its environment. Digital, empirical, first person perspective data captures this interactive element of knowledge and allows for its joint interpretation. The translation of introspection is no longer limited to bridging what is subjectively experienced to


what can be inter-subjectively exchanged, but now includes making a digital representation of practice seen by someone with professional vision meaningful to an interested outsider. This creates an inductive process from observed subjective incidences of practice to a process of inter-subjectively shared interpretation of such practice. It is for that reason that interviews in which participants work with the researchers through their digitally captured data should in themselves be understood as data elicitation process. There is now a number of research methods that deliberately create such settings for digitally enabled joint interpretation such as replay interviews (Lahlou 2010), self-confrontation (Theureau 1992, 2003), explication interviewing (Vermersch 1994); cross self-confrontation teaching (Clot, Faita, Fernandez, and Schneller 2001) and cued recall debrief (Omodei and McLennan 1994; Omodei, McLennan, and Wearing 2002, 2005). Digitally enabled joint introspection is not a neutral process. Moving from a participant reporting about a mental representation to at least two people (interviewer and participant) interpreting a digital representation means that we need to be even more conscious about the interpretive negotiation process between respondents and researchers. Lyman and Scott (1989) have pointed out that accounts are the prime socio-linguistic instrument to render behavior intelligible. However, by the same token accounts are Bemployed whenever an action is subject to valuative inquiry^ (Lyman and Scott 1989 p. 112). Therefore, in the process of jointly interpreting the meaning of action captured on digital ethnographic data, we also ask those that recorded this data to justify their actions. Lyman and Scott go on to argue that accounts presuppose a speaker and an audience. Therefore, accounts about social acts will be tailored to the social group and situation in which they are given. This is in order to address salient local norms by the idiomatic format, which makes accounts more likely to be accepted by the audience. Explaining behavior by referring to the rules of an organization is an illustration of this process. Grice (1979) has pointed out that in a conversation, we do not verbalize what we take to be obvious to our conversation partner. We need to be mindful of the above processes in digital ethnography when we accept that with this methodology the social dimension of introspection increases, as participants and researchers jointly negotiate the first-person individual perspective captured in digital ethnographic data. Cordelois (2010) considered some of these social aspects of digital ethnography in his paper on digital technology for collective ethnographic observation. In it he describes a digital ethnography setup with head-mounted point-of-view video cameras, so called SubCams (Lahlou 1999), carried by participants of a research seminar by Professor Lahlou in a social science university in Paris. These are paired to capture data about experience of coming home with the SubCams and having a self-confrontation interview based on that data. The self-confrontation interview is a technique to collect different kind of information that involves a within-method triangulation, systematic observation methods (capturing devices, images or videos) and the discourse of participants (Creswell 1998; Flick 1998). The usefulness of this technique is that it leads to integrate cognitions with empirical phenomena through verbal and non-verbal activities, which facilitates the analysis of situations since interviewee perspective, at the same time that allow to retrieve and analyze the subjectivity (thoughts, emotions and actions) associated with them (Von Cranach and Kalbermatten 1982; Lim 2002). Hence, the seminar was explicitly designed to generate trust to share their data among


participants and to draw on collective intelligence in their analysis. Our setup is largely comparable, though we use two different types of professionals and a camera only capturing still images. We will use Cordelois work as a point of comparison to better illustrate how the consequences of different social set-ups and capturing devices can have on the level of analysis and results of digital ethnography. In short, digital ethnography creates the opportunity for self-confrontation and a grounded approach to introspection. However, by the same token it also makes introspection a more collective exercise than we usually conceive of. It is precisely this social dimension of the introspective process that we would like to examine in more detail in this paper. In addition, the role of digital capturing devices in different organizational contexts and its consequences to self-confrontation interviews and negotiations of individual introspection are discussed. As an ancillary topic that appears intermittently in the work, we will at times examine the social group membership of participants.

Methodology The research project was developed as a collaborative partnership between two educational institutions in Colombia’s capital, Bogotá. The first, Escuela de Cadetes de Policía BGeneral Francisco de Paula Santander^ (ECSAN), is the main police academy of the National Police of Colombia. This school offers an undergraduate program in Police Management as well as post-graduate degrees in specialized police services. As of 2014, there were 1187 students enrolled at ECSAN and 112 academic faculty. This institution aims to provide a comprehensive education that develops officers with professional police skills and academic research competences. The second institution is The University of Los Andes (Los Andes), a general education, private, nonsectarian university, and one of the leading universities in South America. As of January 2014, there were 13,459 undergraduate students and 3116 postgraduate students, and more than 600 full-time academic faculty members. Although teaching methodologies vary greatly among courses and Faculties, the University encourages students to take responsibility for their learning experiences beyond the classroom context and commit to making a difference in their local communities. We selected these two institutions on grounds of their set of differences and similarities which allows us to explore two distinct pathways towards professional life. The two organizations are comparable in terms of location, educational objectives (education of future professionals), and student age group. They are also dissimilar in many ways, including official status (public vs. private, non-sectarian vs. armed forces academy) and focus on specific professional fields (Business Administration, Law and Anthropology vs. Police Management). In each organization, students were invited to participate in a Research Methods Seminar that involved taking part in an educational project. The Seminar was advertised via posters and mailing lists. A description of the Seminar was sent to all who sent an expression of interest. When we received confirmation of interest, emerging professional were formally registered in the Seminar. The research project’s goal was to have these emerging professionals examine with us how in everyday activities they gain the expertise that helps them master their professional fields. Further, we wanted to teach and examine a methodological


approach for such reflection. Hence, we used digital ethnography to focus on actors’ understandings of their own learning processes, practices and environment, and provided appropriate conditions (private space, acceptance, commitment of confidentiality) for information exchange within a comfortable and respectful context. Participants benefitted from their participation in the research through the methodological training and by increasing their understanding of their own actions through guided introspection. Participants A total of 15 individuals participated in the project. Of these, five were postgraduate full-time students from different Faculties at the University of Los Andes, ages 24 to 30. Ten were ECSAN undergraduate students, ages 18 to 28. Participants joined one of five teams, each comprising three people, one student from Los Andes and two students from ECSAN. Three researchers from LSE, ECSAN and Los Andes conducted the sessions. As this research was conducted as part of a seminar taught by Dr. Rieken with students from both ECSAN and Los Andes, having a research team of three helped to negotiate research access, and most importantly provided insider expertise on each of the studied organizations within the research team. Data Collection and Procedures Researchers and emerging professionals met at a research seminar on the Use of Digital Ethnography, conducted by Dr. Rieken. During this meeting, researchers and participants discussed the use of digital ethnography methods and its potential benefits and challenges. As a group they co-developed a plan to collect data on their routines in a manner that is compatible with the daily actions and interactions that form part of their training. An additional research workshop was held to explain the use of the SenseCam. These devices, originally developed for Alzheimer patients by Hodge and colleagues (Hodges et al. 2006), are small digital photo cameras that are carried around the neck. They automatically take at least two wide angle images per minute and are triggered by the integrated light and movement sensors. The participants were asked to carry the device for 3 days continuously and indiscriminately during their waking hours. Participants took 2056 pictures on average per day. Students were at liberty to turn off the camera and they were encouraged to do so whenever they felt it was inappropriate to carry it, or were asked by someone else to turn it off. Students wrote down their reflections during and after wearing the SenseCam. Following data collection, two researchers (authors Rieken & Garcia-Sanchez) met with each team of students, composed by two ECSAN students and one Los Andes student, and jointly conducted self-confrontation interviews. The interviews lasted 66 min on average per participant within a range between 40 and 100 min. During these interviews, each participant was in control of the digital material, narrating the content of the digital images they had recorded to gain an understanding of their practices in context. The researchers then asked questions about the images in order to make sense of the information (see Fig. 1). During these meetings, each participant described his/her daily routines and highlighted the most important aspects of his/her activities. Researchers used the digital data as the focus of the interview and asked participants to summarize the content of the


Fig. 1 Settings for the debriefing interviews with the emergent professionals

SenseCam material to identify the higher-level goals they pursued in the recorded activity. Researchers encouraged dialogue between emerging professionals about their own practices, factors that facilitated or challenged their learning, and strategies that could support their development into competent professionals. The students also discussed their perspectives about their own learning settings and the effects of carrying the Sensecam on their own and others’ behavior. The effect of digital capturing devices on the results of studies employing digital ethnography itself was thus made the object of empirical enquiry, rather than the acceptance of blanket statements about its (ir)relevance. The introspection inducing self-confrontational setting where researchers and participants work through the digital data is, as we argued above, a data elicitation process in itself; it entails how individual perspectives were negotiated with a group. It is therefore crucial to video record the interviews in order to be able to examine what influence this social dimension of introspection may have on the results of this research. Analysis Researchers and other participants took notes during the self-confrontation interviews, and at the conclusion of each interview there was an exchange about the observations each person present found most salient. Each of the five research groups would then be given a copy of their own data (SenseCam material and recording of self-confrontation interview) to prepare a presentation for the final session of the methods seminar. For this presentation students were asked to highlight what insights they have gained from capturing and reviewing their material in terms of awareness about own practice, how their practice compares to that of their peers from the other participating institution, what recurring temporal patterns they noticed, and finally any observations about the effects of carrying the Sensecam. The content of these presentations together with the initial observations by the researchers (themselves a combination of insiders and outsiders in the two researched institutions) would form the starting point for an analysis based on retro-sampling (Lahlou 2006). This sampling procedure takes advantage of the rich primary data material capturing phase in digital ethnography where digital capturing devices are worn to record participants’ activity continuously and indiscriminately. The resulting rich material needs to be reviewed with some focus in order to not get lost in its quantity. That is why our starting point was the presentations made by the participants. Digital ethnographic data provides the opportunity to still make new observation when it is reviewed, and can then feedback into the analysis. Because we are working with a


digital records that can be reviewed as needed, it is possible to take an initially coincidental observation and systematically review if after having become aware of it other incidents of that phenomena are in the material. This process was facilitated by the use of Transana (Woods and Dempster 2011; Afitska 2009) a video analysis software we used for the targeted transcription and coding of the recordings of the self-confrontation interviews.

Results The focus of this paper is methodological and this section is therefore primarily to provide empirical material to ground our methodological reflection in. For this purpose we begin, with a focus on the kind of information obtained from the data directly, then describe insights drawn from conducting the self-confrontation interviews, and conclude this section by presenting material about the impact of the SenseCam on recorded behavior. SenseCam Data From the SenseCam images alone it is possible to know that Los Andes students spent between 1 and 2 h per day commuting to school. ECSAN students had no commute as they lived at the academy, however they spent between 2 and 3 h in protocol activities such as marching, standing in formation, or practicing routines for ceremonial duties. Los Andes students generally travelled without being accompanied by other students, and used a variety of transportation methods. ECSAN students almost always have multiple other ECSAN students in their pictures, most of the time they are inside the academy with movement in groups. Their movement is dictated by the orders given by their commanders (Fig. 2). The issue of commuting led into a wider appreciation for some of the major differences visible in the SenseCam data. Los Andes students must concern themselves with not only their learning or professional needs, but they also have to consider issues related with their mobility, security, sustenance, and organization of their schedule. Meanwhile, ECSAN students rarely engage in such activities. Their schedules identify when to study, what exercises to do, and when and what food will be available. All of this is visible in the information captured by the SenseCams where we regularly observe rows of identical beds, identical uniforms, and identical meals. Such uniformity of routines and their repetition is a key characteristic of professional training at ECSAN (Fig. 3). Self-Confrontation Interviews While raw images provide information to help analyze behaviors, activities, and routine sequences, coming back to the information through interviews allows researchers and respondents to makes sense of it. It is possible to identify that what the participant reports they did may be different from what they really did. This is because participants themselves contrast what they remember of a situation with what they recorded during that situation. To illustrate one participant from ECSAN who said he used the internet almost exclusively to respond to work-mails was actually seen to spend


a. Activity: Travel to attend a meeting (driving). Time: 16:56. Institution: Los Andes

b. Activity: Travel to attend a meeting (walking). Time: 17:44 Institution: Los Andes

c. Activity: travel to attend a meeting (walking). Time: 17:48 Institution: Los Andes

d. Activity: Move within the school (marching). Time: 13:15 Institution: ECSAN

e. Activity: Move within the school (marching). Time: 17:17 Institution: ECSAN

f. Activity: Move within the school (marching).Time:17:19 Institution: ECSAN

Fig. 2 Movement of emergent professionals to attend their commitments. a. Activity: Travel to attend a meeting (driving). Time: 16:56. Institution: Los Andes. b. Activity: Travel to attend a meeting (walking). Time: 17:44 Institution: Los Andes. c. Activity: travel to attend a meeting (walking). Time: 17:48 Institution: Los Andes. d. Activity: Move within the school (marching). Time: 13:15 Institution: ECSAN. e. Activity: Move within the school (marching). Time: 17:17 Institution: ECSAN. f. Activity: Move within the school (marching). Time:17:19 Institution: ECSAN

considerable time using the internet for personal activities (see left image in Fig. 4 below). Equally one Los Andes student said she only studies in comfortable spaces but the data showed she was reviewing an academic paper in a taxi, a space she generally feels is an uncomfortable working environment (right image same figure). Participants reacted in different ways to such discrepancies between reported and observed activates. Some ‘argued’ with the data saying the Sensecams seemed to captured exceptional incidents not representative of their daily routines. Others took it as an opportunity to learn something about themselves. One participant started to use his Smartphone less after he realized how frequently it appeared in the first day of Sensecam data. This change could then be seen in the footage on the next days. BIn fact, that night when I downloaded the photos and I saw them, I realized that I spent lots of time with my cell phone, and [then] I tried not use it too much^ (Los Andes student-3-Male). These simple examples illustrate that the researchers are enabled to contrast the self-reported information against the empirical one, a task previously difficult to achieve. The use of self-confrontation interviews helped the research team to identify differences between Los Andes and ECSAN students concerning the notion of time, the use of spaces, Information and Communication Technologies and its applications, and references for professional identity. To illustrate, an ECSAN student described his setting for independent work as follows: Bin the afternoons commanders talk at us while we do our


a. Activity: Coordinate work project (driving to a meeting). Time: 12:04 Institution: Los Andes

b. Activity: Coordinate work project (talking with client). Time: 12:06 Institution: Los Andes

c. Activity: Coordinate work project (having work lunch).Time:12:17 Institution: Los Andes

d. Activity: Having lunch (doing the line) Time: 12:53 Institution: ECSAN

e. Activity: Marching to dinner (formations). Time: 18:16 Institution: ECSAN

f. Activity: Having dinner (using diningroom).Time:18:38 Institution: ECSAN

Fig. 3 Examples of everyday activities in different settings. a. Activity: Coordinate work project (driving to a meeting). Time: 12:04 Institution: Los Andes. b. Activity: Coordinate work project (talking with client). Time: 12:06 Institution: Los Andes. c. Activity: Coordinate work project (having work lunch). Time:12:17 Institution: Los Andes. d. Activity: Having lunch (doing the line) Time: 12:53 Institution: ECSAN. e. Activity: Marching to dinner (formations). Time: 18:16 Institution: ECSAN. f. Activity: Having dinner (using diningroom). Time:18:38 Institution: ECSAN

work, one usually works on the Smartphone; at least I do in that way, because at any moment we may have to go out into formation^ (ECSAN student-4-Male). A Los Andes participant takes up on this account that contrasts her manner of working independently: Btalking about practices to study, for me it would be very hard to do what you do, for me to get into study mode is a whole ritual^ (Los Andes student-6-Female).

a. Activity: Study in classroom. Time: 11: 30 Institution: ECSAN

b. Activity: Reviewing a paper in a taxi. Time: 06: 30 Institution: Los Andes

Fig. 4 Emergent professionals have reported different uses of technology than they actually do. a. Activity: Study in classroom. Time: 11: 30 Institution: ECSAN. b. Activity: Reviewing a paper in a taxi. Time: 06: 30 Institution: Los Andes


An observation that highlighted the potential of this method to help researchers understand respondents’ conception of everyday life is provided by their descriptions of the relationship they have with their learning institutions. An ECSAN participant said BI live where I work^. The student’s reference point is their public life. The work and teaching/learning process are embedded in the student’s personal existence. The everyday routines in the police academy are designed to educate and train some specific skills and personal attitudes toward their future profession (i.e. braveness, honor, toughness, obedience to commands, etc.). In the case of Los Andes students it could be seen conversely, BI work where I live^, which means that the reference point is the private life, where they decide to do their work/studying in personal spaces not linked directly with the University. They take a more active role guiding their own learning experiences, developing professional skills such as multitasking, flexibility, adaptation, and self-regulation. BI live where I work^, implies that ECSAN students rarely leave the academy, they sleep and rest in the school in spaces designed by the organization; while Los Andes student also work in their house and self-regulate the activity, alternating time to rest and fun among work. (see Fig. 5). With regard to the notion of time, ECSAN students develop under a command systems that organizes their schedules and learning process. They had little time, at most 60 min but sometimes as little as 15, specifically dedicated to autonomous study

a. Activity: Go to rest and sleep. Time: 21:09 Institution: ECSAN

b. Activity: Go to rest and sleep. Time: 21:12 Institution: ECSAN

c. Activity: Work in several projects. Time: 07:45 d. Activity: Work in several projects. Time: 10:39 Institution: Los Andes Institution: Los Andes Fig. 5 Places where the emerging professionals live and how they alternate with work/academic activities. a. Activity: Go to rest and sleep. Time: 21:09 Institution: ECSAN. b. Activity: Go to rest and sleep. Time: 21:12 Institution: ECSAN. c. Activity: Work in several projects. Time: 07:45 Institution: Los Andes. d. Activity: Work in several projects. Time: 10:39 Institution: Los Andes


and free time during an entire day. Where this free time took place was dictated by orders from their superiors, and this varied based on the rank and privileges afforded to different ECSAN students. As one ECSAN student said: BWe must be connected all the time, we constantly receive orders through Whatsapp and the blackberry messenger, it’s a way to control people^ (ECSAN Student-2-Male). On the other hand, Los Andes students are involved in a more liberal education system, so they have to organize times according the different activities where they are committed. They are used to having several larger periods of time (between 45 and 180 min) each day to develop learning and autonomous activities. The spaces are chosen by themselves depending on their tasks.BI chose the dates of recording, thinking that at that moment I wasn’t be working on my thesis, but in the end I had to work on it, I think I had very monotonous days^ (Los Andes Student 3- Male). They develop a sense of responsibility to complete their tasks, and their relations with others they encounter are less stratified than those in ECSAN. As one Los Andes student said: BI participate in a seminar, it’s an informal space where several professionals with shared topics of interest meet up to study about it, it has helped me to develop certain research skills, I know I have learned a lot in this additional space^ (Los Andes Student-6Female) (Fig. 6).

a. Activity: Study policing topics. Time: 16:41 Institution: ECSAN

b. Activity: Study policing topics. Time: 17:07 Institution: ECSAN

c. Activity: Study for a seminar. Time: 14:40 Institution: Los Andes

d. Activity: Study for a seminar: Time: 15:52 Institution: Los Andes

Fig. 6 Practices to learning and studying in the two settings. a. Activity: Study policing topics. Time: 16:41 Institution: ECSAN. b. Activity: Study policing topics. Time: 17:07 Institution: ECSAN. c. Activity: Study for a seminar. Time: 14:40 Institution: Los Andes. d. Activity: Study for a seminar: Time: 15:52 Institution: Los Andes


ECSAN students’ learning activities are fragmented. They have several short periods of time in different places and with variable conditions in which to study. These conditions are regimented by individuals who are superior in rank and therefore superior in status and power. Los Andes students have specific places and times they choose to study and work, and they generate more comfortable conditions for themselves (see Fig. 6). Again, students become aware about their own situation by contrasting it with that of the other participants, and characterise their own world by describing and naming their counterparts’. One participant stated: BWhat I see is that [the Los Andes student] manages his time in a more individualistic way, he does his own activities that he had scheduled previously; here [at ECSAN] we don’t have the ability to do that^ (ECSAN student-5-Male). Different Impact of the SenseCam on Recorded Behavior As we have observed in previous research, the use of SubCam like devices can affect both the nature of the wearer’s behavior and the people who interact with the wearer, in diverse and context dependent ways (Rieken 2013). The impact of the camera provides visibility to complementary elements at the institutional, interpersonal, and psychological dimensions. In this study, we noticed that the cameras created an uncomfortable feeling among ECSAN students because the device was associated with mechanisms of surveillance, control, and punishment for the lower ranked cadets: BWhen I was wearing the camera, lots of people declined to argue with me or talk to me. When they saw the camera they seemed scared, and asked me about [the camera] and then left^ (ECSAN student-5-Male). On the other hand, Los Andes students paid little attention to the cameras, and most inquiries about the camera were positive and aimed at learning more about the research they were used for (Fig. 7). When listening to his partner’s account, a student from Los Andes replied, BWhat’s interesting to me is the contrast [with students from ECSAN] regarding interaction with people [when wearing the camera], because I didn’t feel in Los Andes that they had changed their behavior with me or because of me; I felt strange and I thought they were going to see me in a bad way, but after 15 min I forgot I was wearing the camera. The attitude of some people was very different; some even the asked me to take photographs of them^ (Los Andes Student 3- Male). These findings illustrate additional elements about the way students perceived their learning environments and the values surrounding professional identity at an organizational and institutional level, as well as the feelings involved in the construction of professional identities. What is also important to note from the preceding quotes is that participants seem to understand their own situation better (the reaction to the camera they experience) by comparing it to the experiences of students at the other institution. This points to what we argue throughout; that participants negotiate introspective accounts in the social setting of the debriefing interview. Viewing images shot at another institution required students to create meaning from their own experiences and constructed ideas of that institution, and then to validate them with the students who shot those pictures. B[What I see in the video is that] when his partners approach him, all of them have the surveillance structure in mind; and also it’s a way to keep the hierarchies [of the school] in their mind through reminding all the time … that you can lose your status if somebody is [seen not following] the rules. Conversely, in the university there


a. Activity: Attend the classes. Time: 10:38 Institution: ECSAN

b. Activity: Attend a seminar. Time: 17:46 Institution: Los Andes

Quote: “everybody was looking at me (…), they were saying I was a spy (...) they felt uncomfortable” (ECSAN-1-Female)

Quote:“They (classmates) never asked me about the camera” (Los Andes-6-Female)

Fig. 7 Impact of the camera device for students of the two different settings. a. Activity: Attend the classes. Time: 10:38 Institution: ECSAN. Quote: Beverybody was looking at me (…), they were saying I was a spy (…) they felt uncomfortable^ (ECSAN-1-Female) b. Activity: Attend a seminar. Time: 17:46 Institution: Los Andes. Quote: BThey (classmates) never asked me about the camera^ (Los Andes-6-Female)

wasn’t any problem with the professors or colleagues [seeing the camera].^ Los Andes Student-4-Female.

Discussion To what extent are our findings a function of our methodological set-up and can our findings illuminate the discussion of good practices for introspection in digital ethnography? Drawing on Cordelois’s (2010) paper on digital technology for collective ethnographic observation as a point of comparison, we contrast the ways in which Cordelois’ and our findings are both based on the digital data as well as accounts elicited by self-confronting participants with their digital ethnographic data. This will allow us to place our research within the field of digital ethnography and highlight parts of the methodology that require careful reflection. Insights Drawn on Digital Data – Different Forms of Digital Capture and Resulting Material Cordelois (2010) used sub-cams while we used SenseCams for the first stage of digital data collection. While SubCams provide more details and immersive material that includes sound and moving images, SenseCams captures more manageable data in the format of still images, but over longer periods of activity. Therefore, Cordelois focused data capture on one specific event (that of coming home) while we instructed emerging professionals to indiscriminately capture their activity for 3 days continuously. The difference in detail of the digital data-capturing device results in different levels of analysis. While Cordelois is able to capture micro level details including even sighs made by participants, and how multiple streams of activity can be coordinated within very minute time spans, our SenseCam material allowed us to identify where and with whom participants spent their days and the larger activity chunks that these days consist of. Also, because larger time periods are covered and reviewed more quickly, Sensecam


material allows for the discovery of repeated patterns or routines of activity. 1 Both forms of digital data capture allow for exploring situate human activity empirically. We can recall from the finding section that Los Andes students visit different locations and can spend long periods of time moving between them. This is in comparison to ECSAN students that spend virtually all their time on campus and have predictable routines with certain activities clearly linked to specific times of the day. The clarity with which these differences in learning practices between the two institutions can be seen is precisely also a function of choosing SenseCams as digital capture devices for the research. It is location and acts that are identifiable through observable behavior over at least several minutes that become particularly apparent in SenseCam material. This speaks to Knoblauch et al. (2006) point of data in digital ethnography often being a real time sequential medium. That this quality of data is crucial has already been highlighted in conversation analysis (Sacks et al. 1974; Schegloff 1968). However their studies identified the importance in durations of seconds and milliseconds, our analysis shows that similar contributions to the creation of meaning in communities through rituals may only become observable when covering larger increments of time. More generally, this points to the need to be reflective about the level of analysis in digital ethnography that is often left implicit in the capturing device. Especially when duration, frequency, and order of acts are expected to be of relevance to the studied phenomenon researchers of digital ethnography should be mindful about matching the device with the appropriate fine-grain to capture the time-sequential pattern characteristic for the phenomenon. For this purpose it may be beneficial to have participants carry multiple different capturing devices simultaneously for at least part of the data collection phase and to compare what temporal patterns of activity become apparent with each of them. Such a multi-device approach would generate significant amounts of data, and appropriate methods would be required to identify and analyze the relevant content. Insights Drawn on Accounts Elicited by Self-Confronting with Ethnographic Digital Data We have argued before that one of the most interesting innovations of digital ethnography lies in self-confronting emerging professionals with the digital material and analyzing it with them. Further we highlighted the need to be mindful of the social component introspective accounts will consequently carry. Let us therefore recall that we arranged the self-confrontation interviews in group settings with emerging professionals from both institutions ECSAN and Los Andes present. When retrospecting about their digital footage, group members would therefore often contrast expectations and ways of doing things in their institution with accounts from participants of the other institution. Having members from both institutions present required them to render explanations for their behavior that resonates both with organizational insiders and outsiders. Salient institutional norms needed to be addressed and explicitly explained. By providing a heterogeneous social setting for conversation with different levels of relevant knowledge present we counteracted the issue identified by Grice (1979) that in 1 The development of intelligent image management systems (Lee et al. 2008) has aided many researchers in utilizing the data generated by Sensecams, however this system was not utilized in this research endeavour.


a conversation we often do not verbalize what we take to be obvious to our conversation partner. Equally, by bringing together individuals that do not share the same organizational norms we responded to the implicit demand to justify behavior that is raised whenever we are asked to account for it (Lyman and Scott 1989) by the same means - a heterogeneous group with varied norms comprising the interview setting. In less grounded forms of introspection such a setup could well lead to experts describing their practices more selectively. However, in our digitally enabled introspection the interviewee, researchers, and other emerging professionals jointly reviewed the same digital representation of activity (see Fig. 1), requiring everybody present to address practices that were actually captured, not only what they selectively recall. Our particular self-confrontation interviews encouraged students to compare accounts between learning institutions. Given that both ECSAN and Los Andes identify themselves and are identified by the Colombian government as institutions of higher learning, this contrast provided an interesting opportunity to relate such claims to actual practices. That is to say it is easier to become aware and make explicit oftenunacknowledged contradictions in an organization when we have the means to compare. This speaks to the demand in organizational research to pay due attention to informal and implicit practices (Blau 1955, 1974) by providing tools and processes to capture such practices. To illustrate, in our case such comparison made apparent ECSA N’s focus on inculturating cadets to operate under the regime of one particular organization rather than more generally educating them about professional practices and skills in a variety of organizations. While ECSAN is officially a university, it has a rigorous command structure and disciplinary mechanisms not usually associated with a university setting. Training requires students to be available 24/7 in order to meet the needs of the institution and comply with a strict hierarchical environment where the use of free time and space is limited. Again this ability to compare is crucially based on the fact that digital ethnographic data is shared with others also sharing data. Through this process comparisons become grounded in empirical evidence and participants are required to discuss discrepancies in their data that in other forms of interview they may choose to leave out. We can also note that our particular groups’ set up for introspection is more likely to highlight the differences between the studied institutions. The research design specifically sought to contrast two very different institutions, and the students were asked to look at the digital data and reflections of their co-participants in order to make sense of their own organizations as was illustrated in the finding section by the way participants from the two institutions would compare their study routines. Our research further allows us to reflect about the level to which different intuitional practices yield themselves to be expressed in specific formats of introspective accounts. As outlined in the methodology section, emerging professionals were asked to summarize their recorded practices in terms of the goals that they tried to reach in order to provide others present a framework from which to understand the data they were about to see. It is striking that Los Andes students generally followed this format much more, and articulate larger goals to reach during the day (e.g. finishing a report, meeting a specific person, etc.). ECSAN students tended to instead provide complete summaries of the daily routines they would follow. They seemed to be better at recalling their routines than the articulating their goals (possibly indicating that it was not them setting the goals that they are not encouraged to question goals, or they are trained to just do as told). This may suggest more generally that different professional practices may be


better expressed in account format that follows a different logic (in our case that of goals vs. routines), which in turn may be indicative about the type of practice and normative set-up that is predominate in a given institution. Self-direction with the ability to set goals autonomously being one set-up and predictability of behavior with pursuing goals set by others as another. Narratives in terms routines seem to be more descriptive while account focusing on goals may involve more rationalization. If this is the case this observation has relevance for interview techniques in digital ethnography and raises the question about the possibility as well as benefits and drawbacks of trying to lead participants to describe their first-person digital data in one format or another. A final methodological observation concerns the introduction of digital devices to capture practice in itself. As noted in the finding section, the response to the SenseCam was quite different in our two researched institutions and again the reaction is probably indicative about the institution itself. The fact that at ECSAN the SenseCams were perceived as a mechanism to surveillance while at Los Andes it mainly passed unnoticed is indicative of the focus and practices of the respective organizations. Los Andes seems to be more individualistic in that members can go about their daily business unchallenged while ECSAN operates much more collectively and shows more willingness to discipline individual members to make them conform to organizational norms. Methodologically speaking the comparative element of the research design allowed for a more reflective approach to the question of the observer effect caused by the SenseCams. Rather than making blanket statements about how emerging professionals and the people they interact with react to the device, we were able to identify how they react differently to it in different organizations which helps to better understand the organizations themselves. We believe that such a context sensitive approach to the field implementation of capturing devices in digital ethnography is useful more generally. It allows researchers to explore jointly with the participants what is an appropriate use of such devices, and what specific reactions they cause. Rather than avoiding certain applications of digital ethnography outright and assuming that their appropriateness in other applications, such a procedure is more likely to yield an appropriate implementation of the methodology that is beneficial for all or at least does no harm to anybody involved.

Conclusions Contrasting our work with that of Cordelois we situated our research within the larger approach of digital ethnography. This effort demonstrated that different digital capturing devices may serve best different levels of analysis. Research with SenseCams is well positioned to identify routines and patterns of routines while SubCams capture in richer detail the nature and composition of identified routines. Further, we illustrated that with digital ethnography the social dimension of introspective processes is increasingly relevant. This is because digital ethnographic data allows for self-confrontational interview settings where interviewees, researchers and other participants have equal access to the now digital, not mental, representations that are the object of introspection. Thus the interpretation of captured activity from a subjective perspective can be explored and negotiated collectively, and grounded in evidence. Recognizing these consequences of digital ethnography for introspection we


paid particular attention to the social setting we created for digitally enabled introspection. Namely we picked emerging professionals from two very different higher learning institutions to enable the social introspection process to be one of supporting comparing and contrasting students’ experiences. This approach made apparent that the appropriate format for narrating activity may vary depending on the practice, and that organizational setting that participants are part of and position they hold in it. In our case this was the distinction between narrating in terms of overarching goals versus narration in terms of routines. The consequences for interview techniques in digital ethnography should here be explored further. Secondly through the comparative component we were able to also contrast the manner in which the SenseCams themselves were received differently depending on the organizational context. Here it became apparent that affects of data capture on participants and their peers behavior should not be assumed, but carefully studied as this provides both a reflective component to the research and additional insight into norms and practices at studied institutions. However, discussing first-person digital ethnographic data in group settings also has its limitations. If there is no supportive climate among group members then individuals sharing their data become vulnerable as first-person perspective data can be particularly intimate and revealing. It is easy to negate one of the key advantages of this methodology if researchers do not proceed with appropriate care. Also group discussion as an approach to introspection faces the same dangers as any form of group work; for example self-perpetuating patterns of argumentation may occur (Janis 1971; Krueger and Casey 2009) or individual group members can become particularly dominant. However, here again the active engagement with empirical material can function as regulative as any position developed inside the interviewing. In all the cases, the participants will have the need to speak based on the data. A key message of this paper is that introspection has a social dimension. In terms of practical relevance this should sensitize research in a similar way then when about any other process it is highlighted that it is social. Therefore, to focus more on the social composition of those that come together for a common (research) project and how their working together is shaped by values of inquisitiveness, constructive dialogue, heterogeneity of perspective, stakeholder engagement, social intelligence, and encouragement. Here particularly, research that focuses on professional groups characterized by sharing and developing a body of professional knowledge may particularly benefit from increased sensitivity to the social dimension of introspection. Finally, working individually may be more conducive to careful, repeated and detailed analysis of data for the empirically grounded formation of new arguments. Groups may not be able to hold attention in the same manner as an individual, they have to coordinate to come together for discussion to begin with and can have the tendency to form group norm adhering compromises as positions (Graziano and Tobin 2002). While it is clear that further research comparing the effects of different social and individual analysis procedures is essential for the development of introspection in digital ethnography, we have identified some important methodological elements in this paper. We have reaffirmed the importance of Sensecam data, highlighted the social dimension that is always part of introspection, and explored the duality of both the danger of the social dimensions of introspection to bias research but also its potential to improve it. Being mindful of group compositions, research and interview settings can increase the insights introspection focused research can provide. With this paper we did not aim


to present an ideal approach to digital ethnography, but rather hope to have contributed to the discussion of different tradeoffs and areas in which a reflective mode of working with this increasingly relevant set of methods can be particularly beneficial. Acknowledgments To Economics and Social Research Council funded project BStrategic governance of Science and Technology Pathways to Security^ which funded Dr. Rieken research for this paper. The authors acknowledge the support given by the Escuela de Cadetes de Policía General Francisco de Paula Santander and Universidad de los Andes, for facilitate the access to their learning environments and the whole institutional framework to develop the research. Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References Afitska, O. (2009). Transana 2.30. Wisconsin Center for Education Research Language, Documentation & Conservation, 3(2), 226–235. Bear, D., (2013) Adapting, acting out, or standing firm: understanding the place of drugs in the policing of a London borough. PhD thesis, The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). Blau, P. M. (1955). The dynamics of bureaucracy: A study of Interpersonal relations in two government agencies: Chicago, U. P. Blau, P. M. (1974). On the nature of organizations. New York: Wiley. Boring, E. G. (1953). A History of Introspection. Psychological Bulletin, 50(3). Clot, Y., Faita, D., Fernandez, G., & Schneller, L. (2001). Enreriens en auto-confrontation croisee: une methode en clinique de l’activite. Education Permanente, 146(1), 17–25. Cordelois, A. (2010). Using digital technology for collective ethnographic observation: an experiment on ‘coming home’. Social Science Information Sur Les Sciences Sociales, 49(3), 445–463. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Doherty, A. R., Hodges, S. E., King, A. C., Smeaton, A. F., Berry, E., Moulin, C. J. A., Lindley, S., Kelly, P., & Foster, C. (2013). Wearable cameras in health: the state of the art and future possibilities. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 44(3), 320–323. Flick, U. (1998). An Introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage Publications. Garfinkel, H. (1991). Studies in ethnomethodology. New York: Wiley. Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional Vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 27. Graziano, W. G., & Tobin, R. M. (2002). Agreeableness: dimension of personality or social desirability artifact? Journal of Personality, 70(5), 695–728. Grice, H. P. (1979). Logic and conversation. Communications, 30, 57–72. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnography: Principles in practice. London: Tavistock. Hodges, S., Williams, L., Berry, E., Izadi, S., Srinivasan, J. & Butler, A. (2006) SenseCam: A retrospective memory aid. In Proceedings of the 8th international Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (Orange County, CA, USA, September 17–21, 2006) (pp. 117–193). Lecture Notes In Computer Science, vol. 4206. Springer-Verlag, London. Howe, R. B. K. (1991). Introspection: a reassessment. New Ideas in Psychology, 9(1), 25–44. Hutchins, E. L. (1995). How a cockpit remembers its speed. Cognitive Science, 19, 265–288. James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology. New York: Holt. Janis, I. L. (1971). Groupthink. Psychology Today, 5(6), 43–46. Kelly, P., Marshall, S. J., Badland, H., Kerr, J., Oliver, M., Doherty, A. R., & Foster, C. (2013). An ethical framework for automated, wearable cameras in health behavior research. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 44(3), 314–319. Kerr, J., Marshall, S. J., Godbole, S., Chen, J., Legge, A., Doherty, A. R., Kelly, P., Oliver, M., Badland, H. M., & Foster, C. (2013). Using the SenseCam to improve classifications of sedentary behavoir in freeliving settings. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 44(3), 290–296. Knoblauch, H., Schnettler, B., Raab, J., & Soeffner, H.-G. (2006). Video analysis: Methodology and methods: Qualitative audiovisual data analysis in sociology. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Author's personal copy Integr Psych Behav Krueger, R., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Los Angeles: Sage. Lahlou, S. (1999). Observing cognitive work in offices. In N. Streitz, J. Siegel, V. Hartkopf, & S. Konomi (Eds.), Cooperative buildings. Integrating information, organizations and architecture (pp. 150–163). Heidelberg: Springer. Lahlou, S. (2006). L’activité du point de vue de l’acteur et la question de l’inter-subjectivité: huit années d’expériences avec des caméras miniaturisées fixées au front des acteurs (Subcam). Communications, 80, 209–234. Lahlou, S. (2010). Digitization and transmission of human experience. Social Science Information Sur Les Sciences Sociales, 49(2), 36. Lahlou, S. (2011). How can we capture the subject’s perspective? An evidence-based approach for the social scientist. Social Science Information, 50(3–4), 607–655. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Le Bellu S (n.d.) Learning the secrets of the craft through the real-time experience of experts: a novel method for capturing and transferring professional expert tacit knowledge to novices. PLoS One. (under submission). Lee, H., Smeaton, A. F., O’Conner, N. E., Jones, G., Blighe, M., Byrne, D., Doherty, A., & Gurrin, C. (2008). Constructing a SenseCam visual diary as a media process. Multimedia Systems, 14(6), 341–349. Lim, S. (2002). The self-confrontation interview: towards an enhanced understanding of human factors in web-based interaction for improved website usability. Journal of electronic commerce research, 3(3), 162–173. Retrieved 24 November, 2014, from http://www.csulb.edu/journals/jecr/issues/ 20023/paper5.pdf. Lyman, S. M., & Scott, M. B. (1989). A sociology of the absurd: General Hall. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231–259. Ochs, E., & Solomon, O. (2010). Autistic sociality. Ethos, 38(1), 69–92. Omodei, M., & McLennan, J. (1994). Studying complex decision making in natural settings: using a headmounted video camera to study competitive orienteering. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 1411–1425. Omodei, M., McLennan, J., & Wearing, A. J. (2002). Head-mounted video and cued recall: a minimally reactive methodology for understanding, detecting and preventing error in the control of complex systems. Paper presented at the 21st European Annual Conference of Human Decision Making and Control. Department of Computer Science, University of Glasgow, Scotland. Omodei, M., McLennan, J., & Wearing, A. J. (2005). How expertise is applied in real-world dynamic environments: Head-mounted video and cued recall as a methodology for studying routines of decision making. In T. Betsch & S. Haberstroh (Eds.), The routines of decision making (pp. 271–288). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Pink, S. (2013). Doing visual ethnography. London: Sage. Rieken, Johannes (2013) Making situated police practice visible: a study examining professional activity for the maintenance of social control with video data from the field. PhD thesis, The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), London, United Kingdom. Sacks, H., Scheglof, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70(6), 1075–1095. doi:10.2307/669510. Smith, E. R., & Miller, F. D. (1978). Limits on perception of cognitive processes: a replay to Nisbett and Wilson. Psychological Review, 85(4), 355–362. Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Theureau, J. (1992). Le cours d’action: analyse sémiologique. [The course-of-action: Semiological analysis]. In P. Lang (Ed.), Essai d’anthropologie cognitive située [Essay on situated cognitive anthropology]. Berne. Theureau, J. (2003). Course-of-action analysis and course-of-action-centered design. In E. Hollnagel (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive task design (pp. 55–81). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Tsoukas, H., & Vladimirou, E. (2001). What is organizational knowledge? Journal of Management Studies, 38(7), 973–993. Vermersch, P. (1994). L’entretien d’explicitation en formation initiale et en formation continue. Paris: ESF. Von Cranach, M., & Kalbermatten, U. (1982). The ordinary interactive action: Theory, methods and some empirical findings. In M. Von Cranach & R. Harre (Eds.), The analysis of action (pp. 115–160). London: Cambridge University Press.

Author's personal copy Integr Psych Behav Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations (Vol. 3). London: Sage. Wickström, G., & Bendix, T. (2000). The BHawthorne effect^—what did the original Hawthorne studies actually show?. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 363–367. Woods, D. K., & Dempster, P. G. (2011). Tales from the bleeding edge: the qualitative analysis of complex video data using transana, Vol. 12, No. 1 Available at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/ article/view/1516/3120. Johannes Rieken is a research officer at the London School of Economics where he also completed his PhD. His doctoral research used body-worn video material for a detailed analysis of police practices in London, and he has helped develop policies for the use of body-worn cameras in policing. He has also worked with international NGOs to develop community policing practices. Efrain Garcia-Sanchez is a member of the research group Work and Organizational Psychology in the Institute of Psychology at the Universidad del Valle, Colombia. He has worked in the National Police of Colombia in social intervention processes to prevent crime and improve professionalization in policing. Currently he is a PhD. student at the Universidad de Granada, Spain; and his research is focused on psychological causes and consequences of economic inequality. Monica Perez Trujillo is an assistant professor in the Department of Psychology, at the University of Los Andes, Colombia. She completed her Ph.D. and Master's from the program of Criminology at the University of Melbourne. She has worked with both government and non-government organizations in developing joint research projects focusing on individual, collective, and service agencies' responses to interpersonal violence. Daniel Bear is a Professor in the School of Public Safety at Sheridan College in Ontario, Canada. He completed his PhD in Social Policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science where he studied changes to the street-level policing of drugs and the impact this had on both police and communities. He has conducted research for various government and non-profit organizations, often focusing on the interaction between state-based criminal justice actors and community members.