Digital Documenting Practices : Collaborative Writing in Workplace Training

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Digital Documenting Practices : Collaborative Writing in Workplace Training © 2022 SAGE Publications Published version Nissi, Riikka; Lehtinen, Esa Nissi, R., & Lehtinen, E. (2022). Digital Documenting Practices : Collaborative Writing in Workplace Training. Written Communication, 39(4), 564-599. https://doi.org/10.1177/07410883221108162 2022 https://doi.org/10.1177/07410883221108162 Written Communication 1 –36 © 2022 SAGE Publications Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/07410883221108162 journals.sagepub.com/home/wcx Article Digital Documenting Practices: Collaborative Writing in Workplace Training Riikka Nissi1 and Esa Lehtinen1 Abstract The present article examines collaborative writing in organizational consulting and training, where writing takes place as part of a group discussion assignment and is carried out by using digital writing technologies. In the training, the groups use digital tablets as their writing device in order to document their answers in the shared digital platform. Using multimodal conversation analysis as a method, the article illustrates the way writing is interactionally accomplished in this setting where digital writing intertwines with face-to-face interaction as the groups jointly formulate a documentable written entry for specific institutional purposes. The results show how writing is managed in situated ways and organized by three specific aspects: access, publicity, and broader organizational practice. The article advances prior understanding of the embodied nature of writing and writing with technologies by demonstrating how the body and the material and social nature of writing technologies intertwine within situated social interaction. Keywords writing-in-interaction, digital writing device, embodiment, access, documentability, workplace communication 1University of Jyväskylä, Finland Corresponding Author: Riikka Nissi, Department of Language and Communication Studies, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35, Jyvaskyla, 40014, Finland. Email: [email protected] 1108162WCXXXX10.1177/07410883221108162Written CommunicationNissi and Lehtinen research-article2022 2 Written Communication 00(0) Over the last few decades, digital technologies—computers, tablets, and mobile phones as well as various digital spaces—have become an integral part of working life even to the point where digital work is no longer easily distinguishable from its nondigital forms (Orlikowski & Scott, 2016). Often, digital technologies are related to writing as they are used for creating and sharing different kinds of organizational texts. In this way, they can be viewed as part of textualization of work where workers are increasingly required to construct knowledge via textual processes and products, and by so doing, often take part in “discoursing” across professional and organizational boundaries (see Brandt, 2005; Iedema & Scheeres, 2003; Karlsson, 2009; Karlsson & Nikolaidou, 2016; Scheeres, 2007). The textualization of work and the deployment of digital technologies thus also mean developing new kinds of social relations, identities, and structures in workplaces within a new knowledge-based work order (see Karlsson, 2009; Scheeres, 2007). In this article, we examine the use of digital technologies for writing in one specific context, organizational consulting and training, that as a professional domain reflects these recent changes. Organizational consulting is an influential field that started to become a stabilized—yet also widely debated— industry in the 1980s and 1990s as it expanded from business to public administration in various countries (Nissi & Hirsto, 2021; Von Platen, 2018). Throughout its history, organizational consulting has closely followed the prevalent management theories, and paradigm shifts in academia have resulted in changes in professional practice. In recent decades, in particular, the field has moved from rationalist and positivist models focusing on improving productivity through standardization toward a relational understanding of leadership, which, in turn, emphasizes the importance of networks and relations and views reflexivity, self-expression, and mutual learning as sources of value (Nissi & Hirsto, 2021; Uhl-Bien, 2006). From this viewpoint, collaborative writing accomplished through digital writing technologies can be seen as a means for the implementation of new management ideas, values, and practices as it allows cross-sectoral communication and collaborative, iterative action where ideas are jointly negotiated and cultivated through shared text production. In training settings—the central sites of consulting—collaborative writing tasks are thus often embedded in training activities for the purposes of enhancing employee participation and the exchange of ideas and practice sharing within and between different employee groups. However, the use of digital technologies may also bring unforeseen complexities to these settings as they do not only enable but also constrain writing. This is because writing as social practice is itself organized in specific ways. To begin with, writing always takes place in some physical location Nissi and Lehtinen 3 and is thus fundamentally embodied and material in nature. In this way, it is also shaped by the affordances of the physical context in question, including the technologies used. This also concerns digital spaces as they are accessed, for example, by mobile devices that are used in different kinds of environments. Moreover, when done collaboratively, writing occurs as part of social interaction so that the text under construction reaches its final form through the participants’ mutual discussion and negotiation. This, in turn, may be organized in diverse ways depending on the institutional and organizational setting, the roles the participants have, and the task they are looking to accomplish in the given setting (Mondada & Svinhufvud, 2016). In the present study, writing occurs as part of a group discussion assignment addressed to management groups that are being trained in the situation and is used to document the groups’ joint answers (that supposedly display the training’s institutional task of inducing change within the groups’ professional practices). However, there are several interactional, spatial, and material features that influence writing and the completion of the assignment. Firstly, the training encounter is a mixture of a large-scale multiparty and a small group context: the whole training involves tens or even hundreds of people in one large room, but they are divided into small groups, where the writing takes place. Secondly, the groups write their answers using a digital platform with tablets. There are two ramifications of this kind of a digital application. The tablet, as a writing device, is easily transferable from hand to hand and the writing activity can be variably accessible or inaccessible to the other members of the group. The platform, on the other hand, renders the writing instantly and publicly available to others, being visually accessible to all the participants present in the training. Therefore, the groups have to negotiate not only who is going to write (on behalf of the group) but also what will be written (as a joint, public1 answer). In this article, we examine how the participants manage the complexities created by these specific features of the writing context in order to take part in collaborative writing. We specifically approach writing as writing-in-inter- action (Mondada & Svinhufvud, 2016), namely, a situated, multimodal social practice that is actualized in and through sequentially unfolding interaction. The aim of the article is to shed light on the way writing is interactionally accomplished in the training setting where group discussion is transformed into digital, textual objects for institutionally relevant documentation purposes. In particular, we focus on three aspects of writing—access, publicity, and broader organizational practice—as the core organizing principles for writing-in-interaction we examine in our data. Our study supports the view that digital practices never totally replace other forms of workplace communication—such as face-to-face interaction—but instead take place within 4 Written Communication 00(0) larger-scale multimedial practices (see Orlikowski & Scott, 2016). Based on our findings, we argue that studies of workplace writing should focus on the way digital technologies and digital writing intertwine with other forms of communication in contemporary workplaces. In the following sections, we review previous research on writing and writing-in-interaction as relevant to our study. We then introduce our method and data before proceeding to an analysis of collaborative writing in the training. Literature Review In this literature review, we discuss two interrelated themes in existing research on writing: the embodied nature of writing and writing with technologies as part of different social contexts. In the third section of the literature review, we will turn to our primary perspective in this study—writing-in-interaction—in order to show how this framework can further integrate and deepen the previous themes and what it thus has to offer for the study of writing. Embodied Nature of Writing In their foundational study, Haas and Witte (2001) draw attention to how writing is inescapably embodied. The situated activity of writing, whether handwriting or typing, requires the use of fingers, hands, and arms and is contingent on the posture of the body. Olive and Passerault (2013) contend that we should not see writing only as a linguistic but also as a “visuospatial” activity. Even though embodiment is important for solitary writing as well (see Clayson, 2018b), it has been particularly emphasized in studies that focus on collaborative writing. Such studies have been conducted, for example, by Haas and Witte (2001), who examined how a technical document was revised by employees from two different organizations, Wolfe (2005), whose study investigated how a student writing group drafted a document, and Clayson (2018a), whose study used collaborative writing at work as its data. All of these studies draw attention to gestures as a way of facilitating writing in a group. Haas and Witte (2001) refer to gestures as “embodied representations,” and they show how the participants can use gestures to represent both the current and an anticipated revised version of a document. This may be quite concrete in that a gesture may resemble a form of drawing in the document. Similarly, Clayson (2018a) shows how gestures may anticipate a forthcoming document through representing paragraphs and sentences using bracketing gestures. Wolfe (2005) makes similar observations. In addition, however, she notes that participants of collaborative writing use the physical Nissi and Lehtinen 5 space between them as if it was the document that they are drafting. Thus, there is research that shows how embodiment, particularly gestures, figures in (collaborative) writing. However, as Clayson, for example, contends, there is still a need for studies that reveal how writing actually happens as a moment-by-moment embodied activity (Clayson, 2018b). Such an approach calls for a more comprehensive picture of embodiment in writing, including the role and mutual organization of gaze, body postures, and movement in relation to verbal action. In this study, we respond to this need by examining embodiment as part of the interactional patterns through which collaborative writing is constituted. Importantly, embodiment has a close affinity to materiality. This relationship is especially emphasized by Clayson (2018a, 2018b). She maintains that writing is done with not just the body but also different tools and artifacts, such as papers, pens, whiteboards, computers, and mobile phones. In her words, “materials and bodies are enmeshed” (Clayson 2018a, p. 157). This means, also, that embodiment is intertwined with writing technologies, including digital technologies. The intertwinedness of body and technologies can also be seen in the process of semiotic remediation, discussed by Prior and colleagues (see Prior & Hengst, 2010; Prior et al., 2006). Through the concept of semiotic remediation, they address the circulation and transformation of semiotic performances through different media and, consequently, different materialities. For example, the same “content” may be performed through speech, dance, and digital platforms, using the human voice, the body, and digital technologies (Prior et al., 2006). Similarly, in his study of a design process, Prior (2010) shows how it is constituted of a chain of drawing and writing activities with the help of various media. Prior research has thus shown how the materialities of different media need to be included in a study of the real-time accomplishment of writing. In particular, the development of digital technologies and their effect on embodied writing practices needs to be taken into account. This is important with regard to both writing research and writing in the workplace. Writing With Technologies In her study, Haas (1996) argues that digital writing technologies are essentially material tools. This means that writers interact physically with technologies and that the material form of the tool has a profound effect on the nature of the interactions. Her study shows, for example, that the two-dimen- sionality of the computer screen constrains the writer’s interaction with the text, compared to the three-dimensionality of working with the pen and paper. Thus, when new kinds of digital technologies are introduced, they tend to 6 Written Communication 00(0) change the material configuration of writing. In addition to the material form of the tool, such as a desktop, laptop, tablet, or mobile phone, the materiality of writing also has to do with the surroundings where it happens. As Swarts (2016) notes, even though digital technologies are more or less mobile, using them always takes place in some physical location that influences the writing activity. This is shown, for example, by Pigg (2014), who studies the composing habits of students in semipublic spaces such as cafés and shows how they utilize the affordances of the physical space in their work. Writing with technologies is also connected to different social activities. Studies that draw on the so-called third generation of activity theory (see Spinuzzi, 2018) often approach digital technologies as tools that have a mediating role in activities (e.g., Kaptelinin, 1996). As Kaptelinin and Nardi (2006) note, it is the accomplishment of those activities that is important for the users of technologies, not the technologies themselves. In studies of writing, the mediating role of technologies has been described as coordination: enabling organized activity between spatially dispersed actors. Pigg et al. (2014), drawing on literacy studies, show how students use digital technologies for coordination, that is, managing both their memory and their contacts with both their personal and professional communities. Swarts (2016), in his study of writing with mobile devices in workplace contexts, shows how the devices are used for many kinds of coordination, both “microcoordination,” where actors display that they are working with some kinds of shared purposes with regard to some activity, and “macrocoordination,” where more durable social structures between people are established. The focus on macrocoordination points toward a further aspect of writing with technologies: it is embedded in not only singular activities but also the larger social context. For example, Kaptelinin and Nardi (2006) point out that technologies are used for accomplishing tasks that are part of projects. In their view, this broader context needs to be taken into account when designing technologies that are supposed to assist in those tasks, so that the technologies not only support lower-level writing practices but offer employees ways of organizing individual writing tasks with regard to workplace projects they are involved in. In addition, digital literacy practices have an effect on the larger social context through constructing roles and relationships in communities (Pigg et al., 2014). Writing-in-Interaction Previous studies of writing have shown how digital technologies have a material and social influence. However, in order to understand how people accomplish their day-to-day activities with technologies and how Nissi and Lehtinen 7 technologies either support or constrain those activities, we need a better understanding of the micro practices through which the influence of technologies is realized. In our study, we will contribute to this line of research by drawing from the field of writing-in-interaction (see Mondada & Svinhufvud, 2016) in order to delve into the moment-by-moment realization of writing with technologies. Such studies have been especially done in the conversation analytical tradition that examines the structures of social interaction. This tradition brings forth two fundamental principles that allow a new contribution with regard to the themes presented in earlier sections. Firstly, it views interaction as sequentially chained social actions that are accomplished through the interplay between different semiotic resources, such as talk, gaze, gestures and the manipulation of material objects. The different resources work conjointly, but have a very specific division of labor, and are, for example, temporally organized in relation to one another. Secondly, it views social institutions as being constituted in and through social interaction that unfolds turn-by-turn. In other words, the micro-level social actions incorporate broader systems, practices, and contexts as the participants jointly construct different kinds of social situations with certain tasks and roles through their situated interactions. Social institutions are thus “talked into being” by organizing interaction in distinct ways (e.g., Mondada, 2019; Sacks et al., 1974; Sidnell, 2010). Conversation analysis always studies real interactions, obtained through (video) recordings, and aims at uncovering the dynamics and orderliness of social interaction and human social life that rests on it. In terms of writing, the studies coming from the tradition of writing-in-interac- tion thus aim to examine in detail how writing is accomplished in situ as part of multimodal, sequentially organized social interaction. At the same time, they show how writing plays an integral role in many institutional encounters, as textual documents are created for various kinds of institutional purposes. We review these studies from the viewpoint of three aspects that form the core organizing principles for writing in our data and thus act as a basis for the analysis: the participants’ access to the writing, the publicity of writing, and writing as part of broader social practices in organizations. In particular, we discuss how these three perspectives contribute to the concerns raised in the previous sections, namely, embodiedness of writing and writing with technologies as part of different social contexts. Access has to do with the possibility of the participants of the interaction to see and monitor the process of writing. It is related to both the embodied nature of writing and its material surroundings. It often relies on where the participants are sitting and how they position their bodies and writing instruments. There is a lot of variation with regard to access in different settings where 8 Written Communication 00(0) writing takes place. In many settings, only the one who is writing has access to this activity. This may be the case both for hand-writing and typing. Pälli and Lehtinen (2014), for example, analyze performance appraisal interviews where the superior writes on an appraisal form that is on the table in front of him, and the subordinate, who sits on the opposite side of the table, can see that the superior is writing but has limited access to what he is writing. Similarly, Komter (2006) and van Charldorp (2011) investigate Dutch police interrogations where the police writes the police record during the interrogations on the computer while the suspect, who is on the other side of the table, has no access to it. Even in such settings, however, there are situated practices available for making the writing more accessible to the others. For example, the writer can read aloud what she or he is writing (Mortensen, 2013), or position the document so that the coparticipant is able to read it, or even let the coparticipant handle the document (Jakonen, 2016). Also, a nonwriter can choose her or his seat around a table closer to the writer to make it easier to position the body for the purposes of monitoring the writing (Samra-Fredericks, 2010). In other settings, however, writing is accessible to others. This can also be the case for both hand-writing and digital writing. As for hand-writing, a blackboard or a whiteboard can be used (Greiffenhagen, 2014; Mondada, 2016), which makes not only the result but also the process of writing accessible to others in the room. This may be crucial with regard to the activity in question: Greiffenhagen (2014) has shown how, for lecturers in mathematics, the possibility of showing the students the process of solving mathematical problems on the blackboard is pedagogically important. Likewise, when using a computer, the computer screen may be projected on a whiteboard or a screen (Asmuss & Oshima, 2012; Nissi, 2015), thus making the writing activity and the real-time emergence of the textual document visible to others when collectively editing organizational texts in workplaces. Studies of writing interaction contribute further to our understanding of the embodied, material nature of writing, in particular, by showing how the dynamically changing positions of the participants’ bodies as well as the material instruments of writing, including writing technologies, influence the moment-by- moment flow of writing. However, studies of how access is managed when using different writing technologies are still scarce. Our second aspect with regard to writing-in-interaction, publicity, draws attention to how writers take potential readers into consideration. Documents that are collaboratively written are often crafted for an audience. That is, they are meant to be public, and this publicity has an effect on how they are written. Publicity is, of course, important for solitary writing as well, as Luff et al. (2018) have shown in the study of writing in the traffic control room. A central tool in the control room is the so-called incident log where the Nissi and Lehtinen 15 02 *mistä näkökulmista *ollaan haettu, #(.) mitä (.) from what perspectives have we sought, (.) what (.) *MOVES RIGHT INDER FINGER ON TABLET’S SCREEN e3: *LEANS TOWARD TABLET #pic.1 Picture 1 03 niinku mitä mä vastaan tähän, like what do I answer here, 04 E3: no well 05 (.) 06 E2: sa[nokaa te[ll me 07 E3: [kaikki (.) toimijat (1.0) nii (.) @kaikilta *toimijoilta@? [all (.) actors (1.0) so (.) from @all actors@? e2: *WRITES 08 (5.5) 09 E1: mitäs me on vanhemmilta *kysytty. what have we asked the parents. e3: *GAZES AT E1 10 E3: vanhem [milta kysytty? asked the [parents? 16 Written Communication 00(0) 11 E4: [arvioinnista? [about evaluation? ((lines omitted: participants continue joint remembering)) 12 E1: et *jotenki semmo*ne niinku (0.5) se on semmone that somehow they kind of like (0.5) it is kind of e3: *GAZES AT TABLET *LEANS TOWARD TABLET 13 niin[ku (.) he ovat [siellä jossakin (.) ulkokehällä, (.) (-) li[ke they are somewhere [there (.) in the outer circle, (.) (-) 14 E3: [mitä sä nyt (teet) [what are you (doing) now 15 E2: [(kirjotan tähän) mikä se meiän juttu [( I am writing down) that thing of 16 oli, *(1.0) oota (nytte), (.) mikä se oli, ours, (1.0) hang on (a moment), (.) what was it, *STOPS WRITING 17 E3: e- (.) eiku *pistä toho #väliin, (.) n- (.) no put it between those, (.) *POINTS TO A SPECIFIC PLACE AT TABLET’S SCREEN #pic.2 Picture 2 Nissi and Lehtinen 17 18 *et (.) ha- (.) et et (.) @haemme palautetta kaikilta that (.) we se- (.) that that (.) @we seek feedback from all e2: *PLACES RIGHT HAND ON SCREEN 19 toimijoilta?@ (.) ni laitetaan siihen että (.) actors?@ (.) so let’s put there that (.) 20 @lukukausittain@? @on each term@? 21 E2: joo, yeah, 22 (0.3)*(0.4) e2: *WRITES 23 E3: ja sit *laitetaan siihen ne asiat *mistä me and then let’s put there the things from where we e3: *GAZES AT E1 *GAZES AT E4 24 laitetaan, seek, After E2 has been appointed as the composer of the text she requests help with a question (mitäs mä kirjotan tähän nyt sitte ny “so what do I now write here then”; Line 1). The question simultaneously marks her role as the composer but not the sole author of the documentation. However, there is no immediate response and E2 carries on her turn by reading aloud the question used in the consultant’s earlier task assignment, which is also disclosed in the digital platform (mistä näkökulmista ollaan haettu “from what perspectives have we sought”; Line 2). By moving her finger on the tablet, E2 shows that she is now citing the given assignment. This is followed by a third question where she repeats the earlier request for help (mitä niinku mitä mä vastaan tähän “what like what do I answer here”; Line 3), and a command (sanokaa “tell me”; Line 6) where she specifically addresses the task of answering to other group members. We can thus see how E2 in her role as the composer treats herself as being responsible for filling out the digital form, but needs the right kind of input for that. However, as other group members lack direct visual access to the platform and the original question format, she uses different verbal and embodied means in order to tailor their answers to the given assignment. In interaction, the composer’s requests for help lead to coparticipants providing assistance which typically takes place through dictating. In other words, while answering, the group members employ a formal voice quality and a standard register to imitate “written language” (cf. Nissi, 2015). In this way, their answer depicts a ready-made text component that can be treated as “recordable” 18 Written Communication 00(0) (cf. Nissi, 2015; Komter, 2006) and written down real-time. In Extract 1, we can see this take place on Line 7, where E3 produces a dictating turn where she also modifies the grammatical cases6 so that the text component offered fits the question format of the assignment (“from what perspectives have we sought” ⇒ “all actors” ⇒ “from all actors”). As seen, E2 then begins to write down the answer while E3 is still producing her turn. Therefore, through mutual action, the participants manage to overcome the problems related to asymmetrical access to the writing task and technologies, and by doing so, they contribute to the emerging document as a joint creation. However, group members can also claim access to writing independently through the practice of monitoring, that is, closely overseeing the writing activity of the composer (cf. Samra-Fredericks, 2010). This is accomplished by leaning toward the tablet and gazing at the screen as well as verbally asking the composer to produce an account of his or her actions. This kind of monitoring can further lead to a more visible intervention that is also accomplished verbally and in embodied ways, namely, by pointing at the specific place on the tablet’s screen and thus representing the anticipated version of the document (cf., e.g., Haas & Witte, 2001). In Extract 1, E3 monitors E2’s writing by leaning over already during E2’s citation (Line 2) and later on begins to monitor again, initially by gazing at the tablet and leaning over (Line 12), followed by direct questioning (Line 14). This shows how monitoring is guided by spatial arrangements (cf. Samra- Fredericks, 2010) and is naturally carried out by participants nearest to the composer. As it is not invited by the composer, it can also appear socially delicate. We can see this in Extract 1 where E2 treats E3’s verbal monitoring as an accusation and provides an account that explains her actions (Lines 15-16). However, this is not accepted by E3: instead, her monitoring escalates into repairing E2’s intended action (Line 17) and providing revised text components (Lines 18-20). As we have seen, the formulation of the text takes place between E2 and E3 as it is shaped by the spatial arrangements. In this way, it excludes E1 and E4, who also belong to the group but sit further away from E2, the composer. However, in Line 9, E1 asks a question that focuses on a specific detail in the group’s organizational work. With the question, E1 is able to break into the ongoing documenting activity and change its participation framework: his question is immediately responded to by E3, marked by her changing gaze direction (Line 9). After this, the group members begin to jointly recall what actions have been made—which is then interrupted when E3 begins to monitor E2’s writing. Although this again creates an interactional alliance between these two, E3 also maintains the orientation to other group members through gaze (Line 23). By doing so, she also authorizes them to take part in editing the text and thus treats the emerging document as jointly authored and owned. Nissi and Lehtinen 19 The extract shows how writing technologies are always used in some embodied, material context that both enables and restricts the ongoing interactional activity and situated writing (cf. Clayson, 2018b). In collaborative writing, the writing technologies themselves often create problems with access vis-à-vis the possibility to physically carry out writing, and more broadly, to take part in editing the text (cf. Nissi, 2015). Our data show how these problems are manifested in the case of digital writing devices that are utilized for documenting group discussion and resolved in interaction in three interrelated ways: (1) the selected composer orienting to other group members by making writing accessible to them through requests for help, (2) the other group members orienting to the selected composer by claiming access to writing through monitoring and instructing, and (3) the other group members orienting to each other by maintaining mutual access to writing as they jointly recall organizational events and actions. However, although the participants can use various verbal and embodied means—such as gaze, body posture, and pointing—to make writing accessible and to maintain a distributed and shared authorship, the spatial arrangements necessarily create them a different position in the participation framework of the ongoing activity. Accomplishing a Documentable Entry In this section, we explore another aspect of writing, namely, its public nature, which is also caused by the digital writing technologies used. Once the groups have resolved how writing as a collaborative action is accomplished, they also have to decide what to write and consider the potential audience of the text. Therefore, in the task assignment, the groups need to come up with a specific conceptualization of an issue under discussion that is appropriate for documenting it on the shared platform, for others to see and inspect, and are accountable for its recognizability and intelligibility (cf. Luff et al., 2018). This calls for texts that adopt a right kind of degree of abstractness as digital documenting involves a process of semiotic remediation (see Prior et al., 2006) where the same “content” is transformed from verbal, private discussion into a written, public form. We call this the text’s documentability and analyze how the participants take into account the publicity of writing in their action by aiming at producing documentable text entries. The documentability of the text can thus be viewed as a practical accomplishment that needs to be achieved by the group in a situated way. We will illustrate this through Extract 2. The extract has to do with an assignment where the management groups were asked to reflect on which “processes” they had “talked about” in their work and prioritize these processes for the purpose of developing them. There are five members in the group, and one of them (E3) has the tablet in her hands. At the beginning of the extract, she introduces a new topic. 20 Written Communication 00(0) Extract 2. (Day 4, Group 3) 01 E3: sit me on puhuttu muuten tästä, (-) then we have by the way talked about this, (-) 02 erityisopetuksesta, ni me ollaan puhuttu tota special education, we have talked about uhm 03 (1.0) voiks täs sanoo ääneen niinku et (1.0) can you say it aloud here like about 04 tie- (.) tietyn opetusryhmän (0.5) ja (.) öö a cert- (.) certain class (0.5) and (.) er 05 tilanteesta myöskin. its situation also. ((lines omitted, more discussion on the specifics of the case)) 06 E3: joo, (1.0) #joo, yeah, (1.0) yeah, #pic.3 07 E4: mut eiks tää nyt oo tätä (.) tuen (0.4) but isn’t it now this (.) support (0.4) 08 tu*en support e3: *MOVES TABLET ONTO HER LAP 09 E3: joo, yeah, 10 (.) 11 E4: erityi#sen *tuen niinku tätä (1.0) mt special support like this (1.0) mt e3: *WRITES #pic.4 Nissi and Lehtinen 21 Picture 3 Picture 4 12 no (1.2) *no (0.7) [tueuhm (1.2) well (0.7) [sup- *GAZES TO HER SIDE 13 E3: [tuen jakamista, [sharing support, 14 E4: *tuen jaka[mista *ja ni erieri- (2.7) sharing sup[port and diffdiff- (2.7) e3: *GAZES AT E4 *WRITES 15 E3: [mm, 16 E4: eritasoisen tuen jakamista, sharing support on different levels, 17 ja sen järjestämistä, että miten niitä and organizing it, how we begin to 18 ruvetaan järjestämään. organize them. The beginning of a new topic is marked with discourse particles sit “then” and muuten “by the way” and it is presented as something the group has already “talked about”—thus being a potential answer to the assignment given. In her turn, E3 tentatively conceptualizes the issue under discussion as erityisopetus “special education” (Line 2) and then starts describing it in more detail (Lines 3-5; part of the description not shown in the transcription). In this description, we would like to draw attention to two aspects. Firstly, the 22 Written Communication 00(0) issue is depicted as delicate through questioning whether it can be talked about at all in this context (Line 3). Secondly, it is described in a quite concrete way as a specific “class” is singled out as a source of problems (Line 4). In Line 7, E4 produces a proposal that is in a question form and thus begins to formulate the issue in a new way. However, she finds it difficult to finish her proposal. There is a long word search in her turn (Lines 7-12). During the word search she repeats the noun tuki “support” four times, gives it the attribute erityinen “special,” but is unable to find the main word of the clause that would describe what would be done with the support. Finally, she displays frustration with the particle no “oh” (Line 12). At this point, E3 takes the turn and helps in the search through providing the word jakamista “sharing” (Line 13) that could potentially complete E4’s earlier proposal. In Lines 14-18, E4 accepts E3’s suggestion, and develops it further. We can thus see how the participants negotiate about the proper way of conceptualizing the issue and find the solution collaboratively. The process of finding the right kind of wording is observably crucial with regard to documenting the answer of the group. In Line 8, at a point where E4 has just produced the word tuki “support,” E3 moves the tablet closer to her body, into a position that projects writing (see Pictures 5 and 6) (cf. Pälli & Lehtinen, 2014). In Line 11, before the word search is completed, she also starts writing, and by so doing, displays already at this point that something documentable has been found. After the word search is completed, she continues writing (Line 14). We can thus see how writing acts as a closing action in the collaborative word search and the proposal sequence, making both participants jointly accountable for the content of the text (cf. Nissi, 2015). What we have seen in Extract 2 is the process of semiotic remediation (see Prior et al., 2006) where the participants jointly transform an initially conceptualized issue into a documentable form. In this process, the joint authorship of the documentable version is observably accomplished as the participants move between speech and the digital platform with their specific material affordances: the initial proposal is produced for the others to be confirmed, and the word search is completed collaboratively. Finally, the sequence is closed by writing, the writing technologies thus coordinating the actions of the participants (cf. Swarts, 2016.). Importantly, in their joint action, the participants orient to the public nature of their writing product and aim at creating a text entry that is understandable to people who read it—and may do so even in some other social setting because of the durable nature of texts. The extract shows how this documentability essentially means a more general, abstract way of conceptualizing issues and events. In the case of Extract 2, for example, the concrete problem of a specific “class” in their organization is not something that can be documented. This is because it is Nissi and Lehtinen 23 not recognizable to the wider audience who lacks contextual knowledge about the case and thus does not comply with the generic conventions of a written entry—even if a more general issue of “sharing support” does. Adjusting to the Contextual Expectations In addition to arousing an orientation to sufficiently abstract, general text entries, the publicity of writing has another effect as well: the groups adjust to the contextual expectations and ideologies the digital documenting is embedded in. Here, it is important to consider writing as part of broader organizational practices (cf. Pälli et al., 2009), in the case of our data, human resources management and workplace training that advocates the ideals of reflective and participatory leadership. From this viewpoint, digital documenting requires the groups to act in a new kind of rhetorical situation (cf. Smart, 2000) and produce texts that are compatible with the aims of the training and discursively construe them as acceptable professional roles (cf. Pigg et al., 2014). However, once published on the digital platform, the entries of each group are immediately comparable with the entries of other groups, and by doing so, spotlight the groups’ social similarity with other groups. We will show how the groups adjust to these contextual expectations through Extracts 3 and 4. Extract 3 is part of an assignment where the consultant has asked the groups to formulate “two questions” with regard to “managing processes” in their organization on the digital platform. The idea is that through seeing what kinds of questions and issues other management groups are working with they can learn from each other. Before the beginning of the extract the group in question has gone through a negotiation and ended up with a question that has to do with “committing the personnel to processes that concern them.” In Line 1, E1, who has the tablet in her lap, is already writing. Extract 3. (Day 2, Group 2) 01 E1: *miten henkilökunnan saa sitou- (.) sitoutettua. how can we comm- (.) commit the personnel. *WRITES 02 (3.0) *saa sitoutumaan. (3.0) can we get them to commit themselves *STOPS WRITING, GAZES UP TOWARD E4 03 (0.3) 04 E4: #mm #pic.5 24 Written Communication 00(0) Picture 5 05 E2: nii.* (0.5) sitoutumaan, (0.3) yes. (0.5) commit themselves, (0.3) e1: *WRITES 06 prosesseihin. heitä koskeviin to processes. to the processes that concern 07 proses*seihin. them. e1: *STOPS WRITING, MOVES TABLET TOWARD E2 08 (0.2)*(1.0) e2: *LEANS TOWARD TABLET 09 E1: j*oo. yeah. *WRITES Simultaneously with her writing (Line 1), E1 reads out loud the emerging text and thus makes it accessible to other members of the group (cf. Mortensen, 2013). However, soon after this she repairs her own action and changes the verb of the sentence she is writing (Line 2). At the exact moment that she begins self-repair, she suspends her writing and raises her gaze at the direction of E4. In this way, she seeks confirmation from the others for the new formulation and receives, first, a slightly ambivalent acknowledgment token from E4 (Line 4), and then a clear expression of agreement from E2—in her turn, she produces an affiliative response particle nii “yes” and repeats the Nissi and Lehtinen 31 that the writers have to take into account when organizing their collaborative writing. As for the social aspect, technologies become part of a social activity, where writing is made public in particular ways, and where writing is embedded in particular social practices. We demonstrated how the participants display their orientation to the social context during their negotiation of what to write as they revise their text with regard to the ideology of the workplace training and what other groups have written. This means that even though the use of digital technologies can enhance communication in organizations, there are also restrictions, both with regard to the material affordances of the technologies, and the social conventions of the practices that they help to facilitate and in which they are embedded. The organizational practice we have analyzed can also be seen as a place for learning, and our conclusions resonate with earlier studies of writing in different kinds of transitions (Ledwell-Brown, 2000; Russell, 1997; Smart, 2000). In Russell’s (1997) view, for example, learning to write in a new social context means learning a new genre within an activity system. Such a genre is a way of doing something with specific tools, for some purpose, as part of a social practice. Smart (2000), in his study of transitions in workplaces, stresses the importance of learning new rhetorical situations with new kinds of audiences. Our study shows how, in a workplace activity, the digital tools with their affordances are inextricably intertwined with the organizational and ideological expectations, but also how the writers navigate in a new situation through interacting with each other. Finally, our results also offer potential areas for application in textualized and digitalized workplaces. We conclude by emphasizing three points for workplace organizations to consider in terms of implementing collaborative, digital writing technologies. Firstly, as we have shown, digital devices vary with regard to their material characteristics and how they support collaborative action. Therefore, when planning shared writing projects, the organizations would do well to first reflect on how the choice of the device—or the spatial arrangements of the physical context where it is used—affects the way joint projects can be undertaken. Truly collaborative action becomes possible only if the participants can all access the writing activity. Secondly, digital texts are durable and can be archived for long periods of time. Because of this, their audience may considerably expand even though the texts may not be intelligible to those who read them in some other time and place. Thus, when creating organizational texts, their level of publicity and target audiences should be discussed and made clear beforehand so that the participants know who they are writing for and can formulate their entries accordingly. Thirdly, digital practices advance broader organizational projects and are strategically used to implement organizational goals. In this way, they also require the participants 32 Written Communication 00(0) who take part in these projects to position themselves vis-á-vis these goals. Organizations should consider what is actually at stake for the participants when they engage in the public displays of professional action and whether there is room for critical reflection, creative thinking, or even mistakes— including whether the documented answers simply perform viewpoints that were already established at the beginning for the process. These issues call for more research on digital writing in organizational contexts as well as collaboration and critical dialogue between the academia and the workplaces. Appendix Transcription Conventions . Falling intonation , Level intonation ? Rising intonation @word@ Changed voice quality (‘written voice’) wo- Word cut off (0.5) Pause in seconds (.) Micro pause (less than 0.2 seconds) [ Beginning of overlapping talk * Beginning of embodied action WRITES Embodied action E1: speaker e2: participant other than speaker doing embodied action # Marks the place where the still picture is taken (word) Item in doubt ((lines omitted)) Transcriber’s remarks Declaration of Conflicting Interests The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The study has been funded by The Finnish Cultural Foundation and The Academy of Finland (grant number 322733). Notes 1. By public, we mean written entries that are visible to all training participants, but not to any wider audiences outside the training setting. Nissi and Lehtinen 33 2. In terms of different writer roles, writing can be compared to speaking and the production format of an utterance as theorized by Goffman (1981). Goffman divides the notion of a speaker into three: animator, who is engaged in acoustic activity and utterance production; author, who has selected the ideas that are being conveyed and the words in which they are encoded; and principal, who takes the position that is established in the remarks. In this article, we particularly utilize the differentiation between animator and author but use the term composer in the sense of the animator when referring to the technical writership. 3. For proximal and remote decisions, see Houtkoop (1987). 4. The video recordings made do not catch the very details of writing/composing the text as a micro-practice, such as the emergence of the text letter-by-letter, as the cameras do not zoom vertically on the tablets. Because of the nature of the video recording, we have not transcribed writing using direct video access, but annotated it in the transcription as a reconstruction of writing on the basis of visual evidence, such as hand movements (cf. Mondada & Svinhufvud, 2016). 5. The task in Extract 1 is the one that is presented in Figure 2. 6. In Finnish, from nominative to ablative. 7. The task in Extract 4 is the one that is presented in Figure 2. References Asmuss, B., & Oshima, S. (2012). Negotiation of entitlement in proposal sequences. Discourse Studies, 14, 67-86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611427215 Brandt, D. (2005). Writing for a living: Literacy and the knowledge economy. Written Communication, 22(2), 166-197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088305275218 Clayson, A. (2018a). Distributed cognition and embodiment in text planning: A situated study of collaborative writing in the workplace. Written Communication, 35(2), 155-181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088317753348 Clayson, A. (2018b). Distributed writing as a lens for examining writing as embodied practice. Technical Communication Quarterly, 27(3), 217-226. https://doi.org/10 .1080/10572252.2018.1479607 Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. University of Pennsylvania Press. Greiffenhagen, C. (2014). The materiality of mathematics: Presenting mathematics at the blackboard. British Journal of Sociology, 65, 502-528. https://doi. org/10.1111/1468-4446.12037 Haas, C. (1996). Writing technology: Studies on the materiality of writing. Routledge. Haas, C., & Witte, S. P. (2001). Writing as an embodied practice: The case of engineering standards. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 15(4), 413-457. https://doi.org/10.1177/105065190101500402 Houtkoop, H. (1987). Establishing agreement: An analysis of proposal acceptance sequences. Foris. Iedema, R., & Scheeres, H. (2003). From doing work to talking work: Renegotiating knowing and identity. Applied Linguistics, 24(3), 316-337. Jakonen, T. (2016). Gaining access to another participant’s writing in the classroom. Language and Dialogue, 6, 179-204. https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.6.1.06jak 34 Written Communication 00(0) Kaptelinin, V. (1996). Computer-mediated activity: Functional organs in social and developmental contexts. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 45-68). MIT Press. Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. MIT Press. Karlsson, A.-M. (2009). Positioned by reading and writing: Literacy practices, roles, and genres in common occupations. Written Communication, 26(1), 53-76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088308327445 Karlsson, A.-M., & Nikolaidou, Z. (2016). The textualization of problem handling: Lean discourses meet professional competence in eldercare and the manufacturing industry. Written Communication, 33(3), 275-301. https://doi. org/10.1177/0741088316653391 Komter, M. (2006). From talk to text: The interactional construction of a police record. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 39, 201-228. https://doi. org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3903_2 Larsson, M., & Lundholm, S. E. (2013). Talking work in a bank: A study of organizing properties of leadership in work interactions. Human Relations, 66(8), 1101- 1129. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726712465452 Ledwell-Brown, J. (2000). Organizational cultures as contexts for learning to write. In P. Dias & A. Paré (Eds.), Transitions: Writing in academic and workplace settings (pp. 199-222). Hampton Press. Luff, P., Heath, C., Patel, M., Vom Lehn, D., & Highfield, A. (2018). Creating interdependencies: Managing incidents in large organizational environments. Human- Computer Interaction, 33, 544-584. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2017.141 2830 Mondada, L. (2016). Going to write: Embodied trajectories of writing of collective proposals in grassroots democracy meetings. Language and Dialogue, 6, 140- 178. https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.6.1.05mon Mondada, L. (2019). Contemporary issues in conversation analysis: Embodiment and materiality, multimodality and multisensoriality in social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 47-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.016 Mondada, L., & Svinhufvud, K. (2016). Writing-in-interaction: Studying writing as a multimodal phenomenon in social interaction. Language and Dialogue, 6, 1-53. https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.6.1.01mon Mortensen, K. (2013). Writing aloud: Some interactional functions of the public display of emergent writing. Proceeding of the Participatory Innovation Conference 2013 (pp. 119-126). Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lahti, Finland. Nissi, R. (2015). From entry proposals to a joint statement: Practices of shared text production in multiparty meeting interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 79, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.01.002 Nissi, R., & Hirsto, H. (2021). Policing language in the world of new work: The commodification of workplace communication in organizational consulting. Applied Linguistics Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2021-0057 Nissi and Lehtinen 35 Olive, T., & Passerault, J.-M. (2013). The visuospatial dimension of writing. Written Communication, 29(3), 326-344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312451111 Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2016). Digital work: A research agenda. In B. Czarniawska (Ed.), A research agenda for management and organization studies (pp. 88-96). Edward Elgar. Pälli, P., & Lehtinen, E. (2014). Making objectives common in performance appraisal interviews. Language & Communication, 39, 92-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. langcom.2014.09.002 Pälli, P., Vaara, E. & Sorsa, V. (2009). Strategy as text and discursive practice: A genre-based approach to strategizing in city administration. Discourse & Communication, 3(3), 303-318. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481309337206 Pigg, S. (2014). Emplacing mobile composing habits: A study of academic writing in networked social spaces. College Composition and Communication, 66(2), 250-275. Pigg, S., Grabill, J. T., Brunk-Chavez, B., Moore, J. L., Rosinksi, P., & Curran, P. G. (2014). Ubiquitous writing, technologies, and the social practice of literacies of coordination. Written Communication, 31(1), 91-117. https://doi. org/10.1177/0741088313514023 Prior, P. (2010). Remaking IO: Semiotic remediation in the design process. In P. Prior & J. Hengst (Eds.), Exploring semiotic remediation as discourse practice (pp. 206-234). Palgrave Macmillan. Prior, P., & Hengst, J. (2010). Introduction: Exploring semiotic remediation. In P. Prior & J. Hengst (Eds.), Exploring semiotic remediation as discourse practice (pp. 1-23). Palgrave Macmillan. Prior, P., Hengst, J., Roozen, K., & Shipka, J. (2006). “I’ll be the sun”: From reported speech to semiotic remediation practices. Text & Talk, 26(6), 733-766. https:// doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.030 Russell, D. R. (1997). Rethinking genre in school and society: An activity theory analysis. Written Communication, 14(4), 504-554. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696-735. Samra-Fredericks, D. (2010). The interactional accomplishment of a strategic plan. In N. Llewellyn & J. Hindmarsh (Eds.), Organisation, interaction and practice: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (pp. 198-217). Cambridge University Press. Scheeres, H. (2007). Talk and texts at work: Beyond language and literacy skills. Literacy and Numeracy Studies, 15(2), 5-18. Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction. Wiley-Blackwell. Smart, A. (2000). Reinventing expertise: Experienced writers in the workplace encounter a new genre. In P. Dias & A. Paré (Eds.), Transitions: Writing in academic and workplace settings (pp. 223-252). Hampton Press. Spinuzzi, C. (2018). From superhumans to supermediators: Locating the extraordinary in CHAT. In A. Yasnitsky (Ed.), Questioning Vygotsky’s legacy: Scientific psychology or heroic cult (pp. 131-160). Routledge. 36 Written Communication 00(0) Sterponi, L., Zucchermaglio, C., Alby, F., & Fatigante, M. (2017). Endangered literacies: Affordances of paper-based literacy in medical practice and its persistence in the transition to digital technology. Written Communication, 34(4), 359-386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088317723304 Svinhufvud, K. (2016). Nodding and note-taking: Multimodal analysis of writing and nodding in student counseling interaction. Language and Dialogue, 6(1), 81-109. https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.6.1.03svi Swarts, J. (2016). Composing networks: Writing practices on mobile devices. Written Communication, 33(4), 385-417. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088316666807 Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 654-676. van Charldorp, T. C. (2011). From police interrogation to police record. Uitgeverij BOXPress. Von Platen, S. (2018). Communication consulting and consultancies. In R. L. Heath & W. Johansen (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of strategic communication (pp. 1-9). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Wolfe, J. (2005). Gesture and collaborative planning: A case study of a student writing group. Written Communication, 22(3), 298-332. https://doi.org/10.1177 /0741088305278108 Author Biographies Riikka Nissi (Ph.D.) is University Lecturer in Applied Linguistics at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland. Her research interests include institutional and professional interaction and discourse, social change and new work cultures. In her current projects, she examines the practices of organizational consulting and the use of artistic interventions in workplace organizations. Esa Lehtinen (Ph.D.) in Professor of Modern Finnish at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland. In his research, he has investigated discourse and interaction in organizational, medical and religious contexts. In his current project, he is interested in how face-to-face interaction is intertwined with discourse mediated by digital technologies in the workplace.