Volume 13, Issue 4
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722



A highly important societal aspect of language use are pragmatic creative acts and interactions. The ability to, through multimodal interaction, create something new, is primordial for human sociality. In this paper, I propose a theoretical model that enables detailed analysis of situated co-operative creative actions as these naturally emerge in interactional situations. First, I develop the theoretical model by extrapolating from Charles Goodwin’s theory of co-operative action. I then illustrate the model through detailed analysis of a single case where participants interact in a video-mediated robotic context. The model is situated within ethnomethodological multimodal conversation analysis and based on video ethnographic data. This research contributes to the field of creativity and human pragmatic action by providing an applicable model for Situated Co-Operative Creativity, the SCOC model, which can be used for detailed analysis of everyday creativity.

Available under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Amabile, Teresa M.
    1997 “Motivating Creativity in Organizations: On Doing What You Love and Loving What You Do.” California Management Review40 (1): 39–58. 10.2307/41165921
    https://doi.org/10.2307/41165921 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aristotle
    Aristotle 1924Metaphysics (Book IX). Translated byW. D. Ross. Classics.mit.edu. classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.9.ix.html
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari
    2004A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. London & New York: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Due, Brian L.
    2014 “The Development of an Idea in a Context of Rejection.” Semiotica2021: 207–39. 10.1515/sem‑2014‑0036
    https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2014-0036 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2016 “Co-Constructed Imagination Space: A Multimodal Analysis of the Interactional Accomplishment of Imagination during Idea-Development Meetings.” CoDesign14 (3): 1–17. 10.1080/15710882.2016.1263668
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2016.1263668 [Google Scholar]
  6. Due, Brian L., and Johan Trærup
    2018 “Passing Glasses: Accomplishing Deontic Stance at the Optician.” Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality1(2). 10.7146/si.v1i2.110020
    https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v1i2.110020 [Google Scholar]
  7. Fagerberg, Jan, David C. Mowery, and Richard R. Nelson
    2006The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford Handbooks in Business and Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286805.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286805.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  8. Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner
    2002The Way We Think : Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2003 “Conceptual Blending, Form and Meaning.” Recherches en Communication191. 10.14428/rec.v19i19.48413
    https://doi.org/10.14428/rec.v19i19.48413 [Google Scholar]
  10. Frey, Lawrence R.
    2002New Directions in Group Communication. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. 10.4135/9781412990042
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412990042 [Google Scholar]
  11. Garfinkel, Harold
    1967Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 1991 “Respecification: Evidence for Locally Produced, Naturally Accountable Phenomena of Order, Logic, Reason, Meaning, Methods, Etc. in and of the Essential Haecceity of Immortal Ordinary Society (I) – an Announcement of Studies.” InEthnomethodology and the Human Sciences, edited byGraham Button, 10–19. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611827.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611827.003 [Google Scholar]
  13. 1996 “Ethnomethodology’s Program.” Social Psychology Quarterly59 (1): 5–21. 10.2307/2787116
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2787116 [Google Scholar]
  14. Garfinkel, Harold, and Harvey L. Sacks
    1970 “On Formal Structures of Practical Actions.” InJ. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.): Theoretical Sociology, 338–66. New York: Appleton Century Croft.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Glăveanu, Vlad Petre, Alex Gillespie, and Jaan Valsiner
    2014Rethinking Creativity: Contributions from Social and Cultural Psychology. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315866949
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315866949 [Google Scholar]
  16. Glăveanu, Vlad Petre, Lene Tanggaard Pedersen, and Charlotte Wegener
    2016Creativity – A New Vocabulary. Berlin: Springer. 10.1057/9781137511805
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137511805 [Google Scholar]
  17. Glăveanu, Vlad Petre, and Lene Tanggaard
    2014 “Creativity, Identity, and Representation: Towards a Socio-Cultural Theory of Creative Identity.” New Ideas in Psychology341 (August): 12–21. 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2014.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2014.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  18. Goodwin, Charles
    2000 “Action and Embodiment Within Situated Human Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics32 (10): 1489–1522. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00096‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X [Google Scholar]
  19. 2013 “The Co-Operative, Transformative Organization of Human Action and Knowledge.” Journal of Pragmatics46(1): 8–23. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.003 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2017Co-Operative Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781139016735
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016735 [Google Scholar]
  21. 2018 “Why Multimodality? Why Co-Operative Action?” Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality1 (2). 10.7146/si.v1i2.110039
    https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v1i2.110039 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hallam, Elizabeth, and Tim Ingold
    eds. 2008Creativity and Cultural Improvisation. New York: Berg Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Harmsen, Jan, André B. de Haan, and Pieter L. J. Swinkels
    2018Product and Process Design: Driving Innovation. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110467741
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110467741 [Google Scholar]
  24. Heinemann, Trine, Jeanette Landgrebe, and Ben Matthews
    2012 “Collaborating to Restrict: A Conversation Analytic Perspective on Collaboration in Design.” CoDesign8 (4): 200–214. 10.1080/15710882.2012.734827
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2012.734827 [Google Scholar]
  25. Heritage, John
    1984Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Oxford: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Hougaard, Anders
    2005 “Conceptual Disintegration and Blending in Interactional Sequences: A Discussion of New Phenomena, Processes vs. Products, and Methodology.” Journal of Pragmatics37 (10): 1653–85. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.014 [Google Scholar]
  27. Hutchins, Edwin
    2005 “Material Anchors for Conceptual Blends.” Journal of Pragmatics37 (10): 1555–77. 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.06.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.06.008 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2006 “The Distributed Cognition Perspective on Human Interaction.” InN. J. Enfield & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition and Interaction. New York: Berg Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Jefferson, Gail
    2004 “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” InGene H. Lerner (Ed.) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  30. Joas, Hans
    1997The Creativity of Action. Translated byJeremy Gaines and Paul Keast. (1st edition). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Joas, Hans, and Wolfgang Knöbl
    2009Social Theory, Twenty Introductory Lectures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139878432
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139878432 [Google Scholar]
  32. Koestler, Arthur
    1964The Act of Creation. New York: Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 1981 “The Three Domains of Creativity.” InDenis Dutton and Michael Krausz, eds., The Concept of Creativity in Science and Arts, Vol.61. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Landgrebe, Jeanette, and Trine Heinemann
    2014 “Mapping the Epistemic Landscape in Innovation Workshops.” Pragmatics and Society5 (2): 191–220. 10.1075/ps.5.2.02hei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.5.2.02hei [Google Scholar]
  35. Levinson, Stephen C.
    1992 “Activity Types and Language.” InPaul Drew & John Heritage (Eds.): Talk at Work. Interaction in Institutional Settings, 66–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Matthews, Ben
    2009 “Intersections of Brainstorming Rules and Social Order.” CoDesign5 (1): 65–76. 10.1080/15710880802522403
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880802522403 [Google Scholar]
  37. Mead, George H.
    1934Mind, Self, and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviourist. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Mednick, Sarnoff A.
    1965The Associative Basis of the Creative Process. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Merleau-Ponty, Maurice
    2002Phenomenology of Perception. London & New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203994610
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203994610 [Google Scholar]
  40. Mondada, Lorenza
    2014 “The Local Constitution of Multimodal Resources for Social Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics651: 137–156. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.004 [Google Scholar]
  41. Mumford, Michael D.
    2003 “Where Have We Been, Where Are We Going? Taking Stock in Creativity Research.” Creativity Research Journal15 (2/3): 107. 10.1207/S15326934CRJ152&3_01
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ152&3_01 [Google Scholar]
  42. Murphy, Keith M.
    2005 “Collaborative Imagining: The Interactive Use of Gestures, Talk, and Graphic Representation in Architectural Practice.” Semiotica 2005 (156): 113–45. 10.1515/semi.2005.2005.156.113
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2005.2005.156.113 [Google Scholar]
  43. Nielsen, Mie Femø
    2012 “Using Artifacts in Brainstorming Sessions to Secure Participation and Decouple Sequentiality.” Discourse Studies14 (1): 87–109. 10.1177/1461445611427211
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611427211 [Google Scholar]
  44. OED
    OED 2019 “Create | Origin and Meaning of Create by Online Etymology Dictionary”. https://www.etymonline.com/word/create
  45. Osborn, Alex F.
    1953Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Problem-Solving. New York: Scribner.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Philipsen, Johanne S., and Lasse Vôge Jensen
    2018 “‘How Do Signs Come to Mean?’ – Reflections on the Goodwinian Interactional Approach to Empirical Investigations of the Human Semiotic Ecology.” InCo-Operative Engagements of Intertwined Semiosis. Essays in Honour of Charles Goodwin, edited byDonald Favareau, 301–5. Tartu: University of Tartu Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Rawls, Anne Warfield
    2008 “Harold Garfinkel, Ethnomethodology and Workplace Studies.” Organization Studies29 (5): 701–32. 10.1177/0170840608088768
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840608088768 [Google Scholar]
  48. Sacks, Harvey L.
    1992Lectures on Conversation (With an Introduction by Emanuel A. Schegloff). Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Sacks, Harvey L., Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson
    1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language50 (4): 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  50. Salas, Eduardo, Michael A. Rosen, Shawn C. Burke, and Gerald F. Goodwin
    2009 “The Wisdom of Collectives in Organizations: An Update of the Teamwork Competencies.” InE. Salas, G. F. Goodwin, C. S. Burke (Eds.) Team Effectiveness in Complex Organizations. Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives and Approaches, 39–83. New York: Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Sawyer, Keith
    2011 “The Cognitive Neuroscience of Creativity: A Critical Review.” Creativity Research Journal23 (2): 137–54. 10.1080/10400419.2011.571191
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2011.571191 [Google Scholar]
  52. Schuldberg, David
    1999 “Chaos Theory and Creativity.” InM. Runco & S. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Creativity, Vol. 1, 259–72. New York: Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Schumpeter, Joseph
    1934The Theory of Economic Development. (reproduced New York 1961). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Simonton, Dean Keith
    1999 “Creativity from a Historiometric Perspective.” InRobert J. Sternberg (Ed.) Handbook of Creativity, 116–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Stacey, Ralph D.
    1996Complexity and Creativity in Organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Sternberg, Robert J.
    2000Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511807947
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807947 [Google Scholar]
  57. Streeck, Jürgen, Charles Goodwin, and Curtis LeBaron
    2011Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Tanggaard, Lene
    2013a “A Situated Model of Creative Learning – Keynote at EERA, Istanbul.”
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 2013b “The Sociomateriality of Creativity in Everyday Life.” Culture & Psychology19 (1): 20–32. 10.1177/1354067X12464987
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X12464987 [Google Scholar]
  60. 2014 “A Situated Model of Creative Learning.” European Educational Research Journal13 (1): 107–16. 10.2304/eerj.2014.13.1.107
    https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2014.13.1.107 [Google Scholar]
  61. Turner, Mark
    ed. 2006The Artful Mind: Cognitive Science and the Riddle of Human Creativity. (1st edition). Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195306361.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195306361.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  62. Wagner, Roy
    1981The Invention of Culture. Revised edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Whitehead, Alfred North
    1979Process and Reality. Ed. byDavid Ray Griffin and Donald W. Sherburne. 2nd Revised edition edition. New York & London: Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Wittenbaum, Gwen M., Andrea B. Hollingshead, Poul B. Paulus, Randy Y. Hirokawa, Deborah G. Ancona, Randall S. Peterson, Karen A. Jehn, and Kay Yoon
    2004 “The Functional Perspective as a Lens for Understanding Groups.” Small Group Research35 (1): 17–43. 10.1177/1046496403259459
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496403259459 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error