The Interactional Accomplishment of Shared Perception by Wayne Martin Mellinger, Ph.D.

The Interactional Accomplishment of Shared Perception

A Multimodal EMCA Research Proposal

Wayne Martin Mellinger, Ph.D.

Final Draft

Abstract

How do two people establish that they are looking at, listening to, or otherwise apprehending a common feature of the world? This apparently simple question concerns one of the most basic achievements of social life. People point out approaching vehicles, locate birds in trees, inspect damaged objects, identify persons in crowds, compare images on screens, notice changes in another’s appearance, and direct one another toward events requiring immediate action. Yet perception does not become socially consequential merely because something enters an individual’s sensory field. It becomes consequential when participants make their perceptual access publicly available, organize another’s access to the phenomenon, and produce conduct that is treated as sufficient evidence of a common orientation.

This project develops an ethnomethodological and conversation analytic study of that accomplishment. It does not attempt to determine whether participants possess identical internal experiences. Its object is more concrete: the situated practices through which participants establish interactionally sufficient evidence that they are oriented to a common perceptual referent. Drawing on conversation analysis, multimodal interaction analysis, studies of professional vision, membership categorization analysis, and research on public encounters, the study examines naturally occurring episodes of noticing, recruitment, searching, perceptual repair, recognition, ratification, and subsequent action.

Kidwell and Zimmerman’s analysis of joint attention as action provides the project’s closest empirical precedent. Their work demonstrates that joint attention is not established by the coincidence of two gazes. It is accomplished through sequences in which one participant makes an object available as something being shown, monitors the recipient’s availability, persists or redesigns the showing when uptake is absent, and projects a fitted response. The present study extends that argument from caregiver-child show sequences into adult, occupational, mobile, and public encounters in which perceptual recruitment may be delayed, misunderstood, contested, or deliberately refused.

The project will use synchronized, high-resolution, multi-camera video and spatially informative audio to preserve the temporal, bodily, and ecological organization of interaction. Jeffersonian transcription of talk will be integrated with Mondada-style transcription of gaze, gesture, posture, movement, object manipulation, and changes in the material environment. Rather than imposing a rigid stage model, the analysis identifies five recurrent interactional problems: making a phenomenon relevant, organizing access to it, displaying or diagnosing perceptual access, establishing sufficient common orientation, and transforming perception into an appropriate subsequent response.

A central comparative case concerns panhandlers’ efforts to overcome civil inattention and nonperson treatment. Panhandling makes perceptual and attentional organization unusually visible because success often depends on converting physical copresence into acknowledged presence and acknowledged presence into an encounter. Panhandlers employ situated repertoires—greetings, category-specific address terms, humor, compliments, narratives, embodied positioning, calibrated persistence, signs, gestures, and direct requests—to interrupt or redirect passersby’s organized withdrawal of attention. As in the show sequences studied by Kidwell and Zimmerman, the objective is not merely to make another person look. It is to establish a response-relevant course of action. Unlike the caregiver-child setting, however, the panhandler’s entitlement to recruit attention is categorically vulnerable and can be defeated through anticipatory avoidance, civil inattention, or treatment as a nonperson.

The project’s principal contribution is a participant-grounded account of how displays of perceptual access acquire—or fail to acquire—sufficient evidential force for people to proceed on the basis of a common referent. It thereby connects the microanalysis of perception to larger questions of intersubjectivity, accountability, categorization, inequality, public recognition, and the social distribution of attention.

1. Statement of the Problem: How a Common World Becomes Publicly Available

Human beings routinely act within what appears to be a shared perceptual world. A pedestrian warns a companion about a bicycle approaching from behind. A physician directs a trainee toward a subtle feature on a scan. A parent points out an animal to a child. Two mechanics inspect a sound coming from an engine. A person on a sidewalk attempts to catch the eye of someone passing by. In each case, participants must do more than privately perceive an object or event. They must organize their conduct so that perceptual access becomes publicly available, recognizable, and consequential.

The phrase shared perception can be misleading if it suggests that an analyst can inspect and compare private sensory experiences. This study makes no such claim. It does not ask whether two participants see an object identically, experience the same degree of clarity, classify it in the same way, or attach the same significance to it. Participants may orient to a common bird while disagreeing about its species, to the same sound while disagreeing about its source, or to the same person while invoking different identities and moral implications. Common orientation does not entail phenomenological equivalence.

The empirical object is therefore narrower and more defensible:

How do participants produce and treat conduct as sufficient evidence that they have access to a common perceptual referent, and how is that access organized for some subsequent response?

The final clause is essential. Perceptual coordination is rarely pursued for its own sake. A person points out a hazard so that another will avoid it, shows an object so that another will assess it, identifies a person so that another can greet or evade them, and displays an injury so that another will recognize its seriousness. Perceptual access is embedded in courses of action. Participants must establish not only what another is to perceive but also, frequently, what the perception is for.

This formulation preserves the phenomenon’s commonsense recognizability while locating the analysis in publicly observable conduct. A recipient’s “oh,” gaze shift, pointing gesture, bodily repositioning, specific description, avoidance maneuver, or correction may each contribute to a display of perceptual access. Their evidential force, however, is not fixed in advance. A bare “yeah” may be sufficient in one setting and demonstrably inadequate in another. A detailed verbal identification may appear convincing yet remain unratified. A recipient may act appropriately without making an explicit recognition claim. The analyst must examine what the conduct does in its sequential position, what response it makes relevant, and how the participants themselves subsequently treat it.

Ethnomethodology provides the fundamental orientation for this inquiry. Members of society do not merely inhabit a pre-given social world; through practical methods they make actions, objects, persons, and circumstances recognizable as what they are. Conversation analysis adds a disciplined proof procedure: claims about action and understanding are grounded in the sequential consequences participants provide for one another. A next action displays how a prior action has been understood, while repair exposes and addresses possible divergences in understanding. Shared perception can therefore be studied not by looking behind conduct for an inferred mental state, but by examining the methods through which perceptual access is displayed, tested, accepted, corrected, resisted, or abandoned.

The issue is theoretically important because perception is often treated as a natural substrate beneath social action. The social world supposedly begins after people have already seen what is there. The present project reverses that assumption. In many activities, what is visible, relevant, nameable, or actionable is itself interactionally organized. A landscape becomes partitioned into foreground and landmark. An ambiguous mark becomes evidence of damage. A movement in a crowd becomes an identifiable person. A passerby becomes an addressable potential donor—or declines that transformation by withholding response. Perception enters social life through methods of highlighting, directing, categorizing, checking, sustaining, and acting.

2. Intellectual Foundations

2.1 Intersubjectivity as an Ongoing Practical Achievement

The project begins from the conversation analytic treatment of intersubjectivity as a continuing achievement rather than a settled meeting of minds. The organization of turn-taking provides participants with recurrent places to display their understanding of prior talk, while repair supplies procedures for addressing apparent problems in hearing, speaking, reference, and understanding. Schegloff’s description of repair after next turn as a structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity is especially relevant: mutual understanding is not presumed but recurrently exposed to confirmation and correction.

The same reasoning applies to perception. A participant’s initial noticing does not establish that another has seen the relevant phenomenon. A point does not guarantee that its recipient has followed the correct trajectory. “There” does not identify a location independently of bodies, fields of vision, landmarks, and timing. A recognition token does not necessarily settle the matter if subsequent conduct reveals that the recipient has selected the wrong object. Perceptual intersubjectivity is vulnerable to divergence and therefore organized through procedures for displaying, checking, sustaining, and repairing access.

2.2 Perception as Socially and Materially Organized

Goodwin’s analysis of professional vision demonstrated that members of occupational communities do not merely observe a neutral world. They use coding schemes, highlighting practices, graphic representations, tools, and embodied instruction to constitute objects of professional knowledge. An archaeologist’s patch of dirt, a legal team’s videotaped movement, or a physician’s image becomes intelligible through historically organized practices of seeing. Goodwin’s work is foundational because it relocates vision from an isolated observer to a field of cooperative action involving bodies, artifacts, categories, and material environments.

This insight applies beyond formal expertise. During an ordinary walk, “the hawk” may initially be only an indeterminate movement against a large sky. A participant transforms the visual field by stopping, pointing, providing a landmark, monitoring the recipient’s gaze, and refining the description. “Above the dead oak—the large one” does not merely report a location. It reorganizes the landscape as an instructed scene: one tree becomes a reference point; the space above it becomes a search region; a moving shape becomes a candidate object.

The environment is thus not a passive backdrop. Its features—visibility, distance, lighting, movement, sound, occlusion, architecture, pedestrian flow, screens, tools, barriers, and participants’ relative positions—enter into the practical organization of perception. The study will analyze how participants configure these features into locally usable perceptual fields.

2.3 Embodied Interaction and Multiple Temporalities

Multimodal research has established that talk, gaze, gesture, posture, locomotion, and object use unfold through partially independent but coordinated temporal trajectories. A participant may begin turning before producing “look,” prepare a point during another’s turn, hold the gesture through a search, glance toward the recipient to monitor progress, and retract only after recognition. Treating the spoken directive as the sole initiating event would miss much of the action.

Mondada’s multimodal transcription framework is particularly important because it preserves the onset, development, apex, maintenance, and withdrawal of embodied conduct relative to talk. Her approach also makes clear that transcription is an analytic practice: choices about what to represent shape what becomes available for analysis. Embodied annotations are not illustrations added to a verbal transcript. They are integral representations of the action’s temporal organization.

The project will therefore avoid treating its five analytic problems as a simple verbal chain. Noticing, recruitment, searching, and monitoring may overlap. Recognition may emerge in the body before being formulated in speech. Repair may be accomplished by repositioning rather than talking. Ratification may occur through coordinated action without an explicit agreement token.

2.4 Joint Attention as Action: Kidwell and Zimmerman’s Foundational Analysis

Kidwell and Zimmerman’s “Joint Attention as Action” provides the closest empirical precedent for the present study. Their importance lies not simply in asserting that attention is social, but in demonstrating through video analysis how very young children organize courses of embodied action through which an object becomes something visibly and accountably shown to another person. Their cases center on show sequences in which children manipulate objects, position their bodies, enter or reorganize a caregiver’s visual field, and sustain their conduct until an appropriate recipient response becomes available.

The central analytic achievement of their work is to distinguish mere simultaneous orientation from joint attention as an organized social action. A child’s showing does not merely cause a caregiver to look at an object. It makes the object available as being shown and thereby projects that the caregiver should do something in response. The child must organize not only what the caregiver is to attend to, but also what the attention is for: acknowledgment, assessment, assistance, acceptance, naming, or some other fitted next action. Joint attention is therefore inseparable from sequence organization and conditional relevance.

Recipient availability is itself a practical problem. Children design their actions with reference to whether caregivers are observably looking, occupied, moving away, or otherwise accessible. They may move an object into the caregiver’s visual field, hold it there, reposition themselves, repeat the showing, vocalize, or persist when an initial response is absent or insufficient. The child does not merely launch a showing and assume its success. The child monitors the caregiver’s conduct and modifies the action in light of what the caregiver does next.

This monitoring supplies an especially important methodological lesson. Whether joint attention has been adequately achieved cannot be determined solely from the geometry of gaze or from the occurrence of a token such as “oh.” The initiator’s subsequent conduct matters. If the child continues to hold the object in front of the caregiver, repeats the presentation, intensifies the vocalization, or relocates the object, those actions may display that an earlier glance or acknowledgment did not count as sufficient. Conversely, withdrawal of the object, movement into a subsequent activity, or cessation of pursuit may show that the response has been accepted as adequate.

Kidwell and Zimmerman’s analysis therefore places the normative organization of response at the center of joint attention. A showing makes some form of recipient uptake conditionally relevant. The recipient’s failure to look, acknowledge, assess, accept, or otherwise respond is not merely an absence of synchronized perception; it is an accountable absence within an unfolding sequence. The child’s persistence reveals that perceptual access and social response are analytically distinguishable but practically intertwined.

Their work has four direct consequences for this proposal.

1. Perceptual coordination must be examined as part of a larger course of action rather than as an isolated coincidence of looking.
2. The evidential sufficiency of a recognition display cannot be determined from its form alone. It depends partly on whether the initiator accepts it, pursues further uptake, repairs it, or abandons the action.
3. Shared orientation must be studied as temporally extended. Participants recruit, monitor, sustain, renew, and close attention; they do not merely achieve it at a single instant.
4. The analyst must ask not only whether a common referent has been established but what response that establishment makes relevant.

The present study extends this argument beyond child-caregiver show sequences into adult everyday, mobile, occupational, and public encounters. Adult perceptual competence often appears effortless because its methods are highly sedimented. Difficult cases—delayed recognition, wrong-object selection, ambiguous receipts, contested identifications, resistant recipients, and abandoned pursuits—make those methods visible.

The project also extends Kidwell and Zimmerman into settings structured by categorical inequality. In a caregiver-child encounter, the child’s entitlement to recruit attention is grounded in an ongoing relationship, though it is still locally negotiable. In a public solicitation, by contrast, the initiator’s entitlement to claim another’s attention may be fragile from the outset. The panhandler’s effort to become visible as an addressable person is therefore not merely another show sequence. It is a socially stratified attempt to establish a response-relevant encounter under conditions in which the recipient may organize conduct to prevent the sequence from opening at all.

2.5 Membership Categorization and Perceptual Relevance

Shared perception is not only a matter of locating physical objects. Participants also perceive persons and events as instances of socially organized categories. A uniformed person may be seen as a police officer; a person holding a cardboard sign may be seen as a panhandler; a gait may become recognizable as intoxication, disability, urgency, or threat. Categories carry expectable activities, rights, obligations, motives, and moral implications.

Membership categorization analysis is therefore necessary to the project. The analytic question is not merely, “What did they see?” but also:

• What category did they invoke or make relevant?
• What category-bound activity did that categorization render intelligible?
• What rights to look, address, instruct, inspect, correct, ignore, or withdraw accompanied it?
• How was the categorization confirmed, resisted, revised, or left implicit?
• How did categorical asymmetries shape whose perception counted as authoritative?

A birdwatching guide and novice may jointly orient to the same bird, but their rights to identify its species differ. A physician may instruct a resident where to look on a scan, while a patient may have less authority to define what is visible in their own body. A housed pedestrian may categorize a street solicitation as threatening before its content has fully unfolded. A panhandler may counter an available category such as “dangerous stranger” by presenting as neighbor, veteran, worker, parent, local resident, person in temporary need, or recognizable regular.

Perception is therefore intertwined with membership categorization. Objects and persons become actionable through socially available ways of seeing them.

3. Research Questions

The primary research question is:

How do participants in naturally occurring activities produce, inspect, and treat conduct as sufficient evidence of access to a common perceptual referent, and how do they organize that access for a fitted subsequent response?

The project will address seven subsidiary questions.

1. How do participants make a phenomenon perceptually and interactionally relevant? This includes response cries, directives, points, gaze shifts, body torque, stopping, touching, highlighting, screen manipulation, and environmental repositioning.
2. How do participants organize another’s access? How are perceptual fields narrowed, landmarks selected, trajectories indicated, objects moved, descriptions reformulated, and recipients monitored?
3. How do recipients display full, partial, uncertain, mistaken, or absent access? What is accomplished by recognition tokens, candidate identifications, embodied alignment, specific descriptions, practical action, and correction?
4. How do initiators monitor the recipient’s availability and uptake? What practices reveal that an initial glance, acknowledgment, or claim of seeing has not yet counted as sufficient?
5. What response is the perceptual recruitment designed to secure? Does it project acknowledgment, assessment, naming, assistance, avoidance, compliance, moral concern, or some other action?
6. How do membership categories organize perceptual rights and obligations? Who may direct another’s gaze, identify what is visible, correct a description, decline to attend, or hold another accountable for failing to notice?
7. How does common orientation become transformed into sustained attention, evaluation, moral concern, or practical action?

4. Research Design and Settings

4.1 Naturally Occurring Interaction

The study will use recordings of activities that would have occurred without the researcher’s intervention. It will not create laboratory stimuli, ask participants to reproduce perceptual events, or substitute interviews for recordings of the phenomenon itself. Interviews may eventually provide contextual information about a setting, but retrospective accounts will not be treated as evidence of how shared perception was interactionally accomplished.

The initial corpus will draw from four domains.

Mobile recreational activity will include walking, hiking, birdwatching, guided tours, and museum visits. These settings yield frequent episodes of pointing, searching, environmental description, recipient monitoring, and joint assessment.

Collaborative practical work will include settings in which people inspect tools, documents, physical damage, images, screens, or work in progress. These encounters make visible the relations among perceptual access, expertise, instruction, and practical consequence.

Everyday domestic activity will include searching for objects, preparing food, repairing household items, playing games, and coordinating around children or animals.

Public solicitation and pedestrian encounters will include ethically recorded episodes in which panhandlers, street vendors, outreach workers, advocates, or other public actors attempt to recruit the attention of passersby.

The proposal does not presume that these settings instantiate a single universal sequence. Comparison will examine how activity type, ecology, categorical relations, mobility, object persistence, recipient availability, and institutional authority reshape the practices through which common orientation is established.

4.2 State-of-the-Art Multimodal Recording

The study’s recording design will treat the interactional ecology—not the face alone—as the object to be preserved. Recording arrangements will be adapted to each setting, but the preferred configuration will include:

1. A wide environmental camera recording whole bodies, participant spacing, movement trajectories, relevant objects, and the surrounding spatial field.
2. One or more participant-oriented cameras providing sufficient resolution to inspect head orientation, facial conduct, hand movement, object manipulation, and gross gaze direction.
3. An object- or workspace-oriented camera where the perceptual object is small, technically complex, screen-based, or likely to fall outside the principal frame.
4. Synchronized multichannel audio, combining environmental sound with close participant audio where ethically and practically possible. The recording must preserve quiet speech, in-breaths, response cries, sound-source events, and overlapping talk.
5. Common time synchronization across video, audio, screen capture, and optional sensor streams. The analytic value of multimodal data depends on being able to establish whether a gaze shift, gesture onset, environmental event, and spoken token occurred before, during, or after one another.
6. Direct screen or instrument capture in digital and professional settings, preserving what appeared on the shared display rather than relying exclusively on a camera filming the screen.
7. Optional mobile or wearable recording, including lightweight first-person cameras or eye-tracking glasses, only where these add information unavailable from external video and do not distort the activity. Eye tracking will be treated as a supplemental record of ocular direction, not as direct access to attention, recognition, relevance, or understanding.
8. Systematic field documentation, including camera maps, object locations, visibility conditions, environmental changes, recording interruptions, and the researcher’s presence.

High image quality alone does not constitute methodological sophistication. The crucial requirement is analytic adequacy: the recording must preserve the phenomenal details through which participants organized the action. Camera placement will therefore follow preliminary observation of the activity rather than an abstract preference for close-ups.

4.3 Ethics and Vulnerable Public Populations

Research on panhandling and homelessness requires protections beyond routine consent language. People asking strangers for money may face stigma, criminalization, economic precarity, surveillance, and unwanted public exposure. The study will not treat public visibility as equivalent to research consent.

Where focal participants can be identified in advance, the project will use informed consent and continuing consent procedures. In more fluid public settings, recording strategies will be reviewed with an institutional ethics body and community advisors, including people with lived experience of homelessness and panhandling. Options will include staged consent zones, participant-controlled recording periods, delayed consent following an encounter, masking of faces and voices, removal of identifying landmarks, and exclusion of fragments whose publication could cause harm.

The project will not covertly record intimate disclosures, transactions involving illegal activity, or people whose capacity to consent is doubtful. Panhandlers will not be reduced to specimens of deviance or disruption. They will be approached as competent practitioners confronting a recurrent interactional problem under unequal conditions: how to become acknowledgeable and addressable to people whose movement and conduct are organized to avoid engagement.

5. Building the Collection

A fragment will initially enter the broad collection when the recording contains:

1. an observable orientation by one participant toward a candidate object, event, sound, person, or feature;
2. conduct making that orientation available or consequential to another participant;
3. observable monitoring, pursuit, or redesign of the recruitment;
4. a subsequent display of access, partial access, uncertainty, misidentification, resistance, nonresponse, or failure;
5. evidence of how that display is treated in the next relevant conduct.

This broad criterion avoids selecting only successful examples. Failed, contested, deceptive, or abandoned cases are not peripheral; they are essential for discovering what participants treat as adequate evidence.

Cases will be organized provisionally into five outcome families.

Achieved and ratified common orientation: a recipient displays access, and participants proceed on that basis.

Perceptual access achieved but projected response absent: the recipient appears to locate the referent but does not produce the assessment, assistance, acknowledgment, or other response for which the recruitment was organized.

Claimed but unratified access: a recipient claims or implies recognition, but another participant continues to pursue, test, refine, or challenge the claim.

Contested or repaired access: participants reveal divergent referents or categorizations, as in “No, not that one—the one behind it.”

Abandoned, declined, or bypassed recruitment: the effort to organize common orientation is dropped, ignored, or explicitly resisted.

These are collection-management categories, not substitutes for sequential analysis. Their usefulness will be assessed and revised through repeated viewing, transcription, comparison, and data sessions.

6. Transcription

Talk will be transcribed using Jeffersonian conventions for overlap, silence, sound extension, emphasis, pitch movement, cut-offs, latching, laughter, aspiration, pace, and volume. The initial transcript will remain verbatim. False starts, repetition, hesitation, nonlexical vocalizations, and silence will not be normalized away.

Embodied conduct will be transcribed using participant-specific symbols aligned with the talk. Relevant trajectories may include:

• gaze or head orientation;
• point preparation, stroke, hold, and retraction;
• posture and body torque;
• approach, withdrawal, stopping, and resumption of movement;
• movement of an object into or out of a recipient’s visual field;
• recipient-monitoring glances;
• touching, moving, highlighting, or manipulating objects;
• screen actions;
• changes in the environment;
• the perceptual object’s own movement.

The transcript will distinguish what is visible from what is analytically inferred. “Turns head toward tree” is an observation. “Recognizes the hawk” is an analytic claim requiring sequential evidence. “Gaze lands on target” will be used only when the camera arrangement makes the target and gaze trajectory adequately inspectable; otherwise the transcript will use more cautious descriptions such as “head stabilizes in target region.”

Special attention will be given to the relation between the recipient’s conduct and the initiator’s next action. A held gesture, repeated showing, repositioned object, renewed summons, or intensified account may reveal that the initiator has not treated an earlier response as adequate.

The video remains the primary record. Transcripts will be repeatedly revised as the analysis develops.

7. Analytic Framework: Five Recurrent Interactional Problems

The framework identifies five recurrent problems rather than mandatory stages. They may overlap, collapse into one another, recur, or remain unresolved.

7.1 Making a Perceptual Phenomenon Relevant

The first problem is how some feature of the world becomes relevant within the ongoing activity. A participant may produce a response cry—“oh,” “wow,” “huh”—or an explicit directive such as “look.” Alternatively, relevance may first be established through bodily conduct: stopping, turning, reaching, pointing, leaning toward a screen, withdrawing from a smell, or orienting toward a sound.

Analysis will ask:

• What activity was underway before the noticing?
• At what sequential and environmental moment was the phenomenon introduced?
• Did the noticing interrupt, suspend, or redirect the prior activity?
• Was the object made relevant as beautiful, dangerous, damaged, unusual, morally troubling, professionally significant, or otherwise actionable?
• Which categories or category-bound expectations were activated?
• What response did the noticing project?

A noticing does not merely reveal that something has been seen. It proposes that the phenomenon deserves some form of coparticipant orientation and response.

7.2 Organizing and Sustaining Access

Once a candidate phenomenon has been made relevant, participants may need to configure another’s access to it. They can point, reposition themselves, move an object into the recipient’s field of view, enlarge an image, replay a sound, provide a landmark, trace a shape, adjust lighting, formulate a category, or guide a recipient through a sequence of search instructions.

This phase includes recipient monitoring. Initiators may glance toward the recipient, hold an object in place, sustain a point, wait, repeat a summons, or redesign the presentation. Such conduct displays that access is not presumed but inspected.

The analyst will examine:

• how bodies, language, objects, and environmental features construct an inspectable field;
• how recipient availability is assessed;
• how long the recruitment is sustained;
• what modifications follow absent or inadequate uptake;
• what conduct shows that the initiator now treats access as achieved.

7.3 Displaying and Diagnosing Access

Recipients may display searching, uncertainty, partial access, confident access, misidentification, unwillingness to participate, or no response. Relevant practices include:

• scanning;
• gaze following;
• “where?”;
• candidate formulations such as “the red one?”;
• delayed change-of-state tokens;
• reciprocal pointing;
• moving closer;
• repeating or extending a description;
• performing an action fitted to the object;
• continuing an unrelated activity;
• averting gaze or accelerating movement.

Co-participants diagnose these displays by continuing to point, refining a description, testing a recipient’s identification, accepting the display, correcting it, or abandoning the perceptual project. The central issue is not what an isolated token conventionally means, but what participants make of it in the developing sequence.

7.4 Establishing Sufficient Common Orientation

The proposal rejects a context-independent hierarchy in which one form automatically proves perception more strongly than another. It instead compares formats of displayed access and asks how they acquire practical sufficiency in particular environments.

A minimal receipt—“oh,” “yeah,” “I see”—claims or implies access but specifies little about the referent. It may be sufficient where the object is obvious and nothing further depends upon identification. In another sequence, it may be treated as inadequate or merely polite.

A referentially fitted display is tied to the location, movement, or practical properties of the candidate referent. Examples include pointing toward the appropriate region, tracking a moving object, navigating around an obstacle, selecting the indicated tool, or formulating a candidate such as “the one behind the fence?”

An independently elaborated display contributes a feature, trajectory, categorization, or practical implication not already supplied by the first participant. Such conduct may provide a more differentiated public display of claimed access, but it does not grant the analyst direct access to private experience.

The most important evidence often lies in the initiator’s treatment of the response. Does the initiator retract the point, remove the object, proceed to the next action, or cease pursuing? Or does the initiator repeat, intensify, correct, or reposition? Interactional sufficiency is achieved when participants proceed as though enough common orientation has been established for the projected course of action.

7.5 Transforming Perception into a Fitted Response

Establishing a common referent is rarely the endpoint. Participants may assess it, name it, laugh about it, accept it, photograph it, avoid it, repair it, report it, offer assistance, or deliberately withdraw their attention.

This fifth problem draws directly from Kidwell and Zimmerman’s insistence that joint attention is organized for something. A shown object calls for a response. A warning calls for avoidance. A professional demonstration calls for recognition or correction. A panhandler’s greeting may call for acknowledgment, while the subsequent request calls for acceptance, refusal, explanation, or closure.

The analysis will ask:

• What response was projected by the perceptual recruitment?
• Was perceptual access achieved without the projected response?
• How did the initiator pursue missing uptake?
• How long was orientation sustained?
• What assessments or categories were introduced?
• Did perception generate an obligation to respond?
• Who claimed the right to decide what followed?
• How was the perceptual project closed?

Shared perception and shared attention must therefore be distinguished, but not separated too sharply. Establishing access may be only one component of securing the action for which the access was organized.

8. Illustrative Fragment

The following hypothetical fragment demonstrates the analytic approach. It is not empirical evidence and will be replaced by recorded data in any research report.

Setting: Two people are walking on a trail. A notices a bird circling above a distant tree.

01 A:    °oh wow° (0.3) *LOOK up there.

   a-gz:                 *raises gaze toward sky-------------------->>

   a-bd:                 *stops; turns torso; raises right arm------>>

   a-pt:                             *points------------------------->>

 

02        (0.6)

   b-gz:  *follows pointing trajectory; scans upper visual field---->>

   b-bd:  *slows and stops------------------------------------------>>

 

03 B:    where? (.) I don't-

   b-gz:  >>continues scanning-------------------------------------->>

 

04 A:    >right there< above the-

   a-pt:  >>holds point---------------------------------------------->>

   a-gz:  >>briefly shifts toward B, returns to target-------------->>

 

05 A:    =dead oak. (0.2) the big one.

 

06        (0.8)

   b-gz:  >>head movement slows; stabilizes in indicated region---->>

   b-bd:  *steps alongside A---------------------------------------->>

 

07 B:    ↑OH:: (.) °yeah° I see it. It’s HU::ge.

   b-pt:               *raises hand and points---------------------->>

   a-pt:  >>begins retracting--------------------------------------->

 

08 A:    yeah.

   a-bd:  *nods------------------------------------------------------*

 

09 A:    isn’t it beautiful?

 

10 B:    beautiful. (0.3) it’s just hovering.

 

11 B:    is that a red-tail?

 

12 A:    I think so, yeah.

 

13        (1.1)

   a-gz:  >>continues toward bird-----------------------------*

   b-gz:  >>continues toward bird-----------------------------*

   a-pt:  >>fully retracts------------------------------------*

   b-pt:  >>retracts------------------------------------------*

 

14        ((both resume walking))

A’s response cry in line 1 displays a change in orientation and projects that something has become noteworthy. The directive “LOOK up there” recruits B, but the directive alone does not identify an inspectable object. Its sense depends on the simultaneously produced gaze shift, stopped movement, torso rotation, and sustained point. Together these practices reorganize the ongoing walk into a perceptual project.

B’s slowing and scanning show uptake without successful location. “Where?” makes the trouble explicit, while the cut-off “I don’t-” projects an account of absent or incomplete access. A responds by refining the search field. “Above the dead oak” turns one feature of the landscape into a landmark and the region above it into the relevant zone. A also checks B’s orientation, displaying that B’s progress is being monitored.

In line 6, B’s head movement slows and stabilizes in the indicated region. This embodied change precedes the verbal recognition display. The elongated, high-pitched “OH::” marks an apparent change in access; “I see it” formulates that change explicitly. B then adds “It’s HU::ge,” supplying an object-fitted assessment and pointing toward the relevant region.

A’s conduct is decisive. The sustained point begins to retract, and A moves from locational instruction to a second action: “isn’t it beautiful?” The change in action displays that B’s prior conduct has been accepted as sufficient for the search to end. The perceptual project now becomes an assessment sequence.

B repeats the aesthetic term and adds a description of movement: “just hovering.” “Is that a red-tail?” then introduces a candidate categorization. Its interrogative form acknowledges uncertainty and invites confirmation. A’s qualified response preserves that uncertainty while affiliating with the proposal.

The fragment does not demonstrate that the participants possess identical visual experiences. It demonstrates something empirically more accessible: they organize conduct around a common referential field, monitor and resolve access, produce mutually fitted descriptions, and proceed to the evaluative activity for which the object was made jointly available.

9. Panhandling, Civil Inattention, and the Struggle to Become Addressable

Panhandling offers a particularly consequential setting for extending the analysis. The perceptual problem is not usually locating an external object. It is establishing the panhandler as a person whose presence, speech, circumstances, or request warrants acknowledgment.

Goffman’s civil inattention describes the delicate public practice through which strangers display sufficient recognition to avoid collision, threat, or intrusive scrutiny while withholding an invitation to engagement. It is not simply failure to see. It is an organized management of perceptual and interactional availability. A brief glance may register another’s presence and then be withdrawn. Body orientation, walking trajectory, facial configuration, object use, and timing can jointly communicate: “I recognize your presence, but I am not opening an encounter.”

Nonperson treatment is more severe. The other’s conduct is handled as though it does not require acknowledgment. A panhandler may speak within hearing range, yet the passerby withholds gaze, response, pace alteration, or any public sign that an address has occurred. Physical copresence is not converted into ratified coparticipation.

Lankenau’s analysis depicts panhandling as skilled, adaptive work involving repertoires and routines designed to overcome this treatment. Panhandlers modify appearance, emotion, narrative, address, spatial position, and performance to gain the attention and interest of passersby. This interactionist account treats panhandlers as active practitioners rather than passive social types.

The relationship to Kidwell and Zimmerman is precise but not simplistic. In both settings, an initiator attempts to make something publicly available and to secure a fitted response. A child showing an object may reposition it, sustain its presentation, monitor the caregiver, and pursue acknowledgment. A panhandler may position a sign, offer a greeting, adjust volume, monitor the passerby’s trajectory, pursue an initial nonresponse, or redesign the solicitation.

Yet the two situations differ profoundly in categorical and moral organization. The child’s entitlement to seek a caregiver’s attention arises within an established relationship. The panhandler often confronts a recipient who is organizing conduct to prevent an encounter from becoming ratified. The panhandler’s problem is therefore not merely how to direct perception but how to overcome the category-based presumption that no response is owed.

A panhandler may:

• offer a greeting before making a request;
• use “sir,” “ma’am,” “brother,” “neighbor,” or another category-specific address term;
• formulate a compliment or observational remark;
• ask a low-cost preliminary question;
• display humor;
• present a sign that permits solicitation without direct speech;
• position the body near a pedestrian trajectory without blocking it;
• calibrate volume to be hearable but not overtly aggressive;
• display local knowledge or familiarity;
• invoke a category such as veteran, parent, worker, disabled person, stranded traveler, person in recovery, or community member;
• provide a brief narrative designed to make the request morally intelligible;
• pursue a response after silence;
• withdraw promptly when nonengagement becomes unmistakable.

These practices do not merely attract attention. They attempt to transform the passerby’s perception of the actor and situation. A person initially categorizable as an anonymous street figure may become a neighbor, recognizable regular, person in immediate need, storyteller, threat, nuisance, or someone entitled to a reply.

The sequence may move among several public statuses:

physically present person → perceptually registered stranger → addressable coparticipant → hearable claimant → morally intelligible category member → recipient of acknowledgment, refusal, assistance, or continued nonresponse

This is not a necessary linear progression. Passersby may anticipate a request and organize avoidance before an address begins. A panhandler may use a sign rather than seek focused interaction. A pedestrian may acknowledge the greeting but refuse transition to the request. An encounter may be opened and then rapidly closed.

Kidwell and Zimmerman’s work sharpens the analysis by directing attention to persistence and recipient monitoring. A panhandler’s second greeting, increased volume, altered wording, step toward the trajectory, or abandonment of pursuit may reveal how the passerby’s prior conduct has been understood. The question is not merely whether the passerby heard or saw the panhandler. It is whether the passerby produced a response that counted as acknowledging the action underway.

The panhandling case thereby exposes the unequal distribution of attentional rights. Not everyone has equal entitlement to direct a stranger’s gaze, interrupt a trajectory, initiate talk, request an account, or pursue a response. The same persistence may be treated as legitimate salesmanship when performed by a commercial worker and as harassment when performed by a visibly poor person. The same biographical category may humanize in one sequence and intensify stigma in another.

Shared perception is therefore political at its most elementary level. It concerns who can make themselves and their circumstances available as realities another person must at least momentarily confront.

10. Civil Inattention Beyond Panhandling

The project will not assume that civil inattention is equivalent to blindness, indifference, or moral failure. Its accomplishment must be demonstrated in specific sequences. Analysis will distinguish among:

• unobtrusive recognition followed by respectful gaze withdrawal;
• anticipatory avoidance before an encounter can open;
• divided attention;
• demonstrative unavailability;
• fear-oriented monitoring;
• hostile staring;
• nonperson treatment;
• failed recognition of an acquaintance;
• device-mediated disengagement;
• strategic refusal of an unwanted interaction.

Smartphones and headphones are especially important but analytically ambiguous resources. A device may display unavailability, furnish an account for delayed response, compete for attention, shield a user from solicitation, intensify surveillance, provide a means of recording another, or become the very object around which shared perception is organized. The study will not assign devices a single function in advance. It will examine how participants use and treat them within particular encounters.

This extension connects the project to a broader sociology of attention. The critical question is not merely who looks at whom. It is how perception becomes formatted as recognition, accessibility, concern, suspicion, entitlement, refusal, or care.

11. Comparative Analysis and Analytic Adequacy

The primary analysis will follow established EMCA procedures:

• repeated viewing and listening;
• detailed transcription;
• sequential analysis;
• collection building;
• comparison of similar and contrasting cases;
• deviant-case analysis;
• examination of participant orientations;
• collaborative data sessions;
• revision of claims against recorded materials;
• transparent presentation of excerpts sufficient for readers to inspect the argument.

A provisional collection table will record features such as recruitment practice, recipient availability, monitoring conduct, environmental configuration, recipient response, repair trajectory, display of access, projected next action, categorization work, ratification, and subsequent action. The table is an aid to locating comparable cases, not an automatic coding machine.

Particularly important will be cases in which a recipient appears to perceive the referent but fails to produce the projected response. These cases permit analytic separation of perceptual access, attentional sustainment, action recognition, and affiliation.

Where the study later makes distributional claims—for example, that a certain recognition format occurs more frequently in guided instruction than in ordinary walking—a separate mixed-methods protocol will be required. Operational definitions, coder training, a strategically varied reliability sample, and appropriate agreement measures will then be developed. Inter-coder reliability will not be treated as validation of the primary sequential analysis.

12. Anticipated Contributions

The project will make six principal contributions.

1. It will provide a precise empirical respecification of shared perception. Rather than claiming access to common mental contents, it will identify the practices through which people establish sufficient public evidence for proceeding with a common referent.
2. It will extend Kidwell and Zimmerman’s analysis of joint attention as action. It will show how showing, recipient monitoring, persistence, response projection, and conditional relevance operate beyond caregiver-child interaction in adult, mobile, professional, and public settings.
3. It will distinguish perceptual access from the fitted response for which access is organized. Participants may see without acknowledging, acknowledge without affiliating, or affiliate without sustaining attention. These differences are central to the sequential organization of social action.
4. It will integrate sequence organization with material ecology. The analysis will show how talk, gesture, gaze, objects, landmarks, tools, screens, mobility, and environmental conditions work together to construct perceptual fields.
5. It will connect multimodal perception to membership categorization. Seeing an object or person is often inseparable from seeing it as an instance of a socially consequential category. The study will examine how those categorizations distribute knowledge, authority, obligation, suspicion, recognition, and the right to disengage.
6. The panhandling analysis will extend research on public encounters by showing how economically and categorically marginalized persons work to convert mere copresence into acknowledgment. It will document the interactional competence involved in overcoming—or attempting to overcome—civil inattention and nonperson treatment without romanticizing, pathologizing, or psychologizing the participants.

13. Significance

Social life depends upon people’s ability to inhabit a world treated as sufficiently common for coordinated action. Yet that commonality is neither automatic nor socially innocent. It is built in ordinary practices: an object held into another’s line of sight, a finger sustained toward a distant referent, a gaze checked and redirected, a description revised, a name proposed, a warning acted upon, a stranger acknowledged, or an appeal deliberately left unanswered.

Kidwell and Zimmerman’s work reveals the foundational form of this accomplishment. A young child does not merely look at an object alongside a caregiver. The child organizes an action through which the object is made showable, the caregiver is recruited and monitored, and a response becomes due. The present project takes that insight seriously and asks what becomes visible when the same interactional problems are studied in adult life, professional work, mobile activity, and unequal public encounters.

These moments are small, but they contain large sociological questions. How does private sensation acquire public form? How is a landscape made jointly inspectable? How does expertise authorize one person to instruct another’s vision? How do social categories enter perception before an encounter fully begins? How do people display that they have seen enough to act? How is a response pursued when seeing alone is insufficient? Who is allowed to claim another’s attention, and who can be looked past as though absent?

By examining these questions in naturally occurring interaction, the project treats perception as practical action without denying the reality of sensory experience. It locates the sociological problem where participants themselves encounter it: not inside an inaccessible mind, but in the visible, audible, embodied work of making a common world—and an appropriate response to it—available to one another.

References

Arminen, Ilkka A. T. 2023. “Civil Inattention—On the Sources of Relational Segregation.” Frontiers in Sociology 8: 1212090.

Atkinson, J. Maxwell, and John Heritage, eds. 1984. Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Duneier, Mitchell, and Harvey Molotch. 1999. “Talking City Trouble: Interactional Vandalism, Social Inequality, and the ‘Urban Interaction Problem.’” American Journal of Sociology 104 (5): 1263–95.

Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Goffman, Erving. 1963. Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: Free Press.

Goffman, Erving. 1971. Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Basic Books.

Goodwin, Charles. 1994. “Professional Vision.” American Anthropologist 96 (3): 606–33.

Goodwin, Charles. 2000. “Action and Embodiment within Situated Human Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 32 (10): 1489–1522.

Goodwin, Charles. 2018. Co-Operative Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goodwin, Charles, and Marjorie Harness Goodwin. 1996. “Seeing as a Situated Activity: Formulating Planes.” In Cognition and Communication at Work, edited by Yrjö Engeström and David Middleton, 61–95. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heath, Christian, and Paul Luff. 2000. Technology in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hirschauer, Stefan. 2005. “On Doing Being a Stranger: The Practical Constitution of Civil Inattention.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 35 (1): 41–67.

Horgan, Mervyn. 2020. “Urban Interaction Ritual: Strangership, Civil Inattention and Everyday Incivilities in Public Space.” Pragmatics 30 (1): 116–41.

Kidwell, Mardi. 2005. “Gaze as Social Control: How Very Young Children Differentiate ‘The Look’ from a ‘Mere Look’ by Their Adult Caregivers.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 38 (4): 417–49.

Kidwell, Mardi, and Don H. Zimmerman. 2007. “Joint Attention as Action.” Journal of Pragmatics 39 (3): 592–611.

Lankenau, Stephen E. 1999. “Panhandling Repertoires and Routines for Overcoming the Nonperson Treatment.” Deviant Behavior 20 (2): 183–206.

Luff, Paul, Jon Hindmarsh, and Christian Heath, eds. 2000. Workplace Studies: Recovering Work Practice and Informing System Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mondada, Lorenza. 2014. “Bodies in Action: Multimodal Analysis of Walking and Talking.” Language and Dialogue 4 (3): 357–403.

Mondada, Lorenza. 2018. “Multiple Temporalities of Language and Body in Interaction: Challenges for Transcribing Multimodality.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 51 (1): 85–106.

Mondada, Lorenza. 2021. Sensing in Social Interaction: The Taste for Cheese in Gourmet Shops. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” In Structures of Social Action, edited by J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on Conversation. Edited by Gail Jefferson. 2 vols. Oxford: Blackwell.

Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50 (4): 696–735.

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1992. “Repair after Next Turn: The Last Structurally Provided Defense of Intersubjectivity in Conversation.” American Journal of Sociology 97 (5): 1295–1345.

Streeck, Jürgen, Charles Goodwin, and Curtis LeBaron, eds. 2011. Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.