On institutional Settings : Ethnomethodological study of emergency calls

In the first part (part1) ，we are going to illustrate what procedures sustain “proper emergency calls" inside and outside of the telephone emergency calls (119-talks). For that purpose，we analyzed the medical and fire emergency calls and their settings. The data were audio and videotaped at two dispatch centers in Japan from 1994 to 1995.
First of all，following the studies by Don H. Zimmerman，we paid our attention to the inside of the talks. We found three features: (1) At the opening of the talk，the dispatcher asked the caller about the category of the emergency， (2) Both participants (caller and receiver) wanted to confirm the appropriateness (relevancy) of the emergency call， and (3) At the closing，almost every dispatcher said that a emergency vehicle was now leaving or had left already.
Secondly，we investigated the video-data by referring to the studies by Jack Whalen. We found four important issues，which were useful for cooperative work within dispatch centers: (1) Dispatchers used item-line-up formats，(2) Dispatchers used some rather primitive communication tools，for example paper memo and white board. (3) Dispatchers were surrounded by well-integrated space-sound environments，and (4) Dispatchers take some particular body arrangements，including postures，to realize more collaborative works in the centers.
By taking such procedures mentioned above， they accomplish and manage the emergency calls，and we may understand it is these procedures that construct the institutional settings of emergency dispatch centers.
In part II，w e will examine institutional settings regarding the relationship between the (talk-in-) interaction and the institutions. Analyses of interaction are sometimes criticized that it is insufficient for treating institutions. However，we will note that the critics presuppose the interaction such a narrow way that it is limited at the micro-level. We would like to suggest so to speak the radicality of the interaction.
First，we review the discussions in EM and CA regarding talk and institutional settings or the organization of work in order to examine this issue.
Secondly，we consider another side of the problem that the concrete interactions which are observed in institutional settings do not accord easily with the nature of institutions which investigators suppose.
After these examination，we investigate how the rules are followed or used by member as a part of skills informing their institutional feature.