Arminen2008a
| Arminen2008a | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Arminen2008a |
| Author(s) | Ilkka Arminen |
| Title | Scientific and “radical” ethnomethodology: From incompatible paradigms to ethnomethodological sociology |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Ethnomethodology, Philosophy of Science, Science |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2008 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Philosophy of the Social Sciences |
| Volume | 38 |
| Number | 2 |
| Pages | 167–191 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/0048393108315508 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Ethnomethodology has been torn between scientific and “radical” aspirations insofar as it moves discoursive practices from resources to the topic of the study. Scientific ethnomethodology, such as conversation analysis, studies discoursive praxis as its topic and resource. Standard scientific criteria are accepted to assess the merits of its findings. “Radical” ethnomethodology addresses mundane reasoning exclusively as its topic without recourse to standardized science. I will show that insofar as “radical” ethnomethodology succeeds in bracketing everyday resources, it loses its phenomenon with the very technical skills it uses for this task. This reconsideration enables the development of ethnomethodological social science.
Notes
