Lynch2007a
| Lynch2007a | |
|---|---|
| BibType | INCOLLECTION |
| Key | Lynch2007a |
| Author(s) | Michael Lynch |
| Title | The origins of ethnomethodology |
| Editor(s) | Stephen P. Turner, Mark W. Risjord |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Ethnomethodology, Basic Resources |
| Publisher | Elsevier |
| Year | 2007 |
| Language | |
| City | Amsterdam, Oxford |
| Month | |
| Journal | |
| Volume | |
| Number | |
| Pages | 485–515 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1016/B978-044451542-1/50015-5 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | Philosophy of Anthropology and Sociology |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This chapter develops four different accounts of ethnomethodology's origins: a discrete origin story that situates ethnomethodology in an intellectual biography; a conventional academic history that traces ethnomethodology back to lines of social theory and philosophy; an account of a revolutionary “break” with the existing social sciences; and, finally, a substantive genealogy that identifies ethnomethodology with the things it investigates. Ethnomethodology is a source of bafflement, frustration, and outright hostility for many of its interpreters—especially the doyens of American sociology who pronounced opinions about it in the 1960s and ’70s. Moreover, the development of the field has involved a confusing divergence between different lines of work, many of which have become intertwined with other disciplinary and sub-disciplinary developments in sociolinguistics, science and technology studies, workplace studies, organizational studies, and various topical specialties within sociology. Ethnomethodology is unusual among sociological research programs, because it can be traced to a deliberate attempt to launch a novel research program.
Notes
