Difference between revisions of "Hammersley2019b"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (AndreiKorbut moved page Hammersley2018 to Hammersley2019b without leaving a redirect)
 
Line 4: Line 4:
 
|Title=Ethnomethodological criticism of ethnography
 
|Title=Ethnomethodological criticism of ethnography
 
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Ethnography; construction of social phenomena; ethnomethodology; reflexivity; rigour in  qualitative research
 
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Ethnography; construction of social phenomena; ethnomethodology; reflexivity; rigour in  qualitative research
|Key=Hammersley2018
+
|Key=Hammersley2019b
|Year=2018
+
|Year=2019
 
|Language=English
 
|Language=English
 
|Journal=Qualitative Research
 
|Journal=Qualitative Research

Latest revision as of 17:01, 10 October 2019

Hammersley2019b
BibType ARTICLE
Key Hammersley2019b
Author(s) Martyn Hammersley
Title Ethnomethodological criticism of ethnography
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, Ethnography, construction of social phenomena, ethnomethodology, reflexivity, rigour in qualitative research
Publisher
Year 2019
Language English
City
Month
Journal Qualitative Research
Volume 19
Number 5
Pages 578-593
URL Link
DOI https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794118781383
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

Ethnomethodologists have made some fundamental criticisms of conventional forms of ethnography. For example, it has been argued that they fail to examine the processes through which the phenomena studied have been constituted, and that they lack rigour because they rely upon unexplicated common-sense knowledge. In my view, these criticisms have not been given sufficient attention. This article outlines them in detail and then goes on to provide an evaluation. It is concluded that they do not provide a sufficient basis for the radical-re-specification of the focus of inquiry that ethnomethodologists propose. However, they do raise issues to which ethnographers should give more attention.

Notes