Psathas1995b
Revision as of 13:55, 4 June 2018 by DarceySearles (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=George Psathas; |Title="Talk and social structure" and "Studies of work" |Tag(s)=EMCA; Ethnomethodology; Conversation Analysis; Social...")
| Psathas1995b | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Psathas1995b |
| Author(s) | George Psathas |
| Title | "Talk and social structure" and "Studies of work" |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Ethnomethodology, Conversation Analysis, Social structure, Methodology |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 1995 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Human Studies |
| Volume | 18 |
| Number | |
| Pages | 139-155 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This paper takes up the current discussion and disagreement among ethnomethodologists and conversation analysts concerning how conversation analysis should address questions of “social structure.” It also discusses the question of whether conversation analysis can address questions concerning the organisation of “work” as developed in the “studies of work” program of ethnomethodologists. Five different types of ethnomethodological and conversation analytic studies are delineated in order to show that, altough they differ in problem selection and formulation, methodological preference and foci, they are not incompatible but complementary.
Notes
