Difference between revisions of "Sormani2019a"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=MISC |Author(s)=Philippe Sormani; |Title=Ethnomethodological Analysis |Editor(s)=Paul Atkinson; Sara Delamont; Alexandru Cernat; Joseph W. Sakshaug; Richar...")
 
Line 6: Line 6:
 
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Ethnomethodology; Methodology
 
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Ethnomethodology; Methodology
 
|Key=Sormani2019a
 
|Key=Sormani2019a
 +
|Publisher=SAGE
 
|Year=2019
 
|Year=2019
 
|Language=English
 
|Language=English
 +
|Address=London
 
|Booktitle=SAGE Research Methods
 
|Booktitle=SAGE Research Methods
 
|URL=https://methods.sagepub.com/foundations/ethnomethodological-analysis
 
|URL=https://methods.sagepub.com/foundations/ethnomethodological-analysis

Revision as of 02:29, 8 April 2021

Sormani2019a
BibType MISC
Key Sormani2019a
Author(s) Philippe Sormani
Title Ethnomethodological Analysis
Editor(s) Paul Atkinson, Sara Delamont, Alexandru Cernat, Joseph W. Sakshaug, Richard A. Williams
Tag(s) EMCA, Ethnomethodology, Methodology
Publisher SAGE
Year 2019
Language English
City London
Month
Journal
Volume
Number
Pages
URL Link
DOI 10.4135/9781526421036788330
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title SAGE Research Methods
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

In 1967, Harold Garfinkel published Studies in Ethnomethodology, a collection of essays that investigated how social order happened to be locally produced and practically relevant, as a mundanely available and reflexively accountable phenomenon. How has ethnomethodology (EM)—as an empirical approach different from psychological, economic, or other forms of social theorizing—developed since the publication of Garfinkel’s seminal collection of studies? This entry answers the raised question in three steps. First, it presents the empirical outlook, basic assumptions, and key principles of ethnomethodological inquiry. Second, it charts three major strands of ethnomethodological analysis (EA): conceptual analysis, conversation analysis, and practical analysis (i.e., “studies of work”). Third, the entry discusses open arguments in the vein of and between these three contrasting strands of EA. The entry concludes by advocating the current interest of cross-disciplinary critique in EM, if not beyond its remit. Cross-disciplinary critique in EM invites its practitioners to make explicit the contingent framing of their empirical foci. As a reflexive endeavor, it opens up topical issues in the social sciences, humanities, as well as science and technology studies for empirical and conceptual reappraisal.

Notes