Winship-Muller2011
| Winship-Muller2011 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Winship-Muller2011 |
| Author(s) | Christopher Winship, Christopher Muller |
| Title | Ethnomethodology and consequences: comment on Emirbayer and Maynard’s “pragmatism and ethnomethodology” |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Pragmatism, Ethnomethodology |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2011 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Qualitative Sociology |
| Volume | 34 |
| Number | |
| Pages | 283-286 |
| URL | |
| DOI | 10.1007/s11133-010-9179-4 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Emirbayer and Maynard are to be congratulated for writing an insightful and important paper. They have identified far from transparent connections between pragmatism and ethnomethodology and, perhaps most importantly, shown how ethnomethodology contrib- utes to the pragmatist project by developing a social science methodology with which to carry out its agenda. This is no small accomplishment. This fine paper should inspire a renewed interest among sociologists in the American pragmatist philosophical tradition and a reappraisal of the contributions of Garfinkel’s program in ethnomethodology. In this comment we advance two related criticisms. The first concerns whether pragmatism can be said to have a single method and whether ethnomethodology supplies it. The second questions whether ethnomethodology sufficiently attends to John Dewey’s theory of creative (Joas 1996) or experimental action. We address these in turn.
Notes
