Gallant-Kleinman1983
| Gallant-Kleinman1983 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Gallant-Kleinman1983 |
| Author(s) | Mary J. Gallant, Sherryl Kleinman |
| Title | Symbolic interactionism vs. ethnomethodology |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Ethnomethodology, Symbolic interactionism |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 1983 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Symbolic Interaction |
| Volume | 6 |
| Number | 1 |
| Pages | 1-18 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1525/si.1983.6.1.1 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Are ethnomethodology and symbolic interactionism essentially the same? An examination of these perspectives suggests that each offers a unique contribution to sociological knowledge. Although both perspectives have been influenced by pragmatism, ethnomethodology shares affinity with James' philosophy while symbolic interactionism is allied with Dewey's and Mead's. Both perspectives emphasize meaning and constraints, but each offers critically different conceptualizations of them. Symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology share a verstehen outlook, yet each perspective uses different methods to gain “understanding.” Hence, these perspectives differ philosophically, conceptually, and methodologically.
Notes
Reply by A.W. Rawls, 1985
