Lynch2022
| Lynch2022 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Lynch2022 |
| Author(s) | Michael Lynch |
| Title | Comment on Martin Hammersley, “Is ‘Representation’ a Folk Term?” |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Representation, Science and technology studies, STS, Ethnomethodology, Constructionism, Martyn Hammersley |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2022 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Philosophy of the Social Sciences |
| Volume | 52 |
| Number | 4 |
| Pages | 258–267 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/00483931221091555 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Hammersley asserts that “radical” strands of ethnomethodology and constructionism in science and technology studies (STS) take an anti-representationalist approach which denies that “science produces representations referring to objects or processes that exist independently of it.” In this ‘Comment,’ I argue that ethnomethodology is distinct from both constructionist and post-constructionist research programs in STS, and that Hammersley presents a binary choice between being for or against the general proposition that scientific representations correspond to independent realities. He suggests that STS studies should “suspend” the philosophical question of whether scientific representations correspond to their worldly referents. Perhaps this is good advice for proponents of STS who promote a “turn to ontology” or propose to do “empirical philosophy,” but ethnomethodologists take a deflationary approach to the topics of philosophical inquiry.
Notes
