Difference between revisions of "Lynch2011"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Michael Lynch; |Title=Harold Garfinkel (29 October 1917 – 21 April 2011): A remembrance and reminder |Tag(s)=EMCA; ethnomethodology;...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Michael Lynch; | + | |Author(s)=Michael Lynch; |
|Title=Harold Garfinkel (29 October 1917 – 21 April 2011): A remembrance and reminder | |Title=Harold Garfinkel (29 October 1917 – 21 April 2011): A remembrance and reminder | ||
|Tag(s)=EMCA; ethnomethodology; Harold Garfinkel; science and technology studies; scientific methods; social action | |Tag(s)=EMCA; ethnomethodology; Harold Garfinkel; science and technology studies; scientific methods; social action | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Volume=41 | |Volume=41 | ||
|Number=6 | |Number=6 | ||
| − | |Pages=927 | + | |Pages=927–942 |
| + | |URL=http://sss.sagepub.com/content/41/6/927 | ||
| + | |DOI=10.1177/0306312711423434 | ||
|Abstract=This essay is a remembrance and also a reminder of Harold Garfinkel’s contributions to science studies. Garfinkel is best known as the founder of ethnomethodology, the sociological investigation of the production and coordination of ‘methods’ in non-scientific as well as scientific settings. In addition to studying the tacit organization of everyday activities, Garfinkel and his students also investigated practices in the natural and social sciences that elude formal methodological prescriptions and reports. Garfinkel’s work sometimes is acknowledged as a recursor to early ethnographies of scientific laboratories, but this essay argues that his conceptual and methodological innovations continue to have a pervasive, though often unacknowledged, place in science and technology studies and related fields. | |Abstract=This essay is a remembrance and also a reminder of Harold Garfinkel’s contributions to science studies. Garfinkel is best known as the founder of ethnomethodology, the sociological investigation of the production and coordination of ‘methods’ in non-scientific as well as scientific settings. In addition to studying the tacit organization of everyday activities, Garfinkel and his students also investigated practices in the natural and social sciences that elude formal methodological prescriptions and reports. Garfinkel’s work sometimes is acknowledged as a recursor to early ethnographies of scientific laboratories, but this essay argues that his conceptual and methodological innovations continue to have a pervasive, though often unacknowledged, place in science and technology studies and related fields. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 12:20, 20 February 2016
| Lynch2011 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Lynch2011 |
| Author(s) | Michael Lynch |
| Title | Harold Garfinkel (29 October 1917 – 21 April 2011): A remembrance and reminder |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, ethnomethodology, Harold Garfinkel, science and technology studies, scientific methods, social action |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2011 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Social Studies of Science |
| Volume | 41 |
| Number | 6 |
| Pages | 927–942 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/0306312711423434 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This essay is a remembrance and also a reminder of Harold Garfinkel’s contributions to science studies. Garfinkel is best known as the founder of ethnomethodology, the sociological investigation of the production and coordination of ‘methods’ in non-scientific as well as scientific settings. In addition to studying the tacit organization of everyday activities, Garfinkel and his students also investigated practices in the natural and social sciences that elude formal methodological prescriptions and reports. Garfinkel’s work sometimes is acknowledged as a recursor to early ethnographies of scientific laboratories, but this essay argues that his conceptual and methodological innovations continue to have a pervasive, though often unacknowledged, place in science and technology studies and related fields.
Notes
