Difference between revisions of "Eglin1979"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Peter Eglin; |Title=Resolving reality disjunctures on Telegraph Avenue: A Study of Practical Reasoning |Tag(s)=EMCA; Ethnomethodology;...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Peter Eglin; | + | |Author(s)=Peter Eglin; |
| − | |Title=Resolving reality disjunctures on Telegraph Avenue: | + | |Title=Resolving reality disjunctures on Telegraph Avenue: a study of practical reasoning |
| − | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Ethnomethodology; | |
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Ethnomethodology; | ||
|Key=Eglin1979 | |Key=Eglin1979 | ||
|Year=1979 | |Year=1979 | ||
| − | |Journal=Canadian Journal of Sociology/Cahiers canadiens de sociologie | + | |Journal=Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de sociologie |
|Volume=4 | |Volume=4 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Number=4 |
| + | |Pages=359–377 | ||
| + | |URL=https://www.jstor.org/stable/3340259 | ||
| + | |DOI=10.2307/3340259 | ||
| + | |Abstract=By appealing to the distinction between appearances and reality, to the conditions of observation, to K, and to special reasons, members may resolve reality disjunctures between accounts. These four devices and their corollaries are found in use in written attempts by third parties to reconcile conflicting versions of what happened in certain incidents on Telegraph Avenue in September, 1968. Hart's concept of defeasibility and the work in ethnomethodology of Pollner and others provide the theoretical context. The paper's aim is to explicate members' methods of practical reasoning for crediting and discrediting truth-claims. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 23:19, 27 October 2019
| Eglin1979 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Eglin1979 |
| Author(s) | Peter Eglin |
| Title | Resolving reality disjunctures on Telegraph Avenue: a study of practical reasoning |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Ethnomethodology |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 1979 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de sociologie |
| Volume | 4 |
| Number | 4 |
| Pages | 359–377 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.2307/3340259 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
By appealing to the distinction between appearances and reality, to the conditions of observation, to K, and to special reasons, members may resolve reality disjunctures between accounts. These four devices and their corollaries are found in use in written attempts by third parties to reconcile conflicting versions of what happened in certain incidents on Telegraph Avenue in September, 1968. Hart's concept of defeasibility and the work in ethnomethodology of Pollner and others provide the theoretical context. The paper's aim is to explicate members' methods of practical reasoning for crediting and discrediting truth-claims.
Notes
