Difference between revisions of "Sharrock-Randall2004"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Wes Sharrock; David Randall |Title=Ethnography, ethnomethodology and the problem of generalisation in design |Tag(s)=EMCA; Ethnography;...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
|Journal=European Journal of Information Systems | |Journal=European Journal of Information Systems | ||
|Volume=13 | |Volume=13 | ||
| + | |Number=3 | ||
|Pages=186–194 | |Pages=186–194 | ||
| + | |URL=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000502 | ||
|DOI=10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000502 | |DOI=10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000502 | ||
|Abstract=This paper discusses the relationship between sociological theory and method, ethnomethodology and design. It argues that social science theoretical and methodological interests cannot form a basis for interdisciplinarity. Much of the argument about the relevance of ethnography for design, and more specifically about ethnomethodological enquiry, has been cast firstly as problems of method and secondly in terms of the problem of generalisation. We argue that in both instances the problem is miscast. Drawing on the arguments of Wittgenstein and Winch, we suggest that forms of generalisation are to be found in ethnomethodological enquiry and that they may be useful in design-related enquiry. We further suggest, however, that they are not the forms to be found in explanatory social science. | |Abstract=This paper discusses the relationship between sociological theory and method, ethnomethodology and design. It argues that social science theoretical and methodological interests cannot form a basis for interdisciplinarity. Much of the argument about the relevance of ethnography for design, and more specifically about ethnomethodological enquiry, has been cast firstly as problems of method and secondly in terms of the problem of generalisation. We argue that in both instances the problem is miscast. Drawing on the arguments of Wittgenstein and Winch, we suggest that forms of generalisation are to be found in ethnomethodological enquiry and that they may be useful in design-related enquiry. We further suggest, however, that they are not the forms to be found in explanatory social science. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 11:51, 31 October 2019
| Sharrock-Randall2004 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Sharrock-Randall2004 |
| Author(s) | Wes Sharrock, David Randall |
| Title | Ethnography, ethnomethodology and the problem of generalisation in design |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Ethnography, Ethnomethodology, Design, Generalisation |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2004 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | European Journal of Information Systems |
| Volume | 13 |
| Number | 3 |
| Pages | 186–194 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000502 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This paper discusses the relationship between sociological theory and method, ethnomethodology and design. It argues that social science theoretical and methodological interests cannot form a basis for interdisciplinarity. Much of the argument about the relevance of ethnography for design, and more specifically about ethnomethodological enquiry, has been cast firstly as problems of method and secondly in terms of the problem of generalisation. We argue that in both instances the problem is miscast. Drawing on the arguments of Wittgenstein and Winch, we suggest that forms of generalisation are to be found in ethnomethodological enquiry and that they may be useful in design-related enquiry. We further suggest, however, that they are not the forms to be found in explanatory social science.
Notes
