Difference between revisions of "Miller2013a"
PaulMiller (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Paul K. Miller; Colum Cronin |Title=Rethinking the factuality of “contextual” factors in an ethnomethodological mode: Towards a refl...") |
PaulMiller (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
|Number=2 | |Number=2 | ||
|Pages=106-123 | |Pages=106-123 | ||
| + | |URL=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21640629.2013.790166 | ||
|DOI=10.1080/21640629.2013.790166 | |DOI=10.1080/21640629.2013.790166 | ||
| − | |Abstract=In this paper, an argument is made for the revisitation of Harold Garfinkel’s classic body of ethnomethodological research in order to further develop and refine models of the action-context relationship in coaching science. It is observed that, like some contemporary phenomenological and post-structural approaches to coaching, an ethnomethodological perspective stands in opposition to dominant understandings of contexts as semi-static causal “variables” in coaching activity. It is further observed, however, that unlike such approaches – which are often focused upon the capture of authentic individual experience – ethnomethodology operates in the intersubjective domain, granting analytic primacy the coordinative accomplishment of meaningful action in naturally-occurring situations. Focusing particularly on Garfinkel’s conceptualisation of action and context as transformable and, above all, reflexively-configured, it is centrally argued that greater engagement with the ethnomethodological corpus of research has much to offer coaching scholarship both theoretically and methodologically. | + | |Abstract=In this paper, an argument is made for the revisitation of Harold Garfinkel’s classic body of ethnomethodological research in order to further develop and refine models of the action-context relationship in coaching science. It is observed that, like some contemporary phenomenological and post-structural approaches to coaching, an ethnomethodological perspective stands in opposition to dominant understandings of contexts as semi-static causal “variables” in coaching activity. It is further observed, however, that unlike such approaches – which are often focused upon the capture of authentic individual experience – ethnomethodology operates in the intersubjective domain, granting analytic primacy the coordinative accomplishment of meaningful action in naturally-occurring situations. Focusing particularly on Garfinkel’s conceptualisation of action and context as transformable and, above all, reflexively-configured, it is centrally argued that greater engagement with the ethnomethodological corpus of research has much to offer coaching scholarship both theoretically and methodologically. |
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 02:27, 21 April 2015
| Miller2013a | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Miller2013a |
| Author(s) | Paul K. Miller, Colum Cronin |
| Title | Rethinking the factuality of “contextual” factors in an ethnomethodological mode: Towards a reflexive understanding of action-context dynamism in the theorisation of coaching |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | context, coaching process, ethnomethodology, indexicality, sport, reflexivity |
| Publisher | Taylor & Francis Ltd |
| Year | 2013 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Sports Coaching Review |
| Volume | 1 |
| Number | 2 |
| Pages | 106-123 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1080/21640629.2013.790166 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
In this paper, an argument is made for the revisitation of Harold Garfinkel’s classic body of ethnomethodological research in order to further develop and refine models of the action-context relationship in coaching science. It is observed that, like some contemporary phenomenological and post-structural approaches to coaching, an ethnomethodological perspective stands in opposition to dominant understandings of contexts as semi-static causal “variables” in coaching activity. It is further observed, however, that unlike such approaches – which are often focused upon the capture of authentic individual experience – ethnomethodology operates in the intersubjective domain, granting analytic primacy the coordinative accomplishment of meaningful action in naturally-occurring situations. Focusing particularly on Garfinkel’s conceptualisation of action and context as transformable and, above all, reflexively-configured, it is centrally argued that greater engagement with the ethnomethodological corpus of research has much to offer coaching scholarship both theoretically and methodologically.
Notes
