Difference between revisions of "Lidz1978"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Charles W. Lidz |Title=Conspiracy, Paranoia and the Problem of Knowledge |Tag(s)=EMCA; Ethnomethodology; Paranoia; Reflexivity; |K...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
|Author(s)=Charles W. Lidz | |Author(s)=Charles W. Lidz | ||
| − | |Title=Conspiracy, | + | |Title=Conspiracy, paranoia and the problem of knowledge |
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Ethnomethodology; Paranoia; Reflexivity; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Ethnomethodology; Paranoia; Reflexivity; |
|Key=Lidz1978 | |Key=Lidz1978 | ||
|Year=1978 | |Year=1978 | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
|Number=2 | |Number=2 | ||
|Pages=3–20 | |Pages=3–20 | ||
| − | |Note= | + | |URL=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02390162 |
| − | Jay Corzine | + | |DOI=10.1007/BF02390162 |
| − | On the nature of paranoia (comment on Lidz,QS September, 1978) | + | |Note=See also: Jay Corzine, On the nature of paranoia (comment on Lidz,QS September, 1978). Qualitative Sociology 2 (1979): 104-7 |
| − | Qualitative Sociology 2 (1979): 104-7 | + | and: Charles W. Lidz, What Did Lemert Mean and Does It Matter: A Reply to Corzine. Qualitative Sociology 2 (1979): 108-9 |
| − | and | + | |Abstract=Using a case study, this paper presents a critique of Lemert's classic paper, “Paranoia and the Dynamics of Exclusion.” Starting from the position that Lemert did not prove his case, that in fact, there are no clear-cut grounds for determining whether an event called a conspiracy really exists, this case study leads to a consideration of the ethnomethodological notion of reflexivity of common sense knowledge. |
| − | Charles W. | ||
| − | What | ||
| − | A | ||
| − | Qualitative Sociology 2 (1979): 108-9 | ||
| − | |||
| − | |Abstract= | ||
| − | Using | ||
| − | classic paper, | ||
| − | from | ||
| − | there | ||
| − | called | ||
| − | consideration | ||
| − | common | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 03:20, 28 October 2019
| Lidz1978 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Lidz1978 |
| Author(s) | Charles W. Lidz |
| Title | Conspiracy, paranoia and the problem of knowledge |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Ethnomethodology, Paranoia, Reflexivity |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 1978 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Qualitative Sociology |
| Volume | 1 |
| Number | 2 |
| Pages | 3–20 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1007/BF02390162 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Using a case study, this paper presents a critique of Lemert's classic paper, “Paranoia and the Dynamics of Exclusion.” Starting from the position that Lemert did not prove his case, that in fact, there are no clear-cut grounds for determining whether an event called a conspiracy really exists, this case study leads to a consideration of the ethnomethodological notion of reflexivity of common sense knowledge.
Notes
See also: Jay Corzine, On the nature of paranoia (comment on Lidz,QS September, 1978). Qualitative Sociology 2 (1979): 104-7 and: Charles W. Lidz, What Did Lemert Mean and Does It Matter: A Reply to Corzine. Qualitative Sociology 2 (1979): 108-9
