Difference between revisions of "Dennis2003"
(Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Alex Dennis |Title=Skepticist philosophy as ethnomethodology |Tag(s)=EMCA; Ethnomethodology; Social constructionism; Situated action; So...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Volume=33 | |Volume=33 | ||
|Number=2 | |Number=2 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=151–173 |
| − | |URL= | + | |URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0048393103033002001 |
| + | |DOI=10.1177/0048393103033002001 | ||
|Abstract=Ethnomethodology is in trouble, its conceptual apparatus prone to indifference or misunderstanding both from “conventional” sociologists and from its own practitioners. This article describes some of these loci of confusion and suggests that they have a common root in the relationship between ethnomethodology and conventional sociology. Ethnomethodologists' desire to find a principled theoretical framework for dealing with this relationship is shown to be the common basis for subsequent confusion, and some of the corollaries of their putative solution(s) are elaborated with regard to their philosophical and programmatic implications. | |Abstract=Ethnomethodology is in trouble, its conceptual apparatus prone to indifference or misunderstanding both from “conventional” sociologists and from its own practitioners. This article describes some of these loci of confusion and suggests that they have a common root in the relationship between ethnomethodology and conventional sociology. Ethnomethodologists' desire to find a principled theoretical framework for dealing with this relationship is shown to be the common basis for subsequent confusion, and some of the corollaries of their putative solution(s) are elaborated with regard to their philosophical and programmatic implications. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 08:33, 31 October 2019
| Dennis2003 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Dennis2003 |
| Author(s) | Alex Dennis |
| Title | Skepticist philosophy as ethnomethodology |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Ethnomethodology, Social constructionism, Situated action, Social structures |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2003 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Philosophy of the Social Sciences |
| Volume | 33 |
| Number | 2 |
| Pages | 151–173 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/0048393103033002001 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Ethnomethodology is in trouble, its conceptual apparatus prone to indifference or misunderstanding both from “conventional” sociologists and from its own practitioners. This article describes some of these loci of confusion and suggests that they have a common root in the relationship between ethnomethodology and conventional sociology. Ethnomethodologists' desire to find a principled theoretical framework for dealing with this relationship is shown to be the common basis for subsequent confusion, and some of the corollaries of their putative solution(s) are elaborated with regard to their philosophical and programmatic implications.
Notes
