Hammersley2019b
Revision as of 10:01, 10 October 2019 by AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) (AndreiKorbut moved page Hammersley2018 to Hammersley2019b without leaving a redirect)
| Hammersley2019b | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Hammersley2018 |
| Author(s) | Martyn Hammersley |
| Title | Ethnomethodological criticism of ethnography |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Ethnography, construction of social phenomena, ethnomethodology, reflexivity, rigour in qualitative research |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2018 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Qualitative Research |
| Volume | 19 |
| Number | 5 |
| Pages | 578-593 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794118781383 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Ethnomethodologists have made some fundamental criticisms of conventional forms of ethnography. For example, it has been argued that they fail to examine the processes through which the phenomena studied have been constituted, and that they lack rigour because they rely upon unexplicated common-sense knowledge. In my view, these criticisms have not been given sufficient attention. This article outlines them in detail and then goes on to provide an evaluation. It is concluded that they do not provide a sufficient basis for the radical-re-specification of the focus of inquiry that ethnomethodologists propose. However, they do raise issues to which ethnographers should give more attention.
Notes
