OKeefe1979
| OKeefe1979 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | OKeefe1979 |
| Author(s) | Daniel J. O'Keefe |
| Title | Ethnomethodology |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Harold Garfinkel, Aaron Cicourel |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 1979 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour |
| Volume | 9 |
| Number | 2 |
| Pages | 187–219 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1468-5914.1979.tb00423.x |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
The 1967 publication of Harold Garfinkel’s Studies in Ethnomethodology marked the institutionalization of ‘ethnomethodology’ as a theoretical viewpoint in the social sciences. While ethnomethodology has since been the subject of extensive debate and discussion, this essay argues that certain key features of Garfinkel’s work have generally been unsatisfactorily grasped by commentators and critics. Briefly, the argument will be this. Ethnomethodology has typically been assimilated to that general viewpoint that takes social interaction to be rule-generated. While this reading roughly fits the work of one prominent ethnomethodologist, Aaron Cicourel (section I), Harold Garfinkel’s view is quite different in critically important respects (section II). Cicourel and Garfinkel exemplify two quite distinct orientations within ethnomethodology, and the differences between the two can be seen as grounded in divergent intellectual foundations (section III). It will be argued, however, that the Garfinkelian foundations have important defects (section IV). A concluding section contains some caveats concerning the main arguments of the essay (section V).
Notes
