Quere2012
Revision as of 12:10, 24 February 2016 by AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs)
| Quere2012 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Quere2012 |
| Author(s) | Louis Quéré |
| Title | Is there any good reason to say goodbye to “ethnomethodology”? |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Ethnomethodology |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2012 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Human Studies |
| Volume | 35 |
| Number | 2 |
| Pages | 305–325 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1007/s10746-012-9234-0 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This paper is an essay about Harold Garfinkel’s heritage. It outlines a response to Eric Livingston’s proposal to say goodbye to ethnomethodology as pertaining to the sociological tradition; and it rejects part of Melvin Pollner’s diagnosis about the changes occurred in ethnomethodological working. If it agrees with Pollner about the idea that something of the initial ethnomethodology’s program has been left aside after the “work studies” turn, it asserts that such a turn has nonetheless made possible authentic discoveries. So the paper speaks for a better integration of the two versions of ethnomethodology separated by Pollner.
Notes
