Roth2009
| Roth2009 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Roth2009 |
| Author(s) | Wolff-Michael Roth |
| Title | Specifying the ethnomethodological “what more?” |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Ethnomethodology, Science education |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2009 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Cultural Studies of Science Education |
| Volume | 4 |
| Number | 1 |
| Pages | 1–12 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1007/s11422-009-9173-x |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Although there exists an impressive array of research methods in science education, all of this research is such that it specifies methods, which, in and through this specification, are made to be something special, something that human beings do not normally employ. There is also a question about how to deal with difference, a question that is sharpened when investigated from the perspective of ethnomethodology. In this editorial, I reflect on both issues, beginning with fictional reflection on difference constructed on the model of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s internal monologue1 and then present the case of ethnomethodology as (radically) asymmetrically alternate, incommensurably different method.
Notes
