Wieting1976
| Wieting1976 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Wieting1976 |
| Author(s) | Stephen G. Wieting |
| Title | Structuralism, systems theory, and ethnomethodology in the sociology of the family |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Structuralism, Family, Systems theory |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 1976 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Journal of Comparative Family Studies |
| Volume | 7 |
| Number | 3 |
| Pages | 375–395 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.3138/jcfs.7.3.375 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Structuralism, systems theory, and ethnomethodology advocate revisions within the social sciences which are fundamental and general. Consequently, they solicit consideration for adoption in the study of the family. Social science use may ultimately entail selective application and integration, but both of these kinds of use require some set of reference axes for making distinctions, documenting points of convergence, and charting developments. This statement attempts to provide some reference axes suitable for aiding judgments about potential application of the approaches in the study of the family. Comparisons of structuralism, systems theory, and ethnomethodology are made, first, in terms of the reference of respective plans and assumptions, a reference which includes facets of communication, rules, formalization, and human cognition. Secondly, comparisons are made in terms of the reference of respective methodological implications, which includes facets of the focus of research and the location of the researcher viz. a viz. the social action. Thirdly, following these comparisons, examples of how each has been used in the study of the family and might be used in future study are provided.
Notes
