Skip to main content

Ethnomethodological Analysis

FOUNDATION
By: Philippe Sormani | Edited by: Paul Atkinson, Sara Delamont, Alexandru Cernat, Joseph W. Sakshaug & Richard A. Williams Published: 2020 | Length: 10 | DOI: |
+- LessMore information
Download PDF

In 1967, Harold Garfinkel published Studies in Ethnomethodology, a collection of essays that investigated how social order happened to be locally produced and practically relevant, as a mundanely available and reflexively accountable phenomenon. How has ethnomethodology (EM)—as an empirical approach different from psychological, economic, or other forms of social theorizing—developed since the publication of Garfinkel’s seminal collection of studies? This entry answers the raised question in three steps. First, it presents the empirical outlook, basic assumptions, and key principles of ethnomethodological inquiry. Second, it charts three major strands of ethnomethodological analysis (EA): conceptual analysis, conversation analysis, and practical analysis (i.e., “studies of work”). Third, the entry discusses open arguments in the vein of and between these three contrasting strands of EA. The entry concludes by advocating the current interest of cross-disciplinary critique in EM, if not beyond its remit. Cross-disciplinary critique in EM invites its practitioners to make explicit the contingent framing of their empirical foci. As a reflexive endeavor, it opens up topical issues in the social sciences, humanities, as well as science and technology studies for empirical and conceptual reappraisal.

Looks like you do not have access to this content.

Copy and paste the following HTML into your website