Advertisement

Ethnomethodology

  • Rona PillayEmail author
Reference work entry

Abstract

Ethnomethodology is a qualitative research methodology which has recently gained momentum across disciplines, more specifically social and health sciences. Ethnomethodology focuses on the study of methods that individuals use in “doing” social life to produce mutually recognizable interactions within a situated context, producing orderliness. It explores how members’ actual, ordinary activities produce and manage settings of organized everyday situations. Practice through everyday life is central to ethnomethodology, the methods of which produce and maintain accountable circumstances of their life activities, making use of common sense knowledge in mundane situations. Ethnomethodology originated from Garfinkel who criticized Parsons’ action theory whereby Garfinkel illustrated how ethnomethodology departs from conventional social theory to develop a methodology for studying social life. Ethnomethodology draws on video-recorded data as a preferred method with detailed attention to talk-in-interaction and gestures as interaction. The rich, detailed data generated may be viewed several times over, thus demonstrating that the data is valuable and trustworthy. The concepts of indexicality, reflexivity, and accountability are central to ethnomethodology because together they illustrate meaning as a methodical accomplishment. The reflexive accountability that contributes to order and the members’ local performance of shared methods to carry out a joint activity form the central values of ethnomethodology. The analytical resources of ethnomethodology have been used to produce procedural accounts of human conduct in zones like museums, classrooms, and sports. Hence health care can be explored and empirically investigated as local interactions to contribute to patient safety.

Keywords

Ethnomethodology Indexicality Reflexivity Accountability Practice and orderliness 

References

  1. Atkinson P. Ethnomethodology: a critical review. Annu Rev Sociol. 1988;14:441–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson JM, Drew P. Order in court. New York: Macmillan; 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bar-Hillel Y. Indexical expressions. Mind; 1954;63(251):359–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bezemer J, Murtagh G, Cope A, Kress G, Kneebone R. “Scissors, please”: the practical accomplishment of surgical work in the operating theatre. Symb Interact. 2011;34(3):398–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Butler C. Talk and social interaction in the playground. Aldershot: Ashgate; 2008.Google Scholar
  6. Clayman SE, Maynard D. Ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. In: Have PT, Psathas G editors. Situated order: Studies in the social organization of talk and embodied activities (pp. 1–30). Washington, D.C.: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis & University Press of America; 1995.Google Scholar
  7. Collins R, Makowsky M. The discovery of society. London: Random House; 1978.Google Scholar
  8. Garfinkel H. Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press; 1967.Google Scholar
  9. Garfinkel H. Ethnomethodology’s program: working out Durkheim’s aphorism. Boulder: Rowman & Littlefield; 2002.Google Scholar
  10. Garfinkel H, Lynch M, Livingston E. The work of a discovering science constructed with materials from the optically discovered pulsar. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1981;11(2):131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heath C, Luff P. Technology in action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heath C, Hindmarsh J, Luff P. Video in qualitative research analysing social interaction in everyday life. London: Sage; 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heritage J. Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Express; 1984.Google Scholar
  14. Heritage J. Ethnomethodology. In A. Giddens and J. Turner (eds) Social Theory Today. Cambrigde: Polity Press, 1987;224–72.Google Scholar
  15. Heritage J, Atkinson JM. Introduction. In: Atkinson JM, Heritage J, editors. Structures of social action: studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1984.Google Scholar
  16. Holstein JA, Gubrium JF. Interpretive practice and social action. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln SY, editors. The Sage handbook of qualitative research. 3rd ed. London: Sage; 2005.Google Scholar
  17. Kew F. Playing the game: an ethnomethodological perspective. Int Rev Sociol Sport. 1986;2(14):305–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Koschmann T. Early glimmers of the now familiar ethnomethodological themes in Garfinkel’s The Perception of the Other. Human Studies, 2012;35(4);479–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Luff P, Hindmarsh J, Heath C, editors. Workplace studies: recovering work practice and informing systems design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.Google Scholar
  20. Lynch M. Art and artifact in laboratory science: a study of shop work and shop talk. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul; 1985.Google Scholar
  21. Lynch M. Scientific practice and ordinary action: ethnomethodology and social studies of science. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press; 1993.Google Scholar
  22. Lynch M. Silence in context: ethnomethodology and social theory. Hum Stud. 1999;22(2):211–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Maynard D, Clayman SE. The diversity of ethnomethodology. Annual Review of Sociology, 1991;17(1);385–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maynard DW. Inside plea bargaining: the language of negotiating. New York: Plenum; 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mehan H. Learning lessons: social organisations in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mehan H, Wood H. The morality of ethnomethodology. Theory Soc. 1975;2(4):509–30. Retrieved 30 Oct 2017. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.464.8004&rep=rep1&type=pdfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nevile M. Beyond the black box: talk-in-interaction in the airline cockpit. Aldershot: Ashgate; 2004.Google Scholar
  28. Pierce JF. The ethnomethodological movement: sociosemiotic interpretation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter; 1991.Google Scholar
  29. Pollner M. Sociological and common sense models of the labeling process. In: Turner R, editor. Ethnomethodology: selected readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin; 1974.Google Scholar
  30. Pomerantz A. Offering a candid answer: an information seeking strategy. Commun Monogr. 1988;55:360–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sacks H. The search for Help: no one to turn to. In E. S. Shneidman, ed. Essays in self destruction. New York: Science House: 1967;203–23.Google Scholar
  32. Sacks H. An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for sociology. In: Sudnow D, editor. Studies in social interaction. New York: Free Press; 1972.Google Scholar
  33. Sacks H. Notes on methodology. In: Atkinson JM, Heritage J, editors. Structures of social action: studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1984.Google Scholar
  34. Sacks H. Lectures on conversation, vol. I and II. Malden: Blackwell; 1992.Google Scholar
  35. Schutz A. The phenomenology of the social world. London: Heinemann; 1972. (Translation of Schütz, [1974/1932] (1967)).Google Scholar
  36. Silverman D. Harvey Sacks: social science and conversation analysis. Oxford: Policy Press; 1998.Google Scholar
  37. Svensson MS, Luff P, Heath C. Embedding instruction in practice: contingency and collaboration during surgical training. Sociol Health Illn. 2009;31(6):889–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. ten Have P. Doing conversation analysis: a practical guide. London: Sage; 1999.Google Scholar
  39. ten Have P. The notion of member is the heart of the matter: on the role of membership knowledge in ethnomethodological inquiry. Forum qualitative SozialResearch, Forum: 2002;3(3). Available at: http://www.qualitativeresearch.net/fqs/fqs-eng.htm
  40. ten Have P. Understanding qualitative research and ethnomethodology. London: Sage; 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Whalen J, Vinkhuyzen E. Expert systems in interaction: diagnosing document machine problems over the telephone. In: Luff P, Hindmarsh J, Heath C, editors. Workplace studies: recovering work practice and informing systems design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.Google Scholar
  42. Zimmerman DH, Pollner M. The everyday world as a phenomenon. In: Douglas JD, editor. Understanding everyday life: towards a reconstruction of sociological knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul; 1971. p. 80–103. (1st ed. 1970).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Nursing and MidwiferyWestern Sydney UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations